Principles?

 "Why should the top 1%, which now pays 40% of all income taxes, have unity, purpose, and optimism when they are often attacked verbally, and their accomplishments are minimized by the president?"

This quotation is taken from a conservative historian's blog.  And, I agree with its sentiment.  We've heard a lot recently from the conservatives about the President's "trashing" of accomplishments in business.  But what the President has said isn't my focus here.  It's the other guys, the conservatives, who most often seem to pull out their conservative principles when the principles suit them and then ignore them when they don't.

Here are a couple of examples, using (Surprise!) teachers and education.  To extrapolate the above, in a new setting--conservatives, from politicians to businessmen, are harshly critical of teachers.  In fact, they not only "attack verbally" and "minimize their accomplishments" (OK, I rearranged from above), but take action such as cutting pay and benefits, as well as installing other onerous financial conditions.  Who would want to be a teacher today?  They are getting less pay, pay that was comfortable, but not at all commensurate with the job.  They are required to pay more for insurances.  Their pensions are being trampled.  And, of course, they are almost daily criticized by nonteachers who, because they went to school and had teachers, know all about teaching.  After all, the answer to the problems in education is testing and more testing. 

OK, teachers were, for the most part, comfortably compensated.  Today, the plaint is, from those in the private sector, "Why do teachers get great health insurance?" and "Why do they get such handsome pensions?"  "We don't get these great benefits!"  Of course, these same critics never, ever consider some facts.  Often, when the private sector was getting raises, teachers were not.  Instead, teachers were promised better benefits and future compensaton, that is, pensions.  Ask some of those private sector employees what they did with those sizable raises of the '70s and '90s, you know, when teachers weren't getting raises (at least I wasn't!).  Were they saving, creating their own pension plans?  Obviously, some were--but an awful lot weren't, instead spending, spending, spending.  And the argument that teachers should be susceptible to the same things private sector employees face is silly, very silly.  First, when times are bad, teachers have to sacrifice just like everyone else (as if coaching football and baseball, with responsibility for a dozen or more players at about 15 cents an hour isn't "sacrifice"), but when times are good, teachers don't have to share in the bounty.  Second, that some people are open to the nasty vagaries of employers doesn't mean everyone should be--how silly!  Hey, I can't afford a new car, so nobody should be able to get one--right?  I work for a jerk, so everyone has to--right?

Why don't the principles of the free market work with teachers/education?  Oh, the conservatives say we have to pay to attract the top managerial talent.  Yep, that makes sense.  The top doctors and lawyers, not to mention athletes, deserve the best pay.  I have no qualms about that, not at all.  But why doesn't that also apply to teachers/education?  To attract the best people to teaching, why isn't compensation higher, say, as in Finland--who many conservatives are now pointing as the model?  Teacher pay has been comfortable, let me repeat (athough recent years have seen a sharp dimunition).  And, again as I've noted many times before, there are a lot of rotten teachers out there, more than most people would recognize or be willing to admit.  But, whose fault is that?  The good teachers' fault?  Hardly. 

Oh, the thunder has stopped and I'm going to try to sneak in a run, at least a short one.