Teacher's Union vs. The Poor

If more parents go private, Portland's toast
In 1990, children from low-income and affluent neighborhoods attended public schools at almost the same rate: around 86 percent. Today, "the district's share of school-age children varies from nearly 99 percent in some lower-income neighborhoods to about 75 percent in more affluent areas," Portland State University demographer Barry Edmonston wrote in a report last fall...
...Mostly, I worry because I've lived in cities where a majority of affluent people sent their children to private schools. The politicians talked about public school like it was charity. The rich people with kids in public school acted like they deserved a medal for mixing with the hoi polloi.
The poor kids paid the price, as always.

Susan Nielsen's opinion piece reveals yet another set of conflicting democrat "principles." Liberals are always whining about "haves" and "have-nots." They spend countless hours worrying about poor women not being able to afford to kill their babies. They are absolutely aghast that well to do people can afford better lawyers than the common crack addict. But when it comes to giving The Poor the same educational opportunities as The Rich the Dems betray their "principled" position. The conflicting demographics are The Poor, whom the Dems count on for votes, and The Unions, whom them Democrats count on for money. On the issue of school choice money wins. Liberals are perfectly happy to let poor kids wallow in sub-standard public schools while more affluent children are allowed the opportunities to excel in private classrooms.

Some truths: Education is publicly financed. Competition breeds excellence. The Poor overwhelmingly support school choice. The Democrats overwhelmingly oppose school choice.

My position: Vouchers that would allow parents to choose their children's school, including religious schools, would strengthen our educational system whose goal is educating kids, not providing union jobs.