Home › Blogs › No Issues Left Behind
« Audits in LA LA Land... | Main | The "whatever" generation »
January 27, 2006
Teachers - what's LEFT in your wallet?
Or should we ask, what interest groups on the LEFT are keeping you from having more money for classroom supplies, or to spend on your family?
My teacher friends are ticked:
1. They have to spend their own money on supplies, even tissues (didn't Heather say education should be free?)
2. Classrooms are overstuffed and termite infested
3. Classroom books and materials are outdated, missing or misshipped
4. And now, their National Union, the NEA, is spending money (read: union dues) on causes that many teachers themselves disagree with. My favorite is this one:
The next time the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank that received $45,000 from the NEA last year, issues a report slamming school choice, we'll have to wonder whether it was bought and paid for by the teachers unions.
Read the editorial and ask yourself - What would be the union's motivation to spend money so LIBERALLY?
And while you're at it - ask your favorite teacher, who until this disclosures were made public, probably had no idea of such Union largess.
Here's the editorial from the WSJ:
Teachers' Pets (Cont'd)
January 27, 2006; Page A8
Our recent editorial on the political spending of the National Education Association has caused something of a stir, and not always of the illuminating kind. In a letter to the editor on January 13, NEA President Reg Weaver claimed we misread the data his union has released to the Labor Department Web site. We didn't, but we appreciate the opportunity to draw more attention to the NEA's spending priorities.
New transparency rules now require large unions like the NEA to reveal more detailed financial information in forms (known as LM-2s) that they file annually with Labor. What caught our attention in the NEA's most recent filing is the extent to which it behaved more like a liberal philanthropy than a labor union in dispensing the $295 million in member dues it took in last year.
Under the new regulations, which Big Labor fought, unions itemize expenditures under categories like "general overhead," "political activities and lobbying" and "contributions, gifts and grants." In his letter, Mr. Weaver suggests that only a very small percentage of union dues money is steered toward politics, while the vast majority goes "straight to our local and state affiliates for education programs and member services." Nice try.
What Mr. Weaver didn't reveal is that the NEA also works though these same state affiliates to further its political goals by bankrolling ballot and legislative initiatives. To that end, the Kentucky Education Association received $250,000 from the NEA last year; the Michigan Education Association received $660,000; and the California Teachers Association received $2.5 million. We doubt this cash goes into buying more laptops for poor students.
And then there's the money that the NEA sends directly to sympathetic interest groups working at the state level, such as the $500,000 that went to Protect Our Public Schools, an anti-charter outfit in Washington State (never mind that charters are "public schools," albeit ones allowed to operate outside the teachers' union education monopoly).
Often, the recipients of these outlays have at best a tangential education mission. The Floridians For All Committee, a political action committee created by pro-labor Acorn to push for a minimum-wage hike, received $250,000 from the NEA last year. And the Fund to Protect Social Security received $400,000. In total, the NEA reports spending $25 million on "political activities and lobbying." But that doesn't tell the whole story.
The NEA spent another $65.5 million on "contributions, gifts and grants," and many of the recipients listed under this category are also overtly politicized organizations: the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation ($40,000), the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute ($35,000), the Democratic Leadership Council ($25,000). The next time the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank that received $45,000 from the NEA last year, issues a report slamming school choice, we'll have to wonder whether it was bought and paid for by the teachers unions.
None of this is to suggest that the NEA or Mr. Weaver is engaging in any illicit behavior. Our point was to alert both the public, and especially the 2.7 million NEA members, that their forced dues payments are being spent on an agenda that could have been compiled by the most liberal members of the Democratic National Committee. And thanks to these new disclosure rules, this agenda is now out in the open, where it belongs
---end WSJ editorial---
Comments
The WSJ hates unions and so it tells lots of lies about them, or leaves out facts or twists the truth. Funny how Tim never seems outraged when people like Delay or Duke Cunningham are caught breaking the law, unlike the Unions that follow the law. They, the WSJ, get their money from corporate America and they turn a blind eye to the fact that corporate America is plundering the country. Amgen announced today a record 12.4 billion dollar profit, yet they tell our elderly that they would go broke if they lowered drug costs. In terms of Unions and their spending it is the Unions business as directed by the members. Classrooms are falling apart because the state and federal governments will not invest in them because they need to give the money back to the richest of the rich as directed by Bush and Cheney.
