The Educational Cartel: How Randi Weingarten yet Said The Quiet Part Out Loud

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten is known primarily for two things: screaming into microphones at political rallies and making the teacher’s union an extension of the Democratic Party. However, Weingarten had an unintended substantive moment when she changed her earlier position on the elimination of the Education Department. Weingarten previously shrugged off the elimination of the department as not a big deal for education. Recently, she returned to her irate default in denouncing the elimination. The reason, however, was telling.

After Trump was reelected in November, Weingarten said that the elimination was not a big deal and that teachers had originally opposed the creation of the department: “I mean, my members don’t really care about whether they have a bureaucracy of the Department of Education or not. In fact, Al Shanker and the [American Federation of Teachers] in the 1970s were opposed to its creation.”

Now, however, Weingarten has resumed her natural state of being “really angry.” In an interview with MSNBC, Weingarten explained:

“That is why so many people are so mad about it. Because they’re just taking opportunity away from kids that don’t have it. So billionaires – kids of billionaires, they have it, they go to private schools. Everyone else, 90% go to public schools. Don’t take away their opportunity. Sorry, I’m really angry about this … I’m really angry,”

However, it is the reason that is most interesting.

In a podcast, Weingarten explained that they have to avoid such “block grants” going to families.

Host Molly Jong-Fast readily agreed, raising the danger that it might even support Catholic and religious schools.

Weingarten stressed that “We know, for example, what Texas would do. They’ll use it for vouchers. So they won’t give [federal funding] to the kids who have it now, they’ll just give it for vouchers.”

There is reason for Weingarten and the teacher’s union being so concerned.

Florida allows for school choice and has demanded greater performance from public schools. Despite attacks by Weingarten and other Democrats, Florida has been ranked as the number one state for both education and the economy.

We have previously discussed how schools have been dropping the use of standardized tests to achieve diversity goals in admissions.

That trend continued this month with Cal State dropping standardized testing “to level the playing field” for minority students.

I have long been a critic of this movement given the overwhelming evidence that these tests allow an objective measure of academic merit and have great predictive value on the performance of students.

Many colleges and universities are returning to standardized testing after the much-acclaimed abandonment of the tests for a more “holistic approach” to selection.

However, public educators have continued to lower proficiency requirements and cancel gifted programs to “even the playing field.” The result has been to further hide the dismal scores and educational standards of many public school districts.

I previously wrote about how public educators and teacher unions are killing public education in America. Many of us have advocated for public education for decades. I sent my children to public schools, and I still hope we can turn this around without wholesale voucher systems.

Teachers and boards are killing the institution of public education by treating children and parents more like captives than consumers. They are force-feeding social and political priorities, including passes for engaging in approved protests.

As public schools continue to produce abysmal scores, particularly for minority students, board and union officials have called for lowering or suspending proficiency standards or declared meritocracy to be a form of “white supremacy.” Gifted and talented programs are being eliminated in the name of “equity.”

Once parents have a choice, these teachers lose a virtual monopoly over many families. They are no longer a captive audience. If public unions want to maintain funding, they will have to actually improve educational results for these families.

You see, Weingarten knows that, like her, they are “really angry,” but not about the future of a union that increasingly sounds like an educational cartel.