Teachers' union puts politics over needs of children

Ryan Bedford

For the Washington Education Association (WEA) it‚s about the children, right? Well, maybe not when its political agenda is at stake. On March 3, the WEA Children's Fund Board approved a motion to combine politics and charity at the expense of children.

The WEA Children's Fund is an honorable program that provides „$50,000 a year for such things as warm coats, new shoes and basic school supplies to thousands of students who otherwise would go without. Teachers can purchase these items for students and submit receipts to the Fund for reimbursement. The Fund allows teachers to meet the every day needs of children that would otherwise hinder their learning ability. But this is about to change.

Despite the direct benefit to children, the WEA Children's Fund has decided to no longer reimburse teachers for some of their purchases simply because [a] great many of the receipts members submit for reimbursement are for purchases from Wal-Mart.

What makes the WEA think that hurting Wal-Mart is more important than meeting the needs of children?

The WEA has lost touch with its ultimate goal to help children succeed. Rather, it has allowed its political prejudice to seep into its humanitarian efforts.

To understand this change, there is the big picture.

The union movement as a whole is in a bind. The number of union households is on a 30 year decline. Workers are questioning why an increasing part of their hard earned money is going for overpriced services they may never see. Unions spent over $150 million engaging in political party-like activities primarily on behalf of Democrats over the last election cycle; yet they can claim no more than 65 percent (17.5 million) of union household members voted for Kerry. In the end, at least 35 percent of union members were left disenfranchised and the unions failed in their number one goal to win back the White House. Now union members are asking tough questions that union officials will have to answer.

As the proverbial saying goes, „The best defense is a good offense. So who do they hassle to divert everyone‚s attention? Wal-Mart is a juicy target because it is big; it is controversial in many communities; and most importantly, unions have been unsuccessful in organizing Wal-Mart employees. So the WEA has jumped on the band wagon to foster public disapproval against Wal-Mart.

To the WEA, this diversion includes refusing to reimburse purchases of coats, shoes and school supplies at Wal-Mart for needy children.

The way the WEA disburses the fund is completely within its purview and it is free to make that decision. But allowing a political battle to trump its charitable efforts is evidence of its hypocrisy.

The WEA says it does what is best for children; yet by opposing merit pay, the WEA protects underachieving teachers and ensures that they keep their jobs at the expense of children‚s success. The WEA insists that school districts must treat the most inefficient teachers the same as the best teachers, which ultimately deters excellence.

The WEA also led the opposition against legislation to ensure that teachers have valid advanced degrees. The WEA argued the status quo is acceptable despite the fact that an unknown minority of teachers are still flaunting the system. By opposing the validation of degrees, the WEA protected the few teachers who make a living by lying to their superiors and the community at large. Is this in the best interest of children?

True to form, the WEA is second guessing its own members to the teachers‚ detriment. Teachers purchasing coats, shoes and school supplies for needy children from Wal-Mart are also, at least in part, financing the Children‚s Fund with their mandatory membership dues. Yet the WEA then dictates how teachers are to spend what they could rightly call their own charitable gifts. When teachers don‚t fall into line, the WEA penalizes them.

When teachers see a need and want to extend their hearts to a child that comes into class shivering, why should they be restricted in meeting the need by the WEA‚s self-serving political agenda? If the WEA claims that teachers are underpaid, why is it penalizing a teacher for trying to stretch her meager dollar by buying a coat at Wal-Mart for $13.88 rather than elsewhere for $24.99? Rather than vilifying teachers‚ use of money, the WEA should condone their generous spirit. After all, it‚s about the children, right?



Ryan Bedford is a legal research analyst for the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, a non-partisan, public policy watchdog organization, focused on advancing individual liberty, a free-market economy, and limited and responsible government.

###