What’s wrong with this picture?

Teacher doesn’t like a possible school district decision.  Teacher gives students SEPTA tokens, ostensibly allowing them to attend a protest rally at District headquarters --- during the school day.  Teacher doesn’t notify principal or parents that students were leaving school.  Teacher was allegedly insubordinate by disclosing a document the District wanted kept confidential. Union boss fights efforts to fire teacher on First Amendment grounds.

Teacher wins.

That’s right.  Despite an initial effort by the Philadelphia School District to terminate Hope Moffett, a teacher at Audenried High School, she is back at work, smug as ever. And why not?

The District completely caved. Instead of pursuing the right course of action, it settled for Moffett to read a non-descript one sentence letter to her class --- a statement the District claims is an admission of wrongdoing, but which Moffett bluntly denies.  “There’s no apology,” she said. "I think it's very clear that they wanted an apology, but what they wanted an apology for was something that wasn't true."

The statement: “I acknowledge that I didn't notify the principal on 2/14/2011 that students planned to leave the school building during the school day on 2/15/2011, even though no parental permission had been submitted to the school."

Seems Moffett is right --- no apology there.

The District’s take? They were pleased she was admitting wrongdoing.

"I think her acknowledging that she did something wrong was part of what we were looking for all along," a District spokeswoman was quoted as saying. "Just that she had some sense of remorse that she put the students in harm's way."

Remorse?  Where is the remorse when Moffett refused to apologize for placing students in possible danger without any parental or school notification?  "It's ridiculous, but it gets me back into the classroom,” she said, according to the Inquirer.  "It is a statement that I'm fine with making because to them it will always be an apology, thereby justifying that I can return to the school."

“Ridiculous” and “no apology.”  Wow.  What incredible remorse.

Most interesting was that even Moffett herself “didn’t anticipate being returned to the classroom.”  So let’s get this straight.  Moffett’s actions led the District to start the firing process, and despite Moffett believing she did nothing wrong, she thought she would lose.

So what happened?

The unions got involved.  And since everyone in Philadelphia kowtows to the unions, the ballgame ended. Incomprehensible?  Yes. Expected?  Absolutely.

Moffett’s union, the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers (PFT), sued the District on free speech grounds, since Moffett opposed plans to convert Audenried to a charter school. That argument is so hollow that it would be laughed out of court anywhere but Philadelphia.

So a U.S. magistrate judge got involved, and helped broker a deal.  (Moffett was also given a five-day suspension, but don’t count on that standing up, since the union is appealing that, too).

The biggest joke in this whole debacle is the notion that both sides can claim a semblance of victory. 

Moffett won, and District made fools out of themselves. If that’s “victory” for the District, I’d hate to see what losing is.

The First Amendment has no role whatsoever in this case.  Moffett is certainly free to disagree with the District’s charter school plans, and it’s well within her rights to advocate for her cause.

What is unacceptable is to knowingly allow students to leave the safe confines of school and venture unsupervised into the city (facilitated, the District claimed, by giving out the SEPTA tokens), with parents having absolutely no knowledge of their children’s whereabouts. What if a student was involved in an accident while on this unsanctioned field trip?  Or mugged?  Or raped? 

(And let’s be honest --- how many students, completely of their own volition, were really motivated to take up this cause as their own?  It’s a fact that some teachers use students as pawns in political fights. Was this one of those cases? It certainly raises questions.)

To say the District --- and in fact, taxpayers --- would be liable for a massive lawsuit is a gross understatement.

And, if as the District contends, Moffett was insubordinate for disclosing a document that it had ordered kept private, they had even more grounds for firing.

Given the facts, Moffett should have been terminated.  It’s a case the District should have pursued, because it would have sent the right message.  Instead, the clear message is that the District can be bullied into submission, settling for nothing despite holding all the cards.

This is one of those rare cases when the union should have backed away.  Loyalty above all, except honor.  And there is no honor in what Moffett did.

But why should the union back away when it knows it won’t be challenged?  These victories only add to the union’s mystique.

Of course, it’s a good bet this wouldn’t have played out the same way about ten miles east, across the Delaware River.  Odds are that Governor Chris Christie would have come swooping in with his trademark thunder, pointing out how cowardly the District was being, aggressively taking on the union, and fighting for justice to be done.

And he would have won.

Too bad we don’t have the same kind of barnstorming leaders in Pennsylvania.  If we did, this would have been the perfect opportunity to show that quality.

And little Miss “Moffett” would be eating her curds and whey somewhere other than Audenried High.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative
reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries
and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including
The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick
Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in
Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national
television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia.  He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

“Since 1995 the average mathematics score for fourth-graders jumped 11 points. At this rate we catch up with Singapore in a little over 80 years . .... assuming they don't improve."

- Norman R. Augustine, retired CEO of Lockheed Martin

Let’s keep that quote from a recent George Will column in mind as the school choice debate unfolds.

