Teachers' Unions Harm Education

A couple of weeks ago I mentioned a book I’ve been reading: Standing Up to Goliath, by Rebecca Friedrichs. She was the mother/teacher at the center of the Friedrichs v. California Teachers’ Association case that went before the Supreme Court in 2016, which was about to be ruled on when Justice Scalia died suddenly, leaving a 4-4 ruling, which reverted to the appellate decision favoring the union.

It took an extra couple of years, but the Janus case, ruled on last June, finally won against the labor unions. Workers who are not members of the union no longer have to pay fees for bargaining rights, because unions engage in politics even at the bargaining table.

This will apply also to teachers’ unions, which reduces their revenue and thus their power. It’s a start. Teachers’ unions need to have their power reduced. Curtailed. Abolished—even better.

Today I’ll go through some of the points in the book, and then we’ll cover the good news of the Janus case.

Unions Are about Power, Not Education

The book’s main question was, “Why were teachers being forced to support policies against their own consciences?” (p. 13).

Contrary to popular belief/propaganda, teachers’ unions are not about improving the educational experience or conditions for teachers, students, or parents; they are about gaining and wielding power for the union.

For Rebecca Friedrichs, that was a lesson that took years to learn thoroughly, from both inside and outside unions. It started when she was doing student teaching with a master teacher. Their classroom was great, and she learned so much there. But the classroom next door had a monster teacher, whom she refers to as the “witch,” continually yelling, screaming, belittling, and bullying students. “She would grad them, yank them into their places in line, and scream right into their little faces” (p. 12).

These were first grade classrooms. Friedrichs wondered why something wasn’t done to rescue these children:

As the Master and I were grading papers one day, I found the nerve to ask her how a mandated reporter like me could file a complaint about a teacher. The Master slowly turned to me, removed her glasses and locked into my eyes preparing, it seemed, to tell me a hard truth about life. “Today’s the day,” she said, “you learn about teachers’ unions” (p. 13).

The “witch” had tenure, so the union protected her, not the kids. Unions enforce a seniority-based LIFO policy (last in, first out), so that when layoffs are needed, newer teachers, no matter how good, are let go, while older teachers, no matter how bad, are kept.

Friedrichs tells the story of a California teacher, Bhavini Bhakta, who had been “Teacher of the Year” in 2012. Despite her effectiveness as a teacher, she had been laid off four times because of union-imposed rules (p. 17).

Another story was of a teacher with extra qualifications, teaching AP Statistics, Algebra II, and Pre-Calculus. No other teacher in the school had his accreditations. But he was laid off after his second year—despite heroic efforts by his principal to keep him—leaving the school unable to meet the needs of the students (p. 18).

Meanwhile bad teachers were moved around. It’s called “the dance of the lemons” (p. 25). One egregious example was inflicted on principal Eileen Blagden in a Southern California elementary school.

A teacher in the district had been on leave after a 2008 arrest for indecent exposure and lewd and lascivious behavior, and a subsequent charge of trespassing for which he pled guilty. Though he was found not guilty of the sex-related charges, a restraining order forbade him from going within one hundred yards of public parks, beaches, schools, and bathrooms in the city of Long Beach.

In 2009, Eileen’s employer, a school district located in a neighboring city of Long Beach, allowed the man back into the classroom but transferred him to Eileen’s school as a kindergarten teacher. Eileen was not permitted to know the man’s history, but could tell from the start that he was emotionally unstable, and he was even falling asleep during class (p. 26).

Other teachers were worried. In 2010 the man talked to colleagues about suicide and a desire to kill other teachers. Eileen asked the district to remove him. Instead, they sent a union representative who did nothing. And the district warned her against reporting to the police, which she was required to do as a mandated reporter of threats to children.

She nevertheless reported him to the Sheriff’s Office, along with the threat from her administrator about reporting.

Three days later, she was placed on five months administrative leave for not following a district administrator’s directive. There was an eventual trial concerning the retaliation for whistle-blowing, settled before trial—which included a confidentiality agreement. Fortunately, Blagden had told her story beforehand. Still, she was demoted, reprimanded, and eventually resigned.

Union Positions

Here are some of the union positions that probably differ from what you would want from anyone related to educating our children:

·         They’re against school choice—even, or especially, when it means protecting students from failing schools, bad teachers, or bullies. They do not believe parents are capable of making decisions in the best interests of their children.

·         They work diligently against charters, vouchers, education savings accounts, or anything beyond the status quo, which they control.

