The PLSEA Argument: You Can Say It Again, It Still Doesn’t Make It True
Previously on Smith for School Board…
I recently shared that I was endorsed by the PLSEA for the 2026 campaign and discussed the accusations that such an endorsement was a conflict of interest (it’s not). My argument was simple: you can’t be anti-union, but pro-teacher. In making my argument, I went through each claim from candidate Rick Storlie, weighed the evidence behind it, and showed where the claims were either false, or misleading.
A conclusion is only as good as the information you used to support it. This information must be judged dispassionately, and if the data doesn’t hold up, the conclusion doesn’t either. This is not something that exists only within the decision making process itself. The process starts all over again when new information becomes available later. Does this new information agree with what you established before, or are the original findings weakened under further scrutiny?
It is because of this process that I am returning to the discussion about the PLSEA for another blog post. Since my original post, two things have happened; Storlie repeated a claim about the board's authority that didn't hold up the first time he made it, and the distinction I drew between supporting teachers and questioning their union, has been challenged.
What do you say we take a look at both and see whether the evidence actually justifies changing what I said?
In a post shared on his campaign Facebook page, Storlie says, “When the PLSEA is choosing their preferred candidates to… negotiate on behalf of district tax payers.”
This is now three separate instances where Storlie repeats the same false claim about the board’s role in negotiations. As if that pattern weren’t clear enough, he added a fourth instance when a commenter correctly pointed out that the board is not involved in negotiations. His response to being told (yet again) was, “that is a 100% false statement.” The evidence provided for this claim? The very same article he made the original erroneous claim in.
Storlie goes on to say that the PLSEA will “[use] those same board members to install their preferred ideology into PLSAS curriculum.”
Like the conflict of interest claim he originally made, this sounds plausible. That is, until you look at the evidence.
Policy 603 outlines how curriculum is developed and evaluated. For the most part, that responsibility belongs to district staff and the Teaching and Learning Advisory Committee (TLAC), which includes two board members alongside parents/guardians, teachers, support staff, community residents, and administration.
With that structure in mind, let's play this out. For Storlie's scenario to work, PLSEA-endorsed candidates would need to be elected, assigned to TLAC, and joined there by PLSEA teachers. None of that is guaranteed. The policy calls for "teachers," not "PLSEA teachers," and no seat on the committee is reserved for a union-endorsed candidate.
Setting all of that aside, let's pretend it plays out exactly as Storlie describes. PLSEA’s endorsed candidates would still need to convince the other committee members to go along. The curriculum would still need to meet state standards and show viable data, and the result would still go to the full board for discussion and a vote.
Now, I’m not saying the planets would need to align for this to happen. What I am saying is that there is power in oversimplification. It’s necessary for Storlie to allege this is a foregone conclusion, because that raises the stakes. It scares people because it sounds dangerous, and not only that, it sounds dangerously easy to do. The reality is this is only possible if a very particular sequence of events occurs.
As for the original PLSEA video and companion blog, there were two primary challenges to this material. The first, was a comment posted to the video by Jason Allen that requires a response.
Allen spends the majority of his comment pointing to a disciplinary matter from before I served on the board, involving people other than me, as evidence that I don’t treat teachers equally. I’ll just simply say that an event I had no part in, before I was elected to this role, is evidence of absolutely nothing.
After that, Allen insists “the state and national unions endorse the very same candidates who are endorsed by the local unions” is evidence that these groups are “intertwined and are not independent of each other.”
Yes, the PLSEA’s dues flow upward, though this is hardly evidence that they operate as one entity. I suppose in an effort to strengthen this tepid argument, Allen goes on to say “state and national unions endorse… candidates who are endorsed by the local unions as well.”
This is partly true. The National Education Association (NEA) and American Federation of Teachers (AFT) do not endorse local candidates. I’ll even link the website so you can take a look. As for Education Minnesota, yes, they do endorse the very same candidates.
Then again, it would be weird if they didn’t, seeing as how they’re simply sent the information from the PLSEA. Again, you can look for yourself, but their voter guide clearly states “school board endorsements or recommendations are made by local unions.”
While entertaining to read through, you know what’s never addressed throughout the entire comment? My central argument.
Nothing to counter that this is not a conflict of interest.
Nothing to exonerate Storlie, or defend his false claims.
Nothing aside from narrowing in on one statement I made.
Another source, the anonymous blog ‘Students First PLSAS’, accuses me of enacting a strawman (misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack) and then spends roughly 1,300 words never addressing what exactly I misrepresented, or rebutting my argument that Storlie was wrong.
Instead, and in similar fashion to Allen I might add, nearly the entire piece references unrelated evidence that was either, not in dispute, or irrelevant to my original post. Topics such as NEA political spending, AFT's activism mission, Paulo Freire and critical pedagogy, social emotional learning, DEI, Communism, and perhaps a dozen other buzzwords. PLSEA itself isn't specifically named until more than halfway through. That's what we in the business refer to as an evidentiary bait-and-switch. List your long runway of distant, unconnected material to build up before you ever reach your actual subject. That way, the accumulated unease attaches to PLSEA without ever really being about PLSEA.
Ironically, after the author attempts to bury the point four dream-levels deep, Inception-style, they support my argument while undercutting Storlie's own. They accurately point out, “There is nothing inherently improper about a union endorsing candidates.”
THANK YOU! This is what I’ve been trying to say all along!
A few final thoughts on the PLSEA Facebook post from Storlie. This same post starts with him stating “A teacher belonging to an organization that helps them negotiate pay and benefits has no reflection on them as a qualified and skilled educator. I support all teachers who choose union representation!”
If we’re to believe Allen, and Students First PLSAS, this isn’t about the PLSEA. They’re not the problem. They’re simply part of a system where an inordinate amount of influence is applied to ensure the preferred candidates of state and national organizations are elected. If that’s truly the case, then why does Storlie continue to go out of his way to say PLSEA, and not NEA or AFT?
As I said last time: you can’t be anti-union, but pro-teacher. It’s alleging concealment and bad motive while claiming to support the individuals involved.
Trust is not built on dishonesty.
Telling someone they have your trust, and immediately turning around to proclaim that they’ll violate that trust if given the opportunity is not just irresponsible. It’s reprehensible.