Home › Blogs › No Issues Left Behind
« Kurachi & Stratton | Main | Universal preschool, well, uh, local - universal, Oh Nevermind! »
July 19, 2006
How do you spell double-standard?
N-E-A...
From the USA Today:
Report: NEA pays opponents of No Child Left Behind law
Posted 7/10/2006 10:16 PM ET
By Greg Toppo, USA TODAY
The nation's largest teachers union has spent more than $8 million in a stealth campaign against President Bush's education reform law, paying for research and political opposition in an effort to derail it, according to a Washington think tank that supports the law.
A report to be released today by the group Education Sector says the National Education Association (NEA) has given at least $8.1 million to education, civil rights and policy groups that have opposed or criticized No Child Left Behind, Bush's far-reaching and controversial effort to reform public schools.
The law's critics cried foul in 2005, when documents revealed that the Bush administration paid TV and radio commentator Armstrong Williams $240,000 to promote it on his syndicated programs. The revelations led to a government-wide inquiry.
For the new report, Education Sector senior fellow Joe Williams examined federal tax forms filed by the NEA. He does not charge that the union broke or evaded the law. But "at the very least, it appears the NEA has actively pursued partnerships" with groups fighting the law, he says.
The donations "are not necessarily a quid pro quo," but they are "a connection worth knowing," says Williams, a former education writer for the New York Daily News.
During the union's annual meeting last week, NEA president Reg Weaver noted, "We have all kinds of organizations that want this law changed."
But Williams says the NEA has quietly supported several of these groups, bolstering the impression "that its positions have widespread support."
Weaver says that the NEA supports the law's goals but that it "is fundamentally flawed and changes need to be made. And nobody is more qualified to lead that effort than the people who are in the education front lines every day."
He says 86 groups have joined him to call for changes; though the union "might identify specific research questions we would like to see answered," there is "absolutely no quid pro quo" in the work it finances, he says.
Public support for the law is mixed. An independent survey released last month by the non-profit group Public Agenda found that 15% of teachers and 24% of parents say it is improving local education. Another 21% of parents say it is causing problems, but 55% say they don't know enough about it to judge its effects.
The union sued the federal government last year, saying states and school districts can't be forced to make changes not paid for by Congress. A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit in December.
Joe Williams examined U.S. Labor Department LM-2 forms, which unions had to begin filing last year, and found that the NEA spent about $7.65 million supporting a start-up lobbying group called Communities for Quality Education, which has been critical of the law. The NEA also has funded, to a much lesser extent, other groups critical of the law, including the National Conference of Black Mayors, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the National Conference of State Legislatures and the Harvard Civil Rights Project.
Gary Orfield, the Civil Rights Project's director, says he got support from "a number of funders," none of which tried to control his work, he says. "The test of research is not whether or not it is funded by someone, but whether it is true and the evidence supports the conclusions."
Comments
Arleigh,
Welcome back - Summer vacation?
If what you are saying above, is that the NEA propoganda program is somehow drug related, I think that's a reckless accusation...
hee... hee....
TK
Posted by: Tim Keaney at July 19, 2006 03:46 PMI seem to recall Greg Stratton saying his grandson asked him to get rid of the gophers that were plaguing our school's athletic fields. Students were twisting their ankles on the holes during running excercises.
Yes, I remember that Kurachi demanded $250,000 in Bond funding for the fifty students on average in water polo that participate that equals $5000 per student. SVUSD also paid to build a weight training room at the swimming pool even though they could have used the one at RHS.
Posted by: Gophers? at July 19, 2006 05:25 PMTim,
I think you know that what I was saying with Prop 36, it does not really matter what the Prop was about. The point is the people voted for it, just like Prop 13 or Prop 98 and the politicians in Sacramento should not be changing it/them without going back to the people. I would think we could agree on this. I am not arguing if Prop 36 was good or bad, I have not really studied it to have an opinion, I'm just saying if they open that door, watch out. In terms of propaganda the radio host was paid to say good things about NCLB. With NEA they believe NCLB is flawed and needs to be changed and it has been no secret they have been working to do just that. The Jarvis people campaign against anything they believe goes against Prop 13, that is no secret either, they have that right, them campaigning is not propaganda, they believe in what they do as does NEA, did the radio host believe it, or did the $240,000 make him say it? The Ed Department crossed the line, NEA did not. In terms of not blogging I am tired of the personal attacks (I don't mean you Tim). As soon as it gets personal and away from the issues I'm out of here.
First, I just want to say any discussion on which bond projects were chosen is sort of a moot point by now. We all got the list of projects ahead of time and it passed voter scrutiny overwelmingly. Of more interest is how we make sure as many projects get completed as possible?
Second, Arleigh, I don't think Tim is arguing that the NEA shouldn't have the right to do what they want to do, he is arguing is this really the best use of the NEA's time?
I don't think anyone would dispute that the NEA or the Howard Jarvis association can take positions. The real question to me and others is whether it's a good idea to take positions somewhat outside the real bricks and mortar of school policy.
Can you outline why the NAACP supports NCLB and the teacher unions don't? Civil Rights groups support it because it's closing the education gap while the NEA opposes because of accountability measurements.
Can the inference be made that while the NEA is taking positions on gay marriage, it's opposing civil rights organizations that support NCLB because the law is closing the gap among minority students. Something that never was happening under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Also, many in the civil rights community have said that school choice moves us closer to fully desegregated schools. The NEA has opposed such positions. Could it be said that the NEA opposes further efforts at desegregation?
From a historical perspective, what was the NEA's position on Brown versus Board of Educaiton?
Oh, and I promise to never get personal. The blog is supposed to be a place to share views and even test new ideas out. It's supposed to be a marketplace of competing views, not the Jerry Springer show...
Posted by: Scott B at July 22, 2006 09:21 AM
The Bush Administration was found to have violated the law by the CBO, as taxpayer funds cannot be used for propaganda. The article above states that the NEA has violated no laws. In terms of a "stealth" campaign that is a joke! NCLB is flawed and needs to be changed, NEA has fought the battle to change NCLB for years. The latest White House budget once again cuts funding for NCLB and leaves more unfunded mandates for local districts to cover. The NEA is also a private group, run by the members, the budget is also voted on by the members, they do not face the same restrictions as a taxpayer funded group. The Howard Jarvis people for example are a private group that puts out their side of the story on issues, they are not taxpayer funded. Double standard? I think not. What is a double standard is the fact that you did not blog on the story in the Star on Saturday titled "New Study Shows Public Schools do as Well or Better Than Private Schools". That was based on a study by the Bush Education Department. NEA President Reg Weaver noted in that story how the Ed Department quietly released this report with no press conference as is customary. Another double standard is how there has been little out cry over Arnold changing Prop 36 through legislation, even though it was passed by the people with a large majority. I wonder if there would be any out cry if Arnold had taken Warren Buffett's advice (Buffett was asked by Arnold to give him advice) and changed Prop 13 through legislation and not at the ballot box? Of course by Arnold's action on Prop 36, all voter approved legislation is now subject to change by Sacramento.
Posted by: Arleigh Kidd at July 19, 2006 12:57 PM