FL teachers union using bigoted logic to fight vouchers

This is certainly meant as no slight to my bud Steve H., who is a fine FL public school teacher. But even he knows how awful the union can be.

Florida allowed for school vouchers back in 1999. Simply put, it allows parents of schoolkids in poorly performing districts to send their kids to public or private schools that perform better. The liberal response was basically "To hell with those little bastards! Let them stay in failing schools and have no chance at life! We don't want our dues-paying members (i.e. public teachers) to be held accountable for what they teach! Besides, if more kids opt for private schools, then public schools may be forced to let go of our golden geese...er, dues-paying members!" Please, don't waste your time screaming that education is underfunded. We fund more per pupil than we've ever funded (even accounting for inflation), and the most highly funded school district in the country (in D.C.) is also the most poorly performing...proof that simply throwing money at it doesn't help.

George Will has a column that exposes what the union is trying to do to my state's kids:

The attack on Florida's school-choice program relied on 19th-century bigotry and 21st-century obscurantism.

Florida's Opportunity Scholarships, the nation's first statewide school-choice program, was enacted in 1999 to ameliorate a gross civil-rights injustice—the fact that poor families whose children are trapped in terrible schools are helpless to prevent their children's life chances from being blighted. The program empowers students to transfer from failing schools, as defined by set criteria, to the public or private school of their choice.

Teachers unions immediately filed suit to block this escape route—this underground railroad, if you will—from the public-school plantation. The suit cited two provisions of Florida's constitution.

One is its Blaine amendment, which says no public money shall go "directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution." The other says the state must make "adequate provision" for "a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools."

Basically, the Blaine Amendment was anti-Catholic when fear and loathing of Catholic immigrants was pervasive, and was meant to keep Protestantism as the order of the day. Will explains in the column how the Blaine rationale is flawed and the bigoted interpretation of it by the union is based on ignorance of its origins and intentions. Will also explains how the "uniform" rationale is also flawed. I won't go into it here (lest the post become too big), so read it. But he makes an observation I want to share:

Indeed, the teachers unions say that the state, consistent with its duty to provide "uniform" education, can send children with special needs to private schools.

See, if a child is, say, autistic, public school teachers have no problem sending him/her to a private school and out of their hair. Thank God for special ed teachers like Steve who see it as their responsibility to help these kids. So autistic kids can go to private schools with no complaints, but let a child from a gang-ridden crumbling inner-city school want to go to a private school, and "Oh, HELL NO! You'll stay right here, you little sh#t! Just look over your shoulder every now and then, learn to duck when trouble comes, read your Heather Has Two Mommies book, and get in touch with your inner feelings...or something!"

Basically, the unions are intent on fighting any attempt at public school reform, accountability, or anything else that invades their fiefdoms. Fortunately, parents of all races and backgrounds are beginning to clamor for change (and vouchers), because while they may be liberal or conservative or somewhere in between...they're still parents who love their children and want the best for them.