Don't get me wrong. Mike Petrilli's much-needed analysis of teacher characteristics ("Why teachers like Mike") is on the mark. Teachers' political preferences reflect the make-up of their workforce (mostly white, middle-aged females). Where he erred (in my humble opinion) is in equating those preferences with a teacher-union endorsement of a particular candidate. The unions' endorsements reflect the make-up of their officers and most-active members (who are relatively less white, older, and more male and liberal than teachers as a whole). As for Huckabee, I think his is a rhetorical endorsement, and I think the confusion among everyone about his position on school choice corroborates that.
There is a genuine split between older and younger teachers, as Petrilli described ("Older teachers for Clinton, younger teachers for Obama?"). The younger teachers aren't frightened by merit pay, don't care overmuch about pensions, and are not likely to remain in teaching for 30 years like their predecessors. But, again, that split does not equal the split over Obama and Clinton. Sure, there's overlap, but the teachers' union has a history with Clinton that they don't have with Obama, and Clinton is an icon for teacher activists for a host of reasons. The American Federation of Teachers endorsed her, and there is no doubt in my mind that the National Education Association would have endorsed her already if Reg Weaver was not a (mostly closet) Obama supporter.
One final thing: Teachers' unions are single-issue endorsers, but teachers aren't single-issue voters.
Mike Antonucci
Education Intelligence Agency
