Some actions defy explanation [1] (emphasis mine):

Several parents and members of the Leominster School Committee said Monday they are upset that the teachers' union voted recently to reject a large grant that seeks to increase the number of students in Advanced Placement courses.

"I think it's a vote against children," School Committee vice chairwoman Donna DiNinno said. "This would have been such a boost for students in our AP and honors program. I am very disappointed."

School Committee member Christopher Orareo said he does not understand how the union could turn down a grant that would have provided the district with $856,000 during a five-year period, when the community is fighting for every penny it can get into the classrooms.

"I'm just astounded this vote has taken place," Orareo said. "Students are the biggest losers in this whole thing. I think it was a selfish vote on the part of the union."

Why were local union bosses so eager to axe a generous grant program that promised more teacher training, more advanced placement courses, and merit pay for high-performing educators?

This latest instance of teacher union obstructionism illustrates one of the many problems with monopoly bargaining. No organization should be able to veto a school's attempt to secure additional funding, just as no organization should be in a position to prevent talented teachers from aspiring to better pay and more challenging coursework. Why should the union activists dictate public schools' educational policies and give short shrift to individual teachers who deserve to be rewarded for their merit?