                                                                 *****

Even in a bad housing market, if someone were to initially offer his home at the lowest acceptable price, he would be called an idiot.  And rightly so.

Likewise, negotiators never come to the table with their bottom line proposal. Doing so would be pointless --- obviously --- since they would be leaving themselves no negotiating room.

It’s Business 101: you set the bar high, and work downward, if need be. It doesn’t get any simpler.

Which makes the current school choice bill in the State Senate, SB 1, all the more puzzling.  Since true choice would be made available only to low-income students, and that’s after a three-year phase-in, the bill would be almost totally ineffectual, affecting an extremely small number of primarily urban students.

Given that Pennsylvania students rank near the bottom in several important categories, such as SAT scores, the only way to right the ship is to enact a statewide, comprehensive school choice program.  Since choice only works if the vast majority of students and schools are able to participate, and there seem to be the votes for that type of program, why the bar is being set so artificially low remains a mystery.

But a good bet is that sponsors Jeff Piccola (R) and Anthony Williams (D) simply didn’t do their homework on the make-up of the new legislature, choosing to dust off an old bill rather than craft a better, more inclusive one.

Because of its limited scope, it’s a bill many view as destined to fail. To think suburban and rural legislators will put up a tough vote for SB 1 --- despite none of their constituents realizing school choice --- and, as a reward, face well-financed union-backed opponents in next year’s elections is just naïve.

So it is somewhat surprising that some school choice advocates on the Right have reacted so illogically to Freindly Fire’s criticism of that bill (as detailed in last week’s column).

If that defeatist attitude is pervasive within the ranks of the Republican base, one thing is certain: the entire agenda of new Governor Tom Corbett and the GOP-dominated House and Senate will be jeopardized. It’s like being pregnant --- you are or you aren’t.  You either push hard to truly solve the state’s unprecedented problems, or you willingly give up your political leverage, compromising your way to meaningless solutions via the Business as Usual approach.

And anyone who thinks the budget deficit, pension bomb and liquor privatization issues can be solved by bowing to insider tactics rooted in political minutia is just whistling Dixie.
 
While education should never be a partisan issue, school choice is more widely supported by Republicans.  So if you can’t pass meaningful legislation with solid GOP majorities in both chambers and a very friendly Governor, you might as well pack it up and turn off the lights.

So let’s take a look at the misguided talking points some proponents are advocating:

SB 1 helps a wide range of students.

The sponsors’ rhetoric simply doesn’t match the substance.  Senators Piccola and Williams talk a great game, saying all the right things:  "We are ready to challenge any…who oppose freedom,” “the civil rights movement of this century,”  “…all kids deserve access to a great education - regardless of race, income or zip code,” and “providing access to a quality education for every child is the most important issue facing our state.”

Last time I checked, the Civil Rights movement created equality for all people, not just some ---which is why the sponsors’ talk rings so hollow.  How can you state that “all kids” and “every child” need access to a great education when this program is so limited in scope?  Where is the “freedom” in that? Leaving the vast majority of students out in the cold is not exactly benefitting “all.”

This is the best school choice bill we can hope for at this time. 

Says who?  The sponsors?  Uhh…no. The legislature was sworn in on January 4, and the bill was introduced January 11.  So are we to believe that the bill was written and a preliminary vote count taken in less than seven days?  Of course not. 

Rather than wait to introduce a meaningful bill, Piccola and Williams jumped the gun with a worthless piece of legislation that, even if passed, will affect virtually no positive change and only bury Pennsylvania that much further.  We don’t have another decade to waste.

We don’t have the votes to pass it, since it didn’t pass in…the mid 90’s when it “failed miserably.”

Honest to God, I couldn’t make up that level of irrationality. This point is so wrong, on so many levels, that it almost doesn’t deserve a response.  But here are the facts.

Comparing the climate for school choice from 1995 and 2011 is ridiculous, for three reasons.

First, the legislature itself is at least 70 to 80 percent different now versus then. Second, despite the Republican wave of 1994, the State House remained Democratic --- by one vote.  It took Rep. Tom Stish’s switch to give the GOP control and the ability to push school choice in that chamber. 

But the wave of 2010 was a different story.  Thirteen seats flipped, giving the GOP a ten seat majority --- and a mandate to reform the system.  And the Republican caucus is more conservative than it was fifteen years ago, with increased support for school choice.

Third, the acceptance of school choice is much more widespread than it was in the 90’s --- a span of time where, not coincidentally, more and more schools have declined academically or closed altogether; Pennsylvania students continue to lag behind their national and global competitors.

With so many elements between those two time periods being night and day, any attempt at comparison is simply insulting.

And for the record, statewide school choice missed passage by no more than five votes in 1995 --- a far cry from “failing miserably.”  That is indisputable, and stated from first-hand experience, as Yours Truly was the Executive Director of the REACH Alliance at the time, the statewide organization pushing school choice.  Oh, and Williams, a State Representative at the time, was a NO vote.