·         They’re in favor of diagnosing and drugging wiggly children who have a hard time sitting still in a desk all day—with less recess and play time than past generations.

·         Unions donations go to between 87% to 100% Democrat parties and candidates, and 100% to liberal outside groups (pp. 76-77).

·         They insist on sex education that is pro-promiscuity, pro-homosexual, pro-transgender, pro-experimentation, but anti-abstinence, anti-family, and anti-parental involvement—and anti-parental approval or ability to opt out of what’s being taught. Further, they withhold critical knowledge that would protect students from sexually transmitted diseases (p. 93). Lessons can be so disturbing that teachers protect themselves by paying for substitutes, but are unable to protect their students from the vile material.

·         They promote the LGBT agenda, and bully anyone—including any student—with a different opinion (p. 94).

·         They do not tolerate free speech of any sort that doesn’t coincide with their views. They use four psychological manipulations against anyone who steps out of line: fear, intimidation, isolation, and ignorance (p. 82).

·         They are anti-science, deleting the need for science education to be based on empirical evidence derived from valid scientific experimentation and verified by using the steps of the scientific process (p. 102).

·         They are unequivocally pro-abortion. They do not explain what this has to do with educating our children, but they work to make abortion available to children without their parents’ knowledge or consent.

·         They control the politics surrounding school board elections, by controlling teachers, so school boards end up being more pro-union than pro-student education.

·         The PTA stands with the unions; any parental or teacher input on policy is ignored, but if PTAs support education by filling classrooms during a walkout, they are punished by the unions (chapter 11).

·         Unions do not protect teachers from severe, dangerous discipline problems, particularly when the perpetrators are black, because of “racial equity discipline policies” (chapter 12).

·         They focus on race, indoctrinating students with “white privilege” guilt, and are against informing parents of this political indoctrination in the classroom.

If there’s something bad about public schools, there’s probably a union policy making sure it stays that way.

Take Away the Money, Take Away the Power

Could teachers opt out of paying the unions? Only partially. Until this year, they would still be forced to pay “Fair Share Fees,” which were automatically deducted from their paychecks, purportedly to cover the benefits they get from collective bargaining, along with the union teachers. The difference ranges from 0% to 30%. In those early days of the author’s career, the difference was about $50 a year out of around $1000 annually (p. 14).

Teachers were bullied into paying the full amount. One woman who was the lone holdout refusing to join the union in her school, was working on papers late in the evening when four men showed up and pressured her to sign on. The first time she was able to get them to leave by saying she would think about it. Then they cornered her alone a second time, and she believed they would not leave, or allow her to leave, and might do her physical harm, so she gave in and signed. It looks like a protection racket—organized crime. I believe that’s what it is.

About 50% of dues go to the state union. About 30% go to the national union, the NEA. Only 20% will stay with the local union. As bad as state and national unions are, which get 80% of the money, many teachers are happy with their local unions, which get only $1 out of every $5 paid in (p. 173).

If there’s one thing that would vastly improve public education, it would be the abolishment of state and federal unions. Possibly local unions too, but at least they are in touch with actual teachers and their issues. Leaving union dues in teacher paychecks would be an automatic $1000 raise for most teachers.

Mark Janus, center, who sued his public sector union, outside the Supreme Court
June 27, 2018, with Gov. Bruce Rauner of Illinois, right.
Photo credit: Andrew Harnik/Associated Press. Found here. 

While the Friedrichs v. CTA case favored the union, after the death of Justice Scalia, there is a possible better future on the horizon. The Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees case, decided in June 2018, went against the unions 5-4. Justice Alito, writing for the majority, said, “We conclude that this arrangement violates the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern.”

This case affects teachers’ unions as well as other public sector unions. They can no longer collect fees from nonmembers, which reduces their money—and thus their power—considerably. It also means they have less leverage to practically enforce membership. Predictions are that they could lose as much as a third of membership. 

It may be that it’s even better than that. There is nothing in the ruling to say this is only from now going forward; unions may have to repay those fees they took by force from nonmembers, going back years, which could bankrupt them. We can only hope so.

If we are ever to find solutions to our public schooling, it will be in a free market, which brings innovation, and better outcomes for less money.

Worth Standing Up

I’m about a third of the way through a book that I expect to write more about. But I just read a chapter that was kind of overwhelming. So I’m not waiting.

cover image from here

The book is Standing Up to Goliath, by Rebecca Friedrichs. She’s the one from the US Supreme Court case Friedrichs v California Teachers Association. She, along with other plaintiffs, was trying to prevent the teacher’s union from forcing teachers to pay money to the unions that would be used for political purposes against their beliefs.

