Friday, July 04, 2003

To me, this is a bit of a wierd story - Teacher union fights to hold Sacramento High down from Mickey Kaus at Slate. He writes,
...a column on the strenuous efforts by the California teachers' union to block NBA star Kevin Johnson from starting a charter school to replace his alma mater, "low-performing" Sacramento High School in a largely minority neighborhood of the state capitol. ...

I understand why this seems wierd - after all, we expect teachers to have kid's best interests in mind, and it is pretty clear that the school was not really serving the needs of the community. There is also some reason to believe that the better funded, and very differently run, charter school will do a better job. Entirely possible. But is not it also pretty much required for the Teacher's Union to fight tooth and nail to keep the jobs of their members? Is not job and wage security, primarily, what they pay their dues for? Would it be a bad precedent if they let this one, perhaps a worthy case, to just go through? I would also like if Daniel Weintraub, the Sarcamento Bee's columnist, explained why does not the new school hire some, or all, Union teachers? And why does not Slate make a note of this ommission as it often does for other newspapers and columnists? I am sure there are good reasons, but it would still be nice to know what they are.


Post a Comment

<< Home