And the question proponents of SB 1 cannot answer: has anyone done an actual vote count?

Here’s the answer: no.  Not the leaders, and not the grassroots activists, for the simple reason that there hasn’t been enough time to do so.  So why advocates would criticize efforts to expand the bill without even undertaking the most basic step ---counting votes --- is mindboggling and counterproductive.

What is Senator Williams’ position on full school choice? 

He certainly says all the right things about expanding choice, but it seems that none of the critics has actually asked Williams his position on a comprehensive program.  If he doesn’t support it, why not? Why should choice be available to some but not all?  Any type of exclusivity dooms the bill before it’s out of the gate, as is evidenced by the growing number of pro-school choicers who are against this bill.

But if Williams does support a larger program, that’s gravy.  And since Williams would most likely bring additional Democrats with him, the likelihood of passing an expanded bill would be extremely high --- hence, the obtuseness of not attempting a more inclusive bill.

This bill helps the middle class through the expanded EITC.

The Educational Improvement Tax Credit (EITC) is a nice program on the margins, and without a doubt has helped many families and kept some schools from closing, but it is NOT school choice; those labeling it as such do a great disservice to true choice.

The EITC allows businesses to give money to a non-profit scholarship organization or educational improvement program and receive a tax credit for that donation. Families with a household income under $60,000 would be eligible (plus $10,000 per child), and the program stops once $100 million worth of tax credits are doled out by the state. ($75 million is dedicated to the scholarship program).

The educational improvement aspect has nothing to do with school choice, so that’s irrelevant to the choice discussion.

Scholarship organizations must be granted approval from the state; upon meeting that requirement, they then solicit business donations to fund the scholarships.

For many businesses, participation in the EITC is based on the economy, so a struggling company may cut back or eliminate their contributions altogether.  Additionally, the EITC is also more subject to reduced funding by the legislature (as happened in 2009) than a statewide school choice program. 

And not to be critical of the EITC, but if it has been so successful, why have so many schools closed since its inception a decade ago?

One aspect of SB 1 is very appealing: rather than just a voucher, the state subsidy that would have been directed to a student’s home school district could be applied to the public, private or parochial school of their choice, not to exceed the cost of tuition.   In some districts, that number could be as high as $10,000.  Since the average total cost to educate a student per year is $14,000, a statewide choice program could provide a very significant cost savings. (As a comparison, the average EITC scholarship is just above $1000).

With school choice, parents receive some of their tax money back to choose their child’s school; with the EITC, they don't get any money back directly (the scholarship entity controls it), and are more limited in the schools from which to choose.

Arguing that the EITC is the savior to middle class families simply has no merit.

                                                            *****

The mentality that school choice must be obtained “one slice at a time” versus going for the “whole loaf” is a flawed one.  The votes should be there to pass statewide school choice now, but the political reality is such that most legislators will only give choice one vote.  There is nothing attractive about facing the wrath of the well-funded teachers’ unions year after year until full choice can be implemented, especially in light of all the other tough votes they will have to make.

With increasing public sentiment advocating school choice, favorable and diverse majorities in the House and Senate, and a committed Governor, the time for meaningful reform is upon us.

Thinking back to the quote that started this column, it’s now or never, so let’s do it right.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com
Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."
Freind, whose column appears nationally in Newsmax, also serves as a guest commentator on Philadelphia-area talk radio shows, and makes numerous other television and radio appearances, most notably on FOX.  He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Pandering To Inner City Reps Could Doom Passage

And so it begins.  The first challenge to Governor Tom Corbett is upon him.  Surprisingly, it’s not from public sector unions, trial lawyers or natural gas opponents, but from within his own Party. 

It’s a challenge that, if handled the right way, would send a message that the Corbett Administration will turn Business As Usual on its head.  If not, the GOP caucus could factionalize, in turn jeopardizing a host of other tough issues on the Governor’s agenda.

And it all revolves around misguided school choice legislation that would do more harm than good.

                                                                 *****

This being School Choice Week, it’s ironic that the Pennsylvania Senate choice bill --- introduced with much hoopla ---  would neither improve schools nor offer true choice.  Instead, it is legislation stuck in the past, once again pandering to the wrong crowd --- the Black Caucus. These are the folks that some choice advocates still naively believe are necessary to court in order to achieve even a modest school choice victory.

They were wrong fifteen years ago, and they’re wrong now.  In fact, not only is Senate Bill 1 a bad bill, but one that will have a difficult time passing.

At issue is the program being limited to low income families, defined as those whose income is at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty level – a family of four would qualify at $28,000 household income.  And that’s after a three-year phase-in. 

Left out of the equation is….everybody else. 