Posted by: Arleigh Kidd at January 27, 2006 10:09 AMI have blasted Delay plenty on this blog, and Duke Cunningham will rot in jail (but still get his congressional pension, does that seem right to any body?)
The point here is - Wouldn't these millions of dollars be better spent on the kids, in the classroom, on the teacher where they will have the most impact?
I would bet if a simple vote to the "members" asked:
Check where you would like your dues spent (Check one please)
1. More money for my classroom so I can have more of the resources I need to teach effectively, or
2. Please send our union dues to Liberal special interest groups who have never stepped foot inside a classroom
I wonder how that vote would go?
Tim
Posted by: Tim Keaney at January 27, 2006 10:54 AMArleigh:
I always get a good chuckle when you go into corporate bashing mode. C'mon, not all corporations are plundering the landscape. Just like not all unions are out to destroy America by turning it into a communist nation or that all teachers are out to turn the children into liberals.
I seem to remember a lot of corporations participating in a lot of events like the Ed Foundation. They all can't be evil.
C'mon, who is your favorite corporation? You can tell us.
You want to bash a company, bash Ford. In the last two years they've deferred 4 billion in state and local income taxes, the government has allowed Ford to merge with volvo and all these other smaller companies over the past eight years using way too much debt to do it, and now 25,000 white and blue collar jobs are lost while reporting 7 billion net income for Wall Street. Sounds like incompetent leadership to me.
Why does the NEA give so much to groups that really aren't in the education business?
Scott
Tim:
I think the number one reason why there is so many contributions going into different interest groups is because there is just so much money in politics as it is....
There is a total competition to give and influence on both sides of the corporate/union issue.
If unions didn't give, anti-union groups would win and change all the laws against unions. If corporations didn't give so much, pro-union people would get elected and enact pro union laws.
Scott
Scott
Posted by: Scott Blough at January 27, 2006 11:30 AMScott - Scott:
I would agree with you if the money was going to specific candidates. If the money (and a lot is, but a lot isn't - read the editorial) was going JUST to candidates, that would be one thing. But rather, the money is going to specific liberal interest groups. These groups influence policy, not elections (unless they then spend the money the NEA gives on candidates, which would then be money laundering, but I digress, and no one is accusing them of this).
See Scott, there is always going to be money in politics. It's too bad the NEA think's it's better spent on:
"Floridians for All"
"The Fund to Protect Social Security"
"The Economic Policy Institute"
Instead of on kids, teachers and classroom supplies.
So I guess so long as Johnny & Janey can read leftist political literature, then well, they can READ!
Our kids deserve better.
Tim
Posted by: Tim Keaney at January 27, 2006 11:50 AMScott,
You know what Republican business people are called? Evil
You know what Democrat business people are called? Philanthropists
Tim
Okay, but corporations do the same thing on policy too. Look at the corporate donors for let's say the CATO institute. Corporate donors fund it and the institute sends out a daily policy briefing, which is policy oriented toward the free market.
Maybe, the NEA supported that Fund to protect Social Security to look at ways to give teachers the social security money they no longer get because of their state pension.
I'm not real sure about Floridians for All...
BTW, I'm not saying that giving money is wrong. Any group should be able to determine where they want to participate in politics. I do appreciate the transparency though.
Unfortunately, with 527's and some PAC's we still don't know who's behind certain expenditures.
By the way, I recommend the CATO institute daily emailer along with every other think tank you can get an emailer from. They provide great biased research, but provide different perspectives for you to think about and entertain.
Scott
Posted by: Scott Blough at January 27, 2006 12:05 PMScott,
In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan, "there you go again"...
If the mission statement of the NEA, and say, Microsoft or GE were the same, I would understand and respect your point.
Except, they're not. The role of a business is to make a profit, and thus, to advocate on behalf of things that make them more profitable (including less regulation etc...)
The NEA on the other hand, is a labor union committed to advancing the cause of public education (according to its own web site)...
