Education, politics, and anything else that catches my attention.
Monday, February 08, 2010
To Which Organizations Did NEA Give *Your* Money?
If you wanted to give your money to the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, or to the Asian Pacific American Institute for Congressional Studies, or to Center for American Progress, or to Democracia USA, or to Heifer International, or to GLSEN, or to the Hip Hop Caucus, or to the Joint Center For Political and Economic Studies, or to the Labor-Religion Coalition of New York State, or to the NAACP or NAACP National Voter Fund, or to the National Association for Bilingual Education, or to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Education Fund, or to the National Puerto Rican Coalition, or to No On 10, or to People for the American Way, or to Sacramento Street Partners, or to Teaching For Change, or to the US Fund For UNICEF, or to Vote No On Question B, or to the Zimbabwe Teachers Association--well, if you wanted your money to go to any of these organizations, you could have written a check to any or all of them. Instead, though, the NEA took money from teachers--forcibly, in the case or so-called "fair share" states--and gave that money to these and over 100 other organizations.
And this is news because?
ReplyDeleteThe union movement's always had a distinctly leftward slant to it. Unions fulfill one of the needs of the left by dividing the electorate and providing a rationale for the expansion of government power; the union gets what it wants and politicians, particularly left wing politicians, get what they want.
It's interesting to see the long-term results of such arrangements, particularly in the K-12 system.
A not uncommon complaint is that teachers don't get the respect they were once accorded. A perfectly predictable public response to unions promoting the more mercenary aspects of the teaching profession but dazzling short-term gains trump less obvious long-term losses.
Something similar occurred in the automobile market when foreign marques started making real inroads into the American market. Appeals to patriotism largely fell on deaf ears because of the years of abusive price-increases by American car companies that were necessitated by fat union contracts.
Uhm, yeah. No defense for this. Collective bargaining? Yes. Lobbying on education legislation? Yes. Hip Hop Caucus? No, I don't think so.
ReplyDeleteI don't even want them lobbying on education issues. If they're entitled to my money by law--and they are, here in California--then they should be looking out for *me*. They should only be working to ensure my pay, benefits, and working conditions are appropriate.
ReplyDeleteThe working conditions, pay, and benefits is what I meant by "lobbying on education related issues."
ReplyDeleteIf the state wants to start linking my pay to the results of what I consider to be a flawed standardized state testing model, or if they want to cut state funding to such a level that my class sizes go to fifty, sixty, or a hundred students, or if they want to extend the school year with no increase in compensation, then I want a union up at the capitol arguing for teachers.
But, all the other malarky can go. And I still won't pay for the NEA president to make $400,000/yr.
Just one more reason why I don't belong to my local teachers' association. I teach in a union security state, but neither NEA nor its state affiliate receives a dime
ReplyDeleteof my money.
" mazenko said...
ReplyDeleteUhm, yeah. No defense for this. Collective bargaining? Yes. Lobbying on education legislation? Yes. Hip Hop Caucus? No, I don't think so.
….But, all the other malarky can go. And I still won't pay for the NEA president to make $400,000/yr."
Mazenko, this is promising…you're agreeing with me! You must have had some O2 shipped to you in CO. :<)
Always a pleasure, MikeAT.
ReplyDeleteAnd, Darren and I agreed in a post a couple days ago.
Is this that change the candidates were talking about in 2008?