Pennsylvania’s students are subpar across the board --- inner city, suburb and rural.  Not only can they not effectively compete with their counterparts in other states (they are 42nd in SAT scores), but, as a whole, are part of our nation’s systemic educational failure.  America’s students consistently rank near the bottom in math, science and literacy when compared to their global competitors.  And since this is an ever-increasing world economy, that’s a recipe for disaster.

The days of competing with Seattle and San Francisco are over; our best and brightest can barely keep up with average students in Singapore, Stockholm and Sydney.

And yet we’re supposed to believe that an extremely limited school choice program for relatively few inner city students is going to be the panacea? 

Give us a break.

One of the bill’s prime sponsors, mid-state Republican Jeff Piccola, should know better.  A longtime champion of education choice, Piccola has nonetheless dropped the ball on this bill, buying into the politically-correct hype that having at least one black legislator on board is the only way to assure passage.  So he allied himself with Democratic Senator Anthony Williams from Philadelphia.

Williams, you may recall, threw himself into last year’s governor’s race late in the game, backed by a few wealthy supporters who pumped more than $5 million into his campaign.  One of Williams’ major issues was school choice.

Fine.  The fact that Williams, up to that point, had never been a leader on school choice raised a few questions, but give him the benefit of the doubt that he is now a choice advocate. But to what level?

True believers realize that school choice will only work if the vast majority of students participate, something impossible with the Piccola-Williams bill.

Why should Williams care?  His constituents will benefit, but the other 99% of Pennsylvania families will be left out in the cold.  Not a tough choice for Tony.

But for the majority of legislators who will be asked to make a tough vote, look for them to start pushing back, countering with a simple message to the bill’s prime sponsors and the Governor:  do it right, or not at all.

                                                             *****

The reason this bill is doomed is simple.  As it stands now, suburban and rural legislators will be asked to incur the wrath of the teachers’ unions (who stand adamantly opposed to the accountability that school choice legislation would bring), while their constituents would not benefit in the least. 

And make no mistake about the teachers’ unions.  While they spent millions in last year’s election cycle, and were soundly defeated, their forced union dues make their campaign war chests virtually unlimited.   Being a presidential election year, 2012 should prove more favorable to them, and they will be unleashing their fury with a vengeance.

So the suburban and rural legislators would make a difficult vote --- and get the worst of both worlds.  Not only would some face tough, union-backed opponents in primary and general elections, but would also feel the anger of constituents who still wouldn’t have a choice where to educate their children. 

But here’s the biggest irony.  The Black Caucus, all Democrats, would almost unanimously vote against the choice bill to avoid union anger.  With a sly smile, they would cast that vote full-well knowing that their constituents would be the beneficiaries.

How’s that for political cowardice?  But it’s what we’ve come to expect from the Black Caucus. 

This is politics at its worst. Vote against a bill that would help the people in your district while hanging your selfless colleagues out to dry, undoubtedly thinning the GOP ranks in the process.

For the Republicans to agree would be an act of monumental stupidity.

There’s another reality that makes this bill almost obsolete, even if it does pass.  Because comprehensive school choice wasn’t passed in 1995, a number of nonpublic schools have since closed, making the options for the low income families that much more limited.  So we would blow another three years on a worthless bill that would realize no significant gains in educational improvement.

Here’s a newsflash for those not familiar with Pennsylvania’s precipitous decline : we can’t afford to twiddle our thumbs for three more years, pretending that the inner city schools are improving, while in reality we fall that much further behind the competition.

The Black Caucus isn’t needed to pass statewide school choice; political will is.  While the education of our children should never be a partisan issue, if you can’t pass school choice with sizable Republican majorities in the House and Senate and a friendly Governor, you’re never going to.

No matter how principled a lawmaker, there are virtually none who should make this vote in the name of Party unity with the upside so small and the downside so large --- potentially large enough to cost them their seat and hurt all Pennsylvanians.

Undeniably, the current system has failed. But the good news is that school choice works. The tragedy will be if we punt away the best opportunity in Pennsylvania history to turn the state around.  If we do, you might as well start converting your dollars into Chinese yuan.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com
Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."
Freind, whose column appears nationally in Newsmax, also serves as a guest commentator on Philadelphia-area talk radio shows, and makes numerous other television and radio appearances, most notably on FOX.  He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

The nature of New Year’s is to look at things in a positive way, but truth be told, it's a lot more fun to tee off on those most deserving of our wrath, ridicule and pity.

So now, Freindly Fire’s most deserving Losers of the Last Year:

Dick Clark

How do you criticize a man whose stroke of good fortune made him the real American Idol for several generations of Americans?  Not easily.   But Freindly Fire has never stroked egos to make nice; the sad truth is that Dick Clark’s time has come and gone.  His continued presence on ABC’s New Year’s Eve program is an embarrassment to the network, and, whether he knows it or not, a humiliation to Clark. 