I'm not saying you can't criticize where business spends it's money, but business leaders and CEO's are accountable to shareholders if the business loses money (heard of Michael Eisner??). If corporate boards are too stupid to regulate their own CEO's, well then pox on their houses.
But who are the shareholders of the NEA? The individual, dues paying teacher. How exactly to they get to hold Reg Weaver accountable for blowing their dues on things that don't directly impact the classroom?
Have you noticed that you and I are the only ones debating this?
T
Posted by: Tim Keaney at January 27, 2006 12:18 PMDarn those corporate warlords!!!!
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation said it will triple its funding commitments for tuberculosis research to $900 million from the current $300 million over the next decade.
The Seattle-based family foundation of Microsoft Corp. founder Bill Gates released its plan this morning in Davos, Switzerland. The Gates funding helps kick off a round of new funding needed to support a new plan, also released at the World Economic Forum, called the Global Plan to Stop TB 2006-2015.
Tim,
So your saying that when corporations are giving, they are only giving to make a profit? According to you, they are only after a profit. I think business have a lot of good people in them willing to give to their community.
I'm not a member of the NEA, but your interpretation leaves a few things out. You said their mission is to advance education, so according to you, if the NEA helps negotiate better salaries or benefits that's not totally related to education, so they are outside their vision.
Yes, it appears we are the only ones debating this.
I'm still waiting to find out Arleigh's favorite corporation...
Scott
Posted by: Scott Blough at January 27, 2006 12:34 PMScott,
They have not legalized the growing and distribution of hemp in this state just yet, but it is coming, so I don't know where you are getting yours, but...
Where in what I said, do you read, that salary negotiations is outside of their vision? Of course it is - having quality, professionally paid teachers is well within their vision.
The NEA should be about promoting education and supporting teachers and students. Just like the UAW should be about helping manufacturers build better cars - oh right...
NEVERMIND!
T
Posted by: Tim Keaney at January 27, 2006 02:27 PMTim,
Shouldn't the Chamber of Commerce spend the dues money of its members by giving it to the businesses that support it? Or do they spend their money lobbying for businesses at the expense of workers? Why should a business even pay dues to the Chamber, should they not invest that money back into their business? Does this argument make sense? If not, neither does yours. Your saying teachers should not be allowed to pay dues and should instead spend that money out of their own pocket paying for supplies etc, that is the states job, not theirs. NEA spends money promoting a better climate for schools, just like the Chamber does for business. See what I mean?
Tim:
I'm a DARE graduate and I've always said no to drugs. I'm using your statement here when you quoted the NEA website.
"The NEA on the other hand, is a labor union committed to advancing the cause of public education (according to its own web site)..." Tim Keaney
You need to define your scope before you go on offense becuase you could make the argument that giving money to the DLC or the democratic party advances the cause of public education.
Has a Republican or Republican interest group ever advocated a raise in teacher pay to attract qualified public teachers? I can't think of one republican that has... Can you? Well, you don't count...
Scott
Posted by: Scott Blough at January 27, 2006 05:38 PMScott,
Sorry, I am an LAUSD graduate, so I am having a difficult time following your arguments...
However, if what you are asking, is do any dark, corporate overlords ever advocate on behalf of teachers and paying teachers more, you can see what former IBM CEO Lou Gerstner is doing at:
www.theteachingcommission.org
Here is a tidbit:
For too long, while other professions have refined modern incentives for excellence, state-of-the-art professional development, smart recruiting strategies, and innovations in accountability, teaching has lagged behind.
Teacher pay is not competitive with other professions, and almost all districts rely on an out-of-date single salary schedule that fails to reward teachers for what matters most: improving student achievement.
Instead of responding to the market need for more math, science, and special education teachers or for educators to serve in predominantly low-income and minority schools, states and school districts are doing little to attract the best and brightest to the classrooms where they’re needed most.
Instead of raising their standards, many teacher education programs remain behind the times—failing to offer the most rigorous possible education to teachers-in-training.
Instead of welcoming smart, motivated, and qualified professionals from other walks of life into the profession, the profession’s high barriers to entry drive too many aspiring teachers away.
