Feb 17 The Union-Democrat Unholy Alliance

John Stossel's article is the best written article I've seen in terms of exposing who Democrats really represent. Here's the opening of Stossel's article:

The government-school establishment has said the same thing for decades: Education is too important to leave to the competitive market. If we really want to help our kids, we must focus more resources on the government schools.

But despite this mantra, the focus is on something other than the kids. When The Washington Post asked George Parker, head of the Washington, D.C., teachers union, about the voucher program there, he said: "Parents are voting with their feet...As kids continue leaving the system, we will lose teachers. Our very survival depends on having kids in D.C. schools so we'll have teachers to represent."

How revealing is that?

A year ago, Rep. David Obey, (D-WI), wrote into the omnibus spending bill a provision that will end the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, which I wrote about here:

It's time that Chairman Obey was honest. If he was honest, he'd admit that this policy isn't "for the children", that it's 'for the NEA'. If there's anything I can't stand, it's elitist legislators treating us like we can't figure things out for ourselves. Chairman Obey is treating us like we're totally gullible.

What's worse is that he's telling the children enrolled in this obviously successful program, and their parents, that public schools are just fine, that these children's safety isn't a policy priority to the Democrats, that giving these children the best possible opportunity isn't as important as appeasing the NEA.

I said then what I'll repeat now: Democrats are the party that puts the NEA's priorities ahead of the priorities of underprivileged kids. The NEA's stranglehold on education policy, especially with regards to the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, is proof beyond all doubt.

These paragraphs display Stossel's utter contempt for the union-Democrats powers-that-be:

The people who test students internationally told us that two factors predict a country's educational success: Do the schools have the autonomy to experiment, and do parents have a choice?

Parents care about their kids and want them to learn and succeed, even poor parents. Thousands line up hoping to get their kids into one of the few hundred lottery-assigned slots at Harlem Success Academy, a highly ranked charter school in New York City. Kids and parents cry when they lose.

Yet the establishment is against choice. The union demonstrated outside Harlem Success the first day of school. And President Obama killed Washington, D.C.'s voucher program.

Next year, I hope someone like Andrew Breitbart or PJTV's Stephen Crowder film the NEA's protests so that the NE is exposed as looking out for the NEA first, last and always. I'm being charitable when I say that the NEA's actions are reprehensible. I wish I could think of a more descriptive, powerful word but I can't right now.

Stossel continues his indictment of government schools with this salvo:

Tooley finds as many as six private schools in small villages. "The majority of (poor) schoolchildren are in private school, and these schools outperform government schools at a fraction of the teacher cost," he says.

Why do parents with meager resources pass up "free" government schools and sacrifice to send their children to private schools? Because, as one parent told the BBC, the private owner will do something that's virtually impossible in America's government schools: replace teachers who do not teach.

This is a perfect fight between liberal and conservative ideology. Private schools represent the best in local control of policy. Government schools are the perfect illustration of what happens when local control of education policy is ceded to unions rather than parents.

Shouldn't that be the argument conservatives make in terms of why we need to take power away from the unions while empowering parents? Shouldn't we argue that parents care more about their children than unions do? Shouldn't we argue that giving parents the ability to terminate teachers that aren't teaching is the right education policy?

At minimum, shouldn't we argue that we're better off giving parents the flexibility to do what's right for their children? Surely, there isn't a coherent argument against giving parents that ability, is there? At minimum, shouldn't we argue that competition is always better than letting a monopoly run roughshod?

Comments welcome at LFR.