BCT Editorial – 9/9/07

This page was last updated on October 6, 2007.

Worth a look; Editorial; Beaver County Times; September 9, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“It doesn’t hurt to look.

“That’s the best approach to take to Gov. Ed Rendell’s proposal to study whether a statewide health-care plan for teachers would be feasible.

“The Associated Press reported Rendell will ask state lawmakers to create a panel that will determine if such a plan would help districts save money and prevent contract talks from being hung up over insurance costs.

“Under Rendell’s proposal, the state would also contribute money to the health plan, in addition to subsidies the state already pays to school districts. Five hundred of the state’s 501 districts would be covered by the plan. (Philadelphia would be excluded.)”

[RWC] Once again, Philadelphia would be “more equal” than the rest of the commonwealth?

“Three major hurdles have been cleared. The Pennsylvania School Boards Association, the Pennsylvania State Education Association and the Pennsylvania Federation of Teachers, which are powerful lobbying forces in Harrisburg, back the proposal.

“That leaves it up to state lawmakers. Let’s hope this proposal doesn’t get bogged down in politics as usual in the General Assembly.”

[RWC] Out of laziness and to avoid repeating myself, here’s what I wrote in a comment on the Times website. “Just seven days ago in the name of local control, the editorial ‘Local control’ opined that Harrisburg should not dictate when the public school year starts. In my comments about that editorial, I noted the editorial’s cry for local control on this point was inconsistent with other Times editorials. This editorial is another example.

“Between the two editorials, the Times apparently believes in local control for starting the school year but not for determining the compensation package for school district employees.

“Here’s another interesting comparison of the two editorials. ‘Local control’ commented, ‘This boils down to a question of who is more qualified to determine the start of a school year: Harrisburg lobbyists or local school directors?’ Between this and other comments, the editorial clearly implied lobbyists should butt out.

“This week, though, we read, ‘Three major hurdles have been cleared. The Pennsylvania School Boards Association, the Pennsylvania State Education Association and the Pennsylvania Federation of Teachers, which are powerful lobbying forces in Harrisburg, back the proposal.’ In this case, the Times clearly believes Harrisburg lobbyist interference is a good thing.

“Why the inconsistency? Political tactics. By claiming to support local control for something like setting the first day of school, the Times sets itself up as supporting “the little guy.” That way, when an editorial (like this one) supports big government control of issues that have large and lasting impacts on a school district and its taxpayers, the Times can cite previous examples showing it supports local control of some things. The Times just hopes we’re not smart enough to understand it allegedly supports local control for ‘window dressing’ issues but not for the truly important issues.”