After oral arguments, it was clear her side was prevailing. The Court was likely to vote 5-4 in her favor. On the verge of their celebrations, however, Justice Scalia suddenly passed away. So the case went 4-4, which left the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in place. The CTA won by default.

Much of the book talks about tactics used by the teachers’ unions—not just the California state one, but national ones as well. Friedrichs says,

I’d like to point out four psychological manipulations used by those who force power and control over others: fear, intimidation, isolation, and ignorance.

Teachers unions aren’t the only places we see those things. They show up wherever there are power mongers seeking power. It’s one of the evils of mankind.

The challenge is standing up to those power mongers despite the fear, intimidation, isolation, and ignorance they use against us.

The chapter I’m covering today is Chapter 8: “SeXXX Education—Teachers’ Union Style.” I’ve mentioned before that things are worse than we had imagined. (See also here.) But I continue to be shocked.

Friedrichs begins with a friend’s story, from 2013. This young mother had an eleven-year-old daughter in a California fifth grade public school. She had just learned about the school’s sex education program and wanted to spread a warning. She sent a link to an eight-week Planned Parenthood-designed curriculum called Making Proud Choices!

Warning: Please use discretion if you’re reading this around children, since this blog is usually guaranteed safe.

Here’s one of the “fun” “age-appropriate” activities for fifth graders: In the classroom, set up two anatomically correct, fully erect adult penis models. Separate the pre-teens into two lines of boys and girls. Have the two teams of children race to put a condom onto the penis the proper way while verbalizing the steps involved.

That one, while not age-appropriate, is at least about a type of sex the students are likely to encounter in their lifetimes. But they’re taught not to be limited. Friedrichs says,

Vaginal, Anal, and Oral sex (referred to casually as VAO) come up and was normalized in every single lesson, and in one lesson, in which they discuss a thirteen-minute “Hawaii Video,” kids are taught to protect themselves during anal and oral sex by using a “dental dam.” I had no idea what this meant, so I had to look it up. I was so shocked by what I saw in the search results, I couldn’t bring myself to open any of the links, but I was able to understand enough to know dental dams (originally created to help dentists during oral surgery), are now being used between the mouth and anus or vagina during oral sex, and our school leaders feel this is appropriate information for eleven-year-olds.

I don’t have the imagination to make up such a thing.

Another teacher friend, referred to only as Stella, contacted her from Massachusetts, with links to a similar program used there called Teen Talk. This included sixteen birth control methods, “including an ‘insertive condom’ that can be used in the vagina or anus, government approved birth control methods we’d never even heard of or seen, and a large erect penis model.” And she described the “dental dam” as “a big, pink rectangle of vinyl—maybe ten inches long.”

I’ve been in a dentist’s chair when this was used—particularly for removing hazardous mercury-containing fillings. But how is a fifth grader supposed to come by one, after being told it’s the “responsible” thing to do?

Stella said, at this point,

“We were all floored by the content in Teen Talk. It had really extreme and explicit sexual content and graphics, a lot of detailed discussion about intercourse, anal sex, oral sex, and really immature handling of it with games and activities that demonstrated sexual practices. You’re using these inappropriate childish games to teach something that is far beyond age appropriate. This was not family life or teaching kids how to their bodies were changing or what to expect with hormones. This was straight up training them to partake in various sexual acts.”

Friedrichs’ reaction was probably similar to yours:

This is child abuse, and I would resign my position before being forced to teach this deplorable lesson to children. It’s more suitable to a drunken fraternity party than a classroom full of vulnerable kids. I remember vividly what it was like to be eleven years old, and I’ve worked with eleven-year-old children for three decades. I can assert with authority that most eleven-year-olds forced to touch fully erect man-sized penis models and discuss condoms, penises, and sex would be profoundly traumatized.

If you have a teacher who would not resign before teaching such lessons, do you want that either pervert or spineless drone teaching anything to your child? And yet the lessons are being taught by teachers who do give in simply because the union is coercing them to.

Parents were not being warned that this new curriculum was different from what the schools had been teaching. And if the parents didn’t want their child to receive it, they had to “opt out.” Also, the district was sneakily calling it a “pilot program,” to avoid public review, but teachers were told at the training that it was being implemented district-wide for all middle schools that year (2017).

If you think this was about providing the children with needed information to prevent teenage pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases and even AIDS, you would be wrong. That is not the agenda. The agenda is to indoctrinate children to accept any and every form of sexual activity.

