Shouldn't Children Take Presedence over Unions?

The school choice debate has been further fueled by the presidential race, the strong opposition to choice by president Elect Obama, and the inability to promote real change within the schools. Democrats claim to be strong supporters of public schools and the children they serve. While they may now have more power now to stimulate serious change, they are still servants to the unions. The teacher unions have millions of members, millions of dollars, and strong lobbying means. The Democrats thrive of this group's backing and support. The party serves to support the jobs and the adults running the show, but in doing so, removes the possibility of real change. There are, of course, people within the party, who are willing to show strong support for change; Democrats for Education Reform has been growing and publicly stood up against the unions. Now, we will wait in limbo to see what our new president will do.

The Wall Street Journal's Change Our Public Schools Need lay out what needs to be done within the Democratic party in order for schools to really have change:

Democrats also have to get serious about school choice. The unions oppose it because they don't want one student or one dollar to leave the regular public schools, where their members teach. So the Democrats have been timid and weak in putting choice to productive use -- even though their constituents are the ones trapped in deplorably bad urban schools, whose futures are being ruined, and who are desperate for new educational opportunities.
If children were their sole concern, Democrats would be the champions of school choice. They would help parents put their kids into whatever good schools are out there, including private schools. They would vastly increase the number of charter schools. They would see competition as healthy and necessary for the regular public schools, which should never be allowed to take kids and money for granted.