From John Stossel:
Last week's Florida court ruling against vouchers came after teacher Ruth Holmes Cameron and advocacy groups brought a suit to block the program.
"To say that competition is going to improve education? It's just not gonna work. You know competition is not for children. It's not for human beings. It's not for public education. It never has been, it never will be," Holmes said.
Why not? Would you keep going back to a restaurant that served you a bad meal? Or a barber that gave you a bad haircut? What if the government assigned you to "your" grocery store. The store wouldn't have to compete for your business, and it would soon sell spoiled milk or stock only high profit items. Real estate agencies would sell houses advertising "neighborhood with a good grocery store." That's insane, and yet that's what America does with public schools.
It comes as absolutely no surprise that such socialist clop-trop would come out of the mouth of a teacher. Socialists, of course, don't believe in competition. But, I ask you this; How often do YOU return to a restaurant with bad service, crummy food, and is overpriced? I hope Ms Competition-is-not-for human-beings Cameron doesn't practice such capitalistic choices in her personal life. I'm sure she doesn't, because that would make her a hypocrite.
The NEA, supporting Democratic candidates (in addition to a long list of left wing causes) since the dawn of time, has fought strongly against school choice. And, in turn, the candidates push the NEA's agenda, to the detriment of the quality of education. When everyone was screaming last week about Abramoff paying politicians to push their agendas, I personally wondered what the heck the difference was? The NEA gets most of it's funding from unionized teachers (public school teachers.) The NEA employees (about 600 of 'em) AVERAGE a salary close to $100,000. Their influence in Washington is necessary for their own perpetuation. If public schools employed fewer teachers (in effect, if students LEFT the system), they would have a harder time pulling those big salaries. Why can't we all agree that the NEA's agenda is NOT to improve public education, but to improve the condition of the union, and it's members, the teachers?