In a recent Gazette column, Eric Sonderman described the chronically underperforming American public education system as “nothing short of a national scandal,’’ deserving of the disparaging moniker “Edugate.” Quite an indictment coming from an erstwhile Democrat. As a conservative Republican, I heartily agree with that appraisal.

I agree with many of Eric’s reforms like variable pay for teachers based on their individual skill and their students’ performance rather than seniority and college credits; paying exceptional teachers the most, rewarding above average ones, and clearing out the “deadweight;” ending grade inflation and the false boosting of self-esteem; and raising the bar of expectations to close the performance gap between American students and those of other countries in “preparing children to meet the test of an interconnected, global world.”

Eric also supports more school choice for parents and students but he stopped short of defining “school choice.” There’s already limited choice in Colorado public schools like charter schools run largely by parents. However, comprehensive choice would allow the public funding earmarked for their kids’ education to follow students to the private school of their parents’ choice. Such programs are surging across the country in Republican led states.

Eric noted that “there are a plentiful number of superb, highly dedicated teachers across America,” and I agree. But the elephant in the classroom not mentioned in his column are the teacher unions, the insurmountable obstacle to any substantive public-school improvement. The unions are flatly opposed to competition from private schools to their monopoly on government funding of public education. And so are governors, legislators and school boards in Democrat-controlled states where teacher unions lavishly fund political campaigns and get out the vote exclusively for Democrats.

Individual merit pay and accountability for teachers that Eric and I both support are inalterably opposed by the unions who prefer that teachers are paid collectively like assembly-line workers. The last thing they want is competition among their members.

The poster boy for militant teacher unions was Albert Shanker (who chaired the Socialist Study Club in his college). Shanker was president of the United Federation of Teachers in NYC from 1964-1985, serving jail time for leading illegal strikes in 1967 and again in 1968 when nearly all city schools were shut down for two months. Shanker infamously proclaimed, “When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of schoolchildren.” Shanker died in 1997. The Albert Shanker Institute, founded in his honor and beliefs in 1998, has predictably claimed that there’s “no proof” Shanker ever said “exactly” those words. Maybe not, maybe yes, but there’s no doubt that’s how he behaved as does the current president of the Shanker Institute, Randi Weingarten, who’s also the ultra-militant president of the American Federation of Teachers, the second largest teacher union. This is the mentality typical of unions, serving the interests of its members first and foremost.

The largest teacher union is the National Education Association, with over 3 million members, the largest labor union of any kind in America. Glaring proof of the teacher unions’ priority for their members over schoolchildren was their insistence on keeping public schools closed way too long during the COVID epidemic, when school-aged children were proven to have a very low risk of serious illness or death.

In 2023, the Colorado Education Association branch of the NEA passed a resolution at its annual convention declaring that capitalism inherently exploits children, public schools, land, labor, and resources; and that it’s incompatible with addressing systemic issues like racism, climate change, and inequality. If it cared less about politics, socialist indoctrination and the self-interest of its members and more about students, the CEA’s highest priority would be rigorous instruction in basic academics like reading, writing and arithmetic.

The much-ballyhooed federal “No Child Left Behind Act” of 2002, pushed by the NEA, only added to the decline in public education. Even the Act’s title was misguided. One size doesn’t fit all, and students aren’t equal in brain power, dedication or discipline. Leaving no child behind in classrooms lowers the pace of learning to that of the slowest child, leaving the rest of the kids idle. Certainly, slow and remedial learners deserve attention and would benefit from an educational approach tailored to their needs. Hence, the more appropriate title would have been the “No Child Left Out Act,” and should also have devoted more emphasis on cultivating the gifted and talented: our future Edisons, Lincolns, Einsteins, and (Milton) Friedmans.

Mike Rosen is a Denver-based American radio personality and political commentator.