Opinion: AFT Backs Hillary More on Hope than on Hard Evidence
Hillary Clinton’s stance on education remains unknown, yet the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) has chosen to endorse her regardless. This endorsement is significant since the AFT is the second largest teachers’ union in the country. Despite Clinton’s support for charter schools and her previous vote in favor of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), which are positions that oppose the AFT’s beliefs, it is evident that teachers’ unions have lost their influence within the Democratic Party. Over the past seven years, teachers’ unions have faced numerous setbacks as the policies implemented by the president they endorsed, such as test-based teacher evaluation and charter school expansion, clashed with their ideals. Unfortunately, due to the lack of a preferable alternative, the unions were left with very little bargaining power. Consequently, the AFT’s only strategy in the upcoming presidential election is to rely on hope. As no one, including the unions and education reformers, can accurately predict how President Hillary Clinton would approach education, the AFT still chooses to endorse her candidacy. They point to her recent statements in a candidate survey as a cause for optimism. Clinton now recognizes the flaws in NCLB and expresses concerns about excessive testing. She also supports the Senate rewrite of NCLB, which reduces federal accountability measures. Regarding school choice, Clinton remains opposed to school vouchers and believes that charter schools should be held to the same standards and level of transparency as traditional public schools. She also advocates for the closure of failing charter schools, a position that aligns with the stances of many charter school supporters. In the 2008 election, Clinton secured the AFT’s endorsement by opposing the concept of individual performance pay for teachers, although she expressed support for performance pay at the school level, which is more acceptable to unions. Interestingly, candidate Obama criticized testing during his 2007 speech to the National Education Association but subsequently incentivized states to evaluate teachers based on student test scores during his presidency. This demonstrates the disparity between campaign promises and actual governance.