Instead of offering useful on-the-job training and mentorship, too many school systems offer ineffective professional development that leaves educators to sink or swim.
The Teaching Commission believes that the best way to improve academic achievement is to elevate and modernize the teaching profession. And the only way to do that is to help states and communities around the country build broad, bipartisan coalitions for reform.
---end---
Sorry Scott, but I am the one being consistent here. I think we should all give some thought to what the Teaching Commission is up to.
All of us, including the NEA.
Posted by: Tim Keaney at January 27, 2006 05:54 PMTim:
Yes, and the unions feel that that democrats will actually support teacher quality proposals, just like most corporations think republicans will benefit their business. I'm not sure why you are so shocked by the fact that the unions give to democrats who support their proposals and corporations give to republicans who support their proposals.
What teacher quality proposals are Republicans putting forth this year? I checked the RNC.org and under issues nothing on education is listed.
I go to the DNC and they do have education proposals listed for the record. Here's something republicans don't talk about... Sky-rocketing tuition to college. By the time your kids enter college it'll cost 6 figures for a four year education at the rate it's going.
I know these days, it's unpopular to talk about rising college tuition and that junior colleges ar more unaffordable because it's reality. Reality is something very foreign to our political dialogue these days.
Do you think that huge student loan debt may be pushing recent college graduates to take jobs that pay better than teaching. I mean c'mon, if you get to choose a profession and you have 45K in student debt, will you choose to go get more debt through the credentialing system, so you can face between three and five incongruent accountability systems because the feds and states still can't figure out which one they want to go with or will you just go get a job at a bank?
Where are the proposals from Republicans on teacher quality and attracting teachers to the profession?
Where are the proposals on making college affordable?
Do you understand why the NEA would give to the DNC or the DLC now? They both actually are talking about teacher quality programs.
You said, "Instead of offering useful on-the-job training and mentorship, too many school systems offer ineffective professional development that leaves educators to sink or swim."
Can you provide me with a specific example here?
While I agree that people with their masters degrees or doctorates should not have to go through the state credentialing system and should be fast-tracked into the profession, I believe that most mentorship programs for beginning teachers are pretty good. Sure, things can always be better, but unless you can give specific examples and evidence to "ineffective professional development" programs, it's tough to make your argument make sense.
I think a great proposal is to allow teachers to partner with corporations to develop classroom management programs and give some real business experience to teachers. I'm willing to bet that most teachers have not had the benefit of an organizational managment class and corporate leadership training needed to be effective. Who has put the barrier up here?
Scott
Scott,
There is an interesting new degree-the Masters in Organizational Leadership--that might be useful to teachers to train them along side corporate/non-profit/law enforcement people. Maybe this in the kind of cross-pollination that you were envisioning. I am very impressed with the syllabus for this degree at Woodbury and the University of La Verne. I know a lot of teachers who would rather learn these subjects than be stuck in more ed classes. Also, the Masters in Public Policy is also a terrific program. It stresses ethics. I wish school districcts would hire more public school administrators with this business degree.
I do have some compliments for the teacher training in Simi Valley that new hires go through. I hear that the BITSA program managed by the County is excellent. I have my doubts as to the value of some of the other expensive workshops and seminars that veteran teachers attend. This specialized "industry" seems to exploit the system, since the folks who are really paying the tuition--the taxpayers--have no say as to the value of these programs. Some cost upwards of $300 a day, plus the teacher's daily pay, plus the cost of a sub. Are students really learning on the days that their teachers are absent? And will the district really benefit from what that teacher heard that day? The teachers are not obligated to write a report on such workshops. How do we know they are beneficial? I believe they are mostly a boondoggle perk that teachers use to get another day off. There seem to be very, very few that are useful. However, many of the in-house low-cost workshops that Simi puts on are of specific and identifiable value to educators. Kudus to Simi on this.
Posted by: Cathy Carlson at January 28, 2006 04:33 PMCathy:
I appreciate your words on certain programs available to teachers. What I see is two distinct programs here. First, we have continuing education programs. Second, we have teacher workshop days where the students have the day off and teachers get together and work on different proposals.