His incoherence is a morbid fascination for millions, to the point where viewing Clark’s gaffes has itself become a New Year’s Eve tradition.  He was fantastic in his prime, and his courageous comeback was admirable. But let’s face it.  One last go-round would have been more than enough inspiration for people with debilitating conditions.  The prolonging of Clark’s once-proud career has made him the butt of tasteless jokes, unfortunately validated by his woeful countdown to the stroke of midnight.

Even talentless host Ryan Seacrest looks uncomfortable trying to understand, let alone converse, with Clark.  Like an aging athlete whose time to hang it up is obvious to all but himself, Clark is trying to maintain a relevance that is simply impossible to achieve.

To salvage whatever’s left of his dignity, please, ABC, pull the plug on Dick Clark.

Teachers Unions, Trial Lawyers, Taxers and Tea Party critics

Throughout Pennsylvania and nationwide, all four spent millions this campaign season --- and all got shellacked.

For the first time, more candidates than not took a hard-line stance against unchecked lawyer greed, fat union contracts, organized labor’s outrageous demands, and increased taxes.  And the fiery Tea Party made sure those issues remained at the forefront of the election cycle.

The result?  Hard to say.  Despite their vanquishing, none of the losers is going away anytime soon.

Facing a brand new phenomenon called accountability, teachers unions will use their unlimited campaign war chest (obtained through forced dues) to dig in hard against pension reform, school choice and public education funding cuts.  Trial lawyers will continue to write big checks, since tort reform threatens their very survival (and the number of Mercedes in the driveway). Taxers will again try to handcuff the Marcellus Shale natural gas industry by imposing job-killing extraction taxes and fees, and Tea Party opponents are looking to prove their nemesis to be a One-Hit Wonder.

However, special mention in this category goes to State Representative and House Democratic Campaign Chairman Mike Gerber of Montgomery County, who, just one month before the election, arrogantly boasted, "We will hold and maybe even expand our majority." In fact, under Gerber’s watch, the Republicans gained 13 seats (and the Majority) despite being outspent by $1.3 million.  With that kind of predictive accuracy, maybe he should be a weatherman.

Tucker Carlson

Filling in as host for Sean Hannity on FOX, Carlson said that Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Michael Vick should have been executed for killing dogs in his dogfighting operation. 

What a buffoon. 

Does he really believe that? Common sense would say “No,” but he appeared deadly serious. 

Look. What Vick did was heinous and inexcusable.  But he served his time, and appears to be penitent.  How he behaves moving forward will tell a lot about whether he is truly sorry.

But Vick isn’t the issue.  Carlson’s cheap shot to gain a brief bit of fame is. 

Equally as pathetic was Carlson deriding President Obama’s decision to thank Eagles’ owner Jeff Lurie for giving Vick a second chance.  Carlson’s rant demonstrates why the media is so scorned by the American people.

With all the legitimate issues with which to differ from the President, why would Carlson criticize Obama for his phone call discussing redemption?  Because wannabes like Carlson, despite all their posturing about how pure, conservative and Christian they are, really only care about themselves and the headlines they can generate. 

Issues and ideology take a backseat to vain ambition, even when that means injecting oneself into the story. And every time irrelevant issues like this get raised, meaningful debate about what really matters takes a hit.

Since shills like Carlson impugn the credibility of real conservatives, FOX should make him their fire hydrant.  And hell, come to think of it, even Dick Clark would be an improvement.

Americans

No, not the people, but the position in which they find themselves because Government has grown on such a massive scale under both Republicans and Democrats. We now have bankruptcy-level debt, pension bombs, a healthcare fiasco, labyrinthine bureaucracies and bailouts for Wall Street fat cats.

Yet with all the government intervention, the people are no safer; in fact, their economic and physical security have never been in greater peril. 

With no southern border wall, illegal invaders continue to enjoy unfettered access to America, leaving a wake of destruction in their path.  Jobs are lost, wages depressed, crimes increase, and the culture is forever altered. And when the federal, state and local governments coddle these lawbreakers, respect for the rule of law goes out the window.

However, all that will pale in comparison to when a terrorist saunters across the open border with a suitcase nuke. 

And the complete lack of an independent energy policy has left the people bent over the (oil) barrel of nations that don’t exactly have Americans’ best interests in mind --- despite the fact that the United States has more energy resources than the entire Middle East combined.

But the people have no one to blame but themselves.  Remember just two years ago when gas was $4.50/gallon, fuel tanks were being siphoned dry, and there was an outcry for offshore drilling and nuclear power?  Where was our resolve to see those things through?  Nonexistent.

Prices dropped because the economy tanked, and Americans quickly forgot that pain.  Well, the economy is still in the toilet, yet gas is approaching $3.50, and the former CEO of Shell just predicted $5 gas by next year. 

Trying to resurrect a moribund economy with skyrocketing fuel prices is most definitely a losing proposition.

University of Pittsburgh

Pitt recently fired football coach Dave Wannstedt, and, on December 16, hired Mike Haywood as his replacement.  On January 1, Pitt fired Haywood. 

Why the musical chairs?  In Wannstedt’s case, it was simple: he didn’t win enough games.  No issue there. But not so with Haywood.
He was arrested on a domestic battery charge involving the mother of his child, and was canned immediately by the University. So much for due process.

Admittedly, it’s not an easy position for the Pitt football program --- trying to maintain continuity and effective recruiting amidst negative headlines and a cloud hanging over the coach. 

But some things are infinitely more important: loyalty, fairness, and the one Pitt so callously forgot about: that innocent until proven guilty thing. Aren’t these the values our institutions of higher learning are supposed to teach?  Or are they just classroom theory, never to be practiced in real-world situations because they require effort and backbone?

The cowards at Pitt didn’t even have the common decency to meet with Haywood face-to-face, instead putting out a press release of his firing.  What class.

And what happens if the charges are dropped or turn out to be fallacious?  What if Haywood is acquitted? The fact that a man’s reputation and livelihood hang in the balance is obviously of no consequence to the Pitt braintrust.

Kind of reminds you of how Duke University treated the men’s lacrosse team after they were charged with rape: their season immediately cancelled, openly chastised by their professors, and treated like pariahs by the University.

Duke jumped the gun, just like Pitt. And as it turned out, the accuser lied, the prosecutor was dirty, and the players were innocent.  But hey, never let the facts get in the way of covering your derriere, especially when an Ivory Tower university might actually have to practice what it preaches --- and teaches.

Shame on Pitt for becoming yet another in the long list of universities to worship at the altar of political correctness.

                                                       *****

One can only hope that some of this year’s Losers graduate from the list, while others (especially the “Four T’s”) make it their permanent home.  But through it all, there is one unifying thread: common sense, backbone, and a stiff resolve are the best ingredients to avoid being one of the Biggest Losers Of The Year.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com
Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."
Freind, whose column appears nationally in Newsmax, also serves as a guest commentator on Philadelphia-area talk radio shows, and makes numerous other television and radio appearances, most notably on FOX.  He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Author’s note: For your viewing pleasure, a link to FOX 29’s fiery “non-debate” on school strikes follows this column. Is it any wonder why the PSEA won’t talk about the merits of strikes, and instead engages in personal, factually incorrect attacks (in Latin, no less!) on extraneous issues? P.S.: I am sending PSEA the bill for my blown-out eardrums.

To modify the legendary quote from Dean Wormer in Animal House: Arrogant, greedy and aloof is no way to go through life.

But that’s exactly how the teachers’ unions in Pennsylvania have behaved for decades.

With millions in forced union dues, they have constructed a statewide political empire, using their muscle to crush any and all opposition.

To their credit, they have been immensely successful in squeezing every last penny from broke municipalities and overtaxed residents.  In good economies and bad, they demand and receive large raises and benefits, including, in many cases, free healthcare. 

In Bucks County’s Neshaminy School District, for example, the unions have steadfastly refused to renegotiate their healthcare plan.  Can you blame them?  They don’t pay one cent toward their Rolls Royce plan, which costs $27,000 per teacher, per year.  Meanwhile, those in the private sector are shelling out 30 or 40 percent of their healthcare costs, with many shouldering the entire burden.  And when Neshaminy teachers retire, they are guaranteed healthcare until age 65.  And as an added retirement “incentive”, they are handed almost $30,000 just to walk out the door.

Amazingly, Neshaminy isn’t the exception.  Unfortunately, such excess is commonplace throughout the state.

To make the sin mortal, Pennsylvania leads the nation every year in school strikes.  In fact, the Keystone State experiences more teacher strikes than all other states combined.

And that is the reason so many citizens are scratching their heads. Teachers are universally respected for the priceless role they play, but when they strike, especially in a recession where the private sector continues to hemorrhage jobs, it is seen as a slap in the face.

While Pennsylvania teachers are first in school strikes and top five in salaries and benefits, the same cannot be said of student achievement --- as evidenced by their  42nd –ranked SAT scores.

And you can’t just blame city schools for bringing the numbers down.  In suburban Neshaminy, 33 percent of 11th graders aren’t proficient in reading, and 28% can’t perform basic math.

To the unions, money is the cure all. Pay more money (and better benefits) to the teachers while increasing funding for public education, and all the problems will be solved. But we’ve been doing that for decades, and education achievement hasn’t improved.

Given that the global economy is here to stay, our dismal academic performance becomes more dire every year.  Our students are no longer competing against just those in San Francisco and Seattle, but Stockholm, Singapore and Sydney. Yet compared to our top 30 global counterparts, the U.S. is, at best, in the middle of the pack and more often, much lower.

The solution is to instill accountability to our schools and rein in the out-of-control unions.  And with a new Governor and state legislature poised to tackle tough issues, the political will to enact meaningful changes is not just possible, but probable.  Here are two immediate steps that would help bring vast improvement to Pennsylvania’s educational system:

1) Inject competition by enacting school choice.  When parents have a choice in their children's education, schools that do well will attract more students and succeed, and those that continue with the status quo will lose students and fail. The free market system that has served us so well will have the same effect on our educational product. And for the first time in generations, our students will actually learn the skills necessary to succeed in life.

Governor-elect Tom Corbett made school choice a cornerstone of his campaign, and with solid Republican majorities in the House and Senate, look for that to take shape in some form this year.

2) Outlaw school strikes. No public sector union should have the right to strike, which is why our police and firemen are prohibited from doing so.  It is beyond explanation that teachers, in whose hands we place our most valuable asset --- our children --- are not considered equally essential.

Strikes are disruptive to all parties. Parents experience incredible stress in their frantic search for child care, often risking job security by tending to their children, and students’ disciplined approach to schoolwork is shattered, with no possibility of a seamless transition after a long strike.

And who are we kidding? Sure, the law mandates a 180-day school year, but are students really learning anything sitting in a classroom over the Christmas break?  Or in late June, days or weeks after exams have already been taken? In effect, students are held hostage so that teachers can justify their salaries and school districts don’t jeopardize their state subsidies.  

But it is important to understand that teachers are also victimized by strikes.  They become pariahs in their own communities, and respect for their profession take a hit.  Let’s be crystal clear on one thing: many teachers often do not agree with the union leaders’ decisions.  But when that leadership calls for a strike vote --- and refuses to use a secret ballot, as is almost always the case --- there is virtually no chance of opposition.  The risk is simply too high, and the mob mentality rules the day.

At the minimum, there should be a law requiring secret ballot votes for school strikes, monitored by the Pennsylvania Department of Labor. That common sense, practical solution would be overwhelmingly supported by the public --- and the teachers.

If you outlaw strikes, though, basic fairness dictates that there should be a method to resolve an impasse. Perhaps the most viable alternative would be final best offer arbitration (FBO), the same system Major League Baseball uses with great success.

In regular arbitration, both sides throw out a number, with the arbiter often adding them together and dividing by two.  That’s an inefficient system, because when one side makes a reasonable offer while the other side comes in with a pie-in-the-sky proposal, the result is lopsided in favor of the greedier party.

But with FBO, both sides innately understand the need to be reasonable in their proposals or risk getting blown completely out of the box. Cooler heads would prevail with FBO, and that’s most definitely in the taxpayers’ best interest.

Is FBO ideal? No, since you are placing an unelected arbiter in a position of power, but in the real world, it’s the best we have to stop the unaffordable contracts.  It is a classic example of philosophical versus practical, and in this case, the practical side should prevail. 

But there’s a huge irony here. 

Because the union leadership has pushed the envelope for so long, the pendulum may be swinging back hard, to the point of potentially being unfair.

Outlawing school strikes --- as they are in 37 states --- can be enacted like any other legislation: pass both chambers and have the Governor sign the bill.  That may well happen in the near future.

However, arbitration requires a constitutional amendment, a process that will take at least five years.  So the unions are facing the distinct possibility of seeing the right to strike abolished, with no chance of arbitration as recourse.  In effect, our teachers would be working as slaves to the school boards, and that is certainly NOT in anyone’s best interest, most of all our childrens’.

But right or wrong, they made their bed, and now they have to lie in it. 

Aware that their backs were to the wall, the unions spent massively this campaign season on candidates sympathetic to their “plight.”  Unfortunately for them, they suffered huge losses, and the head of the dragon is in danger of being decapitated.

From this point on, it’s a whole new ballgame.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has blazed a path to success in dealing with unions, and enjoys rising popularity every time he calls out their arrogance and greed. And his accomplishments have come with the Democrats controlling both legislative chambers.

In much the same mold, Tom Corbett’s vision is closely aligned with Christie’s, especially on education issues. With the GOP now in firm command of Harrisburg, they may yet provide Pennsylvanians with hope and change we can all believe in.

Taxpayers could only be so lucky.

FOX 29 Non-Debate On School Strikes: Freind Vs. PSEA’s Rob Broderick 
http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/news/local_news/heated-debate%3A--teachers-striking-in-pa

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears nationally in Newsmax, also serves as a guest commentator on Philadelphia-area talk radio shows, and makes numerous other television and radio appearances, most notably on FOX.  He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

(This column first appeared in Philadelphia Magazine)

On a recent weekday at Annunciation B.V.M. Church in Havertown, a Mass was celebrated to pray for and honor police officers --- both those on the front lines and those who have fallen in the line of duty.

It was an emotional service, especially given the number of police who have been brutally slain in the last several years.  The thought of a lonely and distraught spouse raising young children --- including some unborn who never even glimpsed their father--- was so heartbreaking as to be unthinkable.

The worst part is that there’s no rational way to explain, let alone overcome, the absolute senselessness of why these officers were slain.
Where is our country headed when cops are being killed with abandon? 

While all innocent human life is sacred, there is something different about shooting a law enforcement officer. It breaks down the last barrier of respect, and it violates the code that most criminals follow - you don't take shots at police. Period.

Like anything else in life, once that taboo is broken, all bets are off.  In Philadelphia's case, it is now obvious that cops are fair game. The breakdown of the city is virtually complete.

With civility and respect quickly becoming a faded memory, further imperiling our children’s future, people are increasingly asking what, if anything, can be done to reverse this deadly course.

The answer is simple.  It’s just not easy:

School choice.

                                                *****

We have just witnessed the murder trial of cop-killers Eric Floyd and Levon Warner.  Both owners of long rap sheets, they heinously gunned down Officer Stephen Liczbinski in 2008. These animals deserve the death penalty, plain and simple, but that doesn’t answer how you stop such an atrocity from occurring in the future.

If you’re looking to politicians for help, you’ll be blind before that happens.

Every time there’s another crime in the headlines, Mayor Michael Nutter spews the same monotonous babble that the violence epidemic will be curtailed.

But nothing has changed. In fact, despite all the resources put into fighting crime, it's only getting worse.

Whether its flash mobs, citizens getting gunned down, brutal subway attacks ---or cops in the crosshairs, it’s clear that respect for authority is non-existent, and no one is off-limits to the predators.

Philadelphia’s murder, violence and homeless rates are among the highest in the nation, and there’s absolutely nothing to indicate that the situation will improve anytime soon, if ever.

Three things have become readily apparent:

1) The way we did things in the past hasn't worked.

2) What we're doing now isn't having an impact.

3) Unless a bold leader takes steps to institute true reform and eschew band-aid solutions to gaping wounds, the city ---and the region ---will continue its plummet into the abyss.

Here's the part no one wants to admit. There is NO short-term solution.

                                                  *****

We can talk all day about fairy-tale feel-good “solutions” by invoking vague rhetoric: community partnerships, town watches, more police, and of course, the ultimate panacea, banning guns.

But since we've been hearing that for decades, ad nauseum, here's a newsflash to our leaders: none of these things work. And they're not going to, either, because they are tactics without the benefit of a strategy.

Enter school choice.

The dire situation in which we find ourselves boils down to our horrendously bad educational system, and, as a direct result, the lack of hope in our young people.

With no possibility of receiving a quality education, and the prospects for a decent job virtually nonexistent, many of our youth see the dream of a stable and prosperous life as nothing more than an illusion. Faith is lost.

At that point, when people feel they have nothing to live for, or to lose, they resort to risk-taking criminal activity. The end result is despair, fear, violence and murder.

Even though our public schools are in shambles, and many are deathtraps for student and teacher alike, most parents have no options.
When education is trumped by survival, everybody loses.

So why doesn't the system change?

Greed.

Greed to keep the status quo the way it is because it immensely benefits a narrow few. And greed to keep the truth out of sight, buried behind 30 second sound bites.

And the greediest offender of all?  The teachers’ unions.

The unions are terrified of school choice because it would inject competition into our schools, which would 
expose incompetence, and the masses will finally see that the system's failure has nothing to do with a lack of money.

But since so many of our politicians, especially in Philadelphia, are in bed with these unions, school choice programs continue to be thwarted.

Without a doubt, the union leadership wields immense political power because it reaps millions in forced union dues, which are used for partisan political purposes. But how long can we --- and our “leaders” --- be held hostage to them?

Break the stranglehold of the unions, and you break the violence, both in our schools and our city.

When parents have a choice in their children's education, schools that perform will attract more students and succeed, and those that continue with the status quo will lose students and fail. The free market system that has served us so well will have the same effect on our educational product.

For the first time in generations, school choice will allow our students to actually learn the skills necessary to succeed in life.

Because of a quality education, they will have hope for a better tomorrow, understanding that it is better to live in a stable environment than be part of a criminal world in which the lifespan is shorter than those in third-world nations.

Criminals today don't fear the crossfire because they feel they have nothing to live for anyway. Until that mentality is changed, Philadelphians will continue to be held hostage, and more people - including children and police officers - will die.

But instead of action on choice, all we hear are empty promises.

To Mayor Nutter, Gov. Rendell, much of the state legislature and the union leadership who have perpetuated this senseless violence because of their deliberate failure to act, shame on you.

We can only hope that the next Governor and a new legislature will have the political will to do the right thing.

If not, how much more blood will be spilled?

Chris Freind is an independent columnist and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com
Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."
Freind also serves as a weekly guest commentator on the Philadelphia-area talk radio show, Political Talk (WCHE 1520), and makes numerous other television and radio appearances.  He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it