# 4 - "CAMPAIGN FOR SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC SCHOOLS "PATRICK WOLFF"

 # 4 - "CAMPAIGN FOR SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC SCHOOLS "PATRICK WOLFF"

IN PURSUIT OF THE TRUTH - HTTP://WWW.CINOPSBEGONEBLOGSPOT.COM - TUES. MARCH 23/21

 

REF. WALL STREET JOURNAL, BY ALEXANDRO LAZO, MON. MARCH 1, 2021

"SAN FRANCISCO BOARD UNDER FIRE"

Dear Patrick,

    The following letter to the Long Beach Press Telegram was not published. (Sat. Feb. 14, 1987)

Dear Editor,

   I believe Governor Deukmajian made a wise decision in seeking an alternative to collective bargaining law for public school teachers.

 

    Directly, and indirectly, it focuses in on teacher dissidents in the public school system. Who are they? and "What do they want?' First and foremost they are professional teachers. In my opinion their belief  system is mostly that of the NEA and CTA before their leadership opted for unionism and persuaded the legislature to pass S.B. 160, the teacher collective bargaining law of 1976. 

 

    This law was signed by Governor Jerry Brown. A similar law was vetoed by Governor Reagan in his administration. Many teacher dissidents are only nominal members of the union, and several like myself, are members of the Professional Educators Group of California. (A non-union teacher organization).

 

    They do not believe in the principles of adversary relationship, strikes and coercion that forces another teacher to join an organization that they do not believe in. The civil rights and academic freedom of the teacher dissidents are subdued. Most believe in the principles of cooperation, voluntarism, and the rights of the minority for some type of representation and input.

 

    The Meet and Confer process is the best vehicle to bring this about, and it can be strengthened and made to work effectively and fairly for all. The minority can become the majority. This is what the unions fear most. A free public and tax supported school system is complemented by free and independent-minded school teachers. You can't love one without the other. 

 

    This kind of freedom and openness will encourage more creativity in teaching, pluralism of ideas within the profession, and insure the integrity of the profession. A greater input of all those in education and the public would bring bring about a consensus that the Meet and Confer process is the common sense solution to teacher management relations.

Sincerely yours, 

George H. Kubeck

P.S.

A. Excerpts from other letters and thoughts:

1. Vote NO ON PROPOSITION T: (Oct.-Nov. 1986)

    Why do we have to politicize everything? How do you feel about politicizing the Public Education of children? Is there nothing sacred anymore? That's what a No vote on proposition T is all about. Stop the game of politics in the education of our children. Just because Senate Bill 160 politicized the teaching profession, it doesn't mean we politicize school board elections....

    (Proposition T - to redo school board boundaries. It makes it easier for unions to get in pro-agency fees school board members.)

 

2. S.B. 160 is albatross around Public Education's neck. The schools belong to the public. Teachers are public employees first and foremost. They ought not to be forced by the School Board to join and pay an organization that they do not believe in. "You pay for you political and social agenda (and I will pay for mine) but don't force me to pay for yours, and be employed as a teacher in this district.)" (That's what agency fees is all about.) The bottom line is the integrity of the teaching profession.

(A fundamental principle of conservatism is a non-union teaching profession.) Today, the yearly union teacher fees in the public schools is about a thousand dollars or more. Almost all goes to the leftists.