Our Good Friends at the NEA

It's been a long time since I've written about the predominant teachers union, and all of a sudden two stories pop up!

I've believed for a long time that if you scratch a leftie, a totalitarian bleeds--and totalitarians love nothing more than killing people, because getting rid of people who don't think like they do is how totalitarians stay in power.  So it is with NEA u-bots:

A member of the board of directors of the National Education Association (NEA) posted a message to Facebook that denounced unvaccinated individuals who claim religious exemptions and asserted they deserved to die, according to the Libs of Tik Tok social media account, which shared a screenshot of the post on Tuesday. 

Mollie Paige Mumau, a Pennsylvania teacher and member of the board of directors of the NEA, appears to identify herself as an “educator, wife, union advocate, semi-pro wine drinker, LGBTQ ally, and ‘Team Pfizer.’”

You can see the screenshot at the link. 

Next, the NEA is going to bring Texas to its knees by moving (canceling?) its annual convention Nuremberg Rally:

Thousands of delegates to the National Education Association Representative Assembly will not be meeting in Dallas in July as scheduled, and the reason has nothing to do with COVID-19.

The union took the unprecedented step of canceling its Texas plans due to its displeasure with a series of bills that came out of a special session of the state legislature having to do with voting, abortion and critical race theory, internal NEA sources say. Several state affiliates had threatened not to send their delegates to the convention if it were held in Texas...

Considering the estimated 6,000 delegates involved and hotel rooms needed, it will be difficult to find another venue on such short notice. One source reports that NEA is looking at Chicago and Orlando as possible destinations. If an alternative cannot be found, the 2022 assembly will be held online...

A complicating factor is whether NEA is willing to continue down this boycott path. Will it schedule future meetings only in blue states? That could get tricky and expensive.

Gotta love all that tolerance.

The Impact of the Janus Ruling On the NEA's Income

Some thought unions would come to an end after the Janus ruling.  Some thought it would invigorate the union movement out of fear.  Neither came true:

When it came to money, at least, all that sound and fury signified nothing.

The combined annual incomes of the National Education Association and its state affiliates as of Aug. 31, 2019, was $1,663,883,934. That was an increase of $45,727 from the previous year, or 0.003 percent.

That’s not to say there was no effect whatsoever. Thirty-one state affiliates lost members that year, and 24 saw a reduction in revenues. But there is no consistent correlation between membership levels or revenues and states where there were either #RedforEd protests or agency fee laws.

All the financial information comes from the unions’ annual disclosure reports for the Internal Revenue Service detailing their income and expenditures. These are public records, but the pandemic created a long delay before the IRS made many of them available.

Now that I'm not required to give them a cent of my money, it doesn't matter to me if they grow, shrink, or stay steady.  I just want them to leave me alone.

NEA Hides Behind Children In Upcoming Budget Cuts

The NEA cares about children only as much as they create a demand for teachers.  Here they are, hiding behind children in a naked attempt to get more dues-paying members:

Two months after the coronavirus pandemic forced schools across the country to close their doors, educators and students remain hunkered down in their homes teaching and learning remotely. Everybody is doing the best they can, but the challenges around distance learning are formidable – and will likely remain so until school re-opens. But what “back-to-school” this year will actually look like to students, educators and parents is shrouded in uncertainty.

What is clear is that the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed and exacerbated the inequities facing our most vulnerable students.

There we go. They care.

“Educators and parents are making their voice heard to ensure that students do not pay the price in this crisis,” said Eskelsen García, who cited a recent NEA survey revealing that almost 90% of the public school parents approve  of how educators are doing their job during the pandemic – higher marks than they gave their governor or mayor.

Eskeslen-García said re-opening the economy and communities can’t happen until we re-open schools. And we can’t re-open schools until students have what they need to be safe, to learn and succeed.

What do these children need?  More money for their teachers!  More money for computers!  In a time when states, due to their own mandated shutdowns, have huge holes in their budgets.  California is looking at a 25% loss in state income, and somehow schools, which take up about 50% of the state budget, are supposed to be immune to this? 

I don't want to take a pay cut any more than the next guy, but no amount of unicorn farts is going to save teachers from sharing some of the pain.  I anticipate pay freezes and perhaps furlough days, at least for the next year.  At least I didn't lose my job, as so many other taxpayers have.

The rest of the article is more "children need to feel safe!" ridiculum (I think I just invented a word there).  Children will feel safe if the adults don't tell them they're unsafe.  And I don't even have an Ed.D. to figure that out.

Either Education Is Important, Or It's Not

In the army I learned that "perfection is the enemy of the good enough."  President Reagan once remarked that someone who agrees with you 80% of the time is not your enemy, despite that 20% opposition, but your ally.  Life seldom gives problems where the solutions are black and white, choose your level of gray.

That is what came to my head as I read this story about not teaching.  We teachers like to chant the mantra that education is the solution to all of society's ills, but things are different in Berkeley:

In Berkeley, California’s most progressive city, they aren’t educating anyone online because of equity issues. Using Titanic-style logic (“Since we can’t save everyone on the Titanic, let’s make everyone stay on board and go down with the ship!”), district officials maintain that because not every student has a computer or access to the internet, no one should get educated. And this mentality has not only infected Berkeley. School districts in Kentucky, Washington state and elsewhere have succumbed to Titanic logic.

Education is the solution to all of society's ills until it conflicts with the