To my understanding, CA teachers are taught to use the direct instruction model. I'd like to know your take on this teaching model and whether it enhances or hurts student abilit?
Also, to my understanding, teacher training and quality improvements are handled at the county schools level where all school districts pool their resources on this one? Does this work, not just in saving money, but is it effective?
I do want to see more corss-pollination as you call it. I'd like to give teachers access to some of the best corporate trainers in management and I'd also like to see more emphasis placed on best practices.
I think a lot of this is being done, but I'd like to see more being done and develop programs around outcomes, not just inputs.
Scott
Does anyone know on average how much paperwork a teacher processes on a daily basis?
I think some interesting studies would be to look at how much paperwork and bureaucracy teachers deal with on a daily basis and look at ways to utilize technology to minimize it, so more time could be spent on the student's strengths and weaknesses.
Teacher time in the classroom is precious time and sometimes I feel like teachers are spending too much time just trying to get through the huge amount of homework they have assigned on a weekly basis.
Let's say a math teacher assigns a homework 60 math problem assignment for the 36 kids in each of the teacher's 5 classes. If every student turns in their homework that's 180 pieces of homework with 90 problems each to go through.
Do you see what I'm getting at? I'm not saying teachers shouldn't give homework, but what efforts are being made to minimize the amount of time doing the repetitive more administrative side of teaching?
I think a quality teacher should be ananlyzing the data from homework assignments and drawing up strategies for improvement and implementing that.
If a CEO and managers needs an administrative team to get the more administrative side of their job done while they design programs to improve performance, does anyone think teacher might need the same?
I hardly think teachers have the time to draw up those strategies if the more administrative side of their job takes up more than 15% of their total job time.
Scott
Posted by: Scott Blough at January 29, 2006 11:30 AMI see the Enron trial starts today. Do you think they gave Bush all that money to promote an "Enron" climate? Or did they just want a well spoken guy in the White House? Cathy always bash's teachers, gee, I wonder if that is why they don't support her? Tim you never answered my question about why the California Chamber of Commerce gave all that money to Arnold in a losing cause. Would not that money have been better spent on infrastructure that would benefit business? By giving money to the Chamber are they not robbing the consumer of lower prices? Could they not have used that dues money instead to lower prices!
Posted by: Arleigh Kidd at January 30, 2006 09:46 AMIf the Cal Chamber was spending actual dues to support the Governor or his politics, I would be pretty ticked. I think the Cal Chamber should be spending it's money helping business grow and prosper and cutting the undue burden on business in California. If California isn't careful, most new jobs will be provided by the state and local governments (hardly a recipe for economic growth).
At the same time, the Cal Chamber doesn't spend dues on politics or politicians. The Cal Chamber PAC does, which is funded independantly of member dues. The members can or can decide not to support the PAC.
Is this how the NEA works? If Teacher A decides not to support the NEA politics, can they not have their money go to the PAC?
Tim
Posted by: Tim Keaney at January 30, 2006 04:39 PMTim,
NEA uses no dues for politics. They have a PAC called the Fund For Children. What is the purpose of having a Chamber of Commerce?
Arleigh:
I think the local democratic party is a member of the chamber of commerce. Is the SEA/CTA/CSEA?
Scott
Posted by: Scott Blough at January 31, 2006 09:54 AMScott,
SEA is a member of the Chamber. What do you and Tim see as the mission of the Chamber? What do they do with the dues money? Tim, I noticed you did not print a blog on the story in the Daily News about the new math study. It showed that public school students do better in math then students in private school or charter schools. Did you not see the story?
I've always viewed the Chamber in terms of developing business opportunities for their members through networking, developing public leadership, and educating the public about the needs of the business community.
I have no problem with organizations being political or participating on politics financially. This would indicate to me that they would take pro-business positions at the chamber and support their members.
If you participate with the chamber or the NEA, it goes without saying, your membership fees will be used for politics...
I think an interesting donation is the Democratic Leadership Council. The DLC essentailly has made the argument for over fifteen years for charter schools and even charter districts.
Does the NEA support charter schools and charter districts?
Scott
Posted by: Scott Blough at January 27, 2006 09:49 AM