Another teacher in California, referred to only as Priscilla, looked further into the Teen Talk curriculum.

Using data from the CDC, Red Cross, FDA, and HIV.gov, Priscilla has been challenging these curriculums because while teaching risky sexual behaviors, they are withholding vital information that would protect students from contracting or transmitting HIV. She told [Friedrichs], “The law says its purpose is to provide pupils with the knowledge and skills necessary to protect their sexual and reproductive health from HIV. However, given the critical knowledge they are withholding from students, it seems the real purpose is to promote various sexual orientations.”

The unions’ idea of “age-appropriate” and “medically accurate” information isn’t going to have the same definitions you, as a sane parent, would have. Why are school unions doing this? I’m expecting that the unions have long been seen as an avenue for forcing ideologies onto the public, because of their power. So anyone with an ideology that can’t win on its merits infiltrates the unions in order to propagandize through the schools.

The bullying tactics specifically target people who believe in traditional sexual mores. Priscilla gives this example, which hit home for me, as a Latter-day Saint:

“I used to teach high school. I had a transgender student, gay students, and students of faith in my classes. In the context of a class discussion a Mormon student expressed his personal beliefs about marriage being between a man and woman. He shared his views respectfully.” She then asked the presenter [at a CTA conference] the following question: “As a teacher, how do you think I should have handled that situation in order to respect the diversity of all of my students?”

The CTA lobbyist replied, “You should treat that student as though he said, ‘Black people should be burned at the stake.’”

At first Priscilla thought this might be an aberrant opinion of a particular union representative. So she asked again, at a conference the following year, in a workshop ironically titled, “Creating a Safe Place—Legal Obligation,” led by the LGBT CTA caucus chairman. This person “affirmed that his colleague was right to say the Mormon student should have been treated as though he had said, ‘Black people should be burned at the stake.’” Creating a safe space does not mean for everyone, but only for the ones who agree with the union’s ideology.

Friedrichs added that her son was bullied for his Christian beliefs, from middle school through college. She says, “One of Ben’s teachers even harassed him in front of the class because his political science tests revealed his conservative values.” Teachers who attack students with these ideas are protected. But Friedrichs gives many examples in her book of teachers being bullied for doing what is actually in the best interest of students, their education, and their wellbeing.

Dr. Linda Gonzales verified the experiences of Friedrichs and people like Priscilla. She told Friedrichs,

I believe we can practice tolerance and debate issues and beliefs without mocking, insulting, disparaging, or offending one another. What I found difficult about the CTA position is that it disparages and disrespects divergent ideas by mocking, insulting, and dismissing the speakers of different persuasions, especially Christians, with labels such as “Hate Speech.” My takeaway is that the First Amendment, in their view, applies only to sanitized ideas and beliefs. In my view, this is anti-American and not aligned to the Constitution. I value open debate and religious freedom.”

Is there a way out? There has to be. If we don’t find a way out, we have savagery replacing our civilization.

I haven’t left room to cover the possible ways out today. But, for future review, here are some:

·       Homeschool. The best option, if you can do it.

·       Be vigilant. Be the parent who reviews the curriculum, brings it before the school board, warns the other parents, and pulls your child out of that dangerous pornographic harm that’s being labeled as education.

·       Work toward legislation that prevents pornographic materials from being presented in schools; this idea is to remove the “obscenity exemption,” which has been used to allow certain images and words to be used in schools that would otherwise be prosecutable as pornography. It’s in the Texas Republican Party Platform this year (Plank 93), so I’m hoping we can get this protection passed in the legislature. There’s also a plank (plank 121) to prevent schools from contracting with any third party, such as Planned Parenthood, for sex education or health curriculum.

·       Work toward doing away with the power of the teachers’ unions—who are using teacher pay and tax-free money to lobby for political positions that have nothing to do with a good education and everything to do with propagandizing their versions of savagery.

Painting called "Captain Moroni and
the Title of Liberty" by Arnold Friberg
found here

The only way to win against a bully that uses fear, intimidation, isolation, and ignorance to enforce ideas that are absolutely unacceptable is to stand up to them, regardless of the power differential. If you value freedom and civilization, this is a battle you have to fight. Here we are about to celebrate the contributions of Martin Luther King, Jr. He stood up. Spoke up. And brought about needed change.

There’s a story in the Book of Mormon, during a time of war, when a leader, Captain Moroni, reminds the people what they’re fighting for (Alma 46:12). He writes this on a cloak, to use as a battle flag, which is called the “Title of Liberty”:

In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children

That would be a good battle flag for us now.