> That may be (or not), but we're talking about political activity in the open, which has little/no relationship with protecting teachers against administrative sanctions wrt false accusations of child abuse.
> "Administrative sanctions" is key - criminal accusations ARE public.
You brought up criminal actions, I did not as by default they would be public (except when they aren't). I also said absolutely nothing about administrative sanctions, you also added that. There are a significant number of issues in which the teachers union is involved between teachers and administrators that have absolutely nothing to do with "administrative sanctions" including handling disputes between administrators and teachers, parents and teachers, contract disputes, etc. None of those are public. Some of them have a net positive effect because they head off civil action against the school district which saves the district and tax payers money.
> Interestingly enough, teachers aren't the only people accused of such activities. And when other people are so accused, it's public.
This is actually not the case. This is true if the police are involved or an action ends up in the courts (family court for example). If CPS is involved with a family initially there may be zero law enforcement involvement. If that is the case the records are not public, and would only become public should legal action be taken against the accused or the family courts become involved for the purpose of separating children from the family or returning a child to a family, etc. Even in cases where legal action is taken, if no criminal charges are filed the details of the situation are often not public as records will be sealed to protect the minors involved.
As far as teachers being at risk, due to the amount of time that teachers are with children, and due to district policies teachers may be at greater risk than anyone else. An example of this is restrictions on how students can be placed in classes. While there are special education or alternate education facilities for some students, not all qualify or will be provided with those services. As such students with emotional disturbance, for example, may often end up in regular classes. In one case my wife had a student that was severely disturbed and through the course of a school year made outlandish claims not about my wife, but the other students and several other teachers at the school. None of these claims had any merit, and thankfully the school was aware of her situation. It took severe pressure from the union for the district to reconsider their policy on student placement in these cases. Their decision appears to have absolutely nothing to do with the risk these students or teachers may have been exposed to, but limiting the potential liability should the parents of one of the affected students choose to sue.
Now if you want to restrict the discussion to one: "political activity" and two "in the open" there are still things that can be pointed to as positives. I will bring up a current issue in my own community. For the current fiscal year the school district is short $30 million dollars. This is going to be handled via service cuts, the loss of about 100 teachers and some other things. For the most part it's manageable, though unpleasant. The next fiscal year however will be devastating to the budget and no one is talking about it _except_ for the teachers union. It is estimated that the budget for the next school year will be short at least $60 million and as much as $90 million. This means that the district will lose half of its teachers, all of its certified personnel and most or all of its aids. There will be many school closings, and class room sizes will increase from the current 25-30 at the primary level and 30-35 at the secondary level to as many as 45 in primary grades and 50 in the secondary grades.
The teachers union has been trying to make this issue public, address the state legislature, and find a solution for the last 90 days. Unfortunately since so many people seem to despise teachers unions there has been very little public following. Now the district has decided to admit that this is the a real issue, that the numbers are correct, and ask teachers to try to get the state legislature to do something about it. The school district is still not going before the public and explaining that their children are going to have severely diminished educational opportunities. Only the teachers union is discussing that this can negatively impact the growth of the local populace and the local economy. If this does actually occur (it most certainly will) the local education system which is already 49th in per pupil spending, and doing poorly in graduation rates will become even worse. Those are both incentives for families to not move to the area, and for businesses to not move or start here (lack of educated labor pool).
While teachers unions may be actively trying to do good things, for both teachers and their students. The press tends to only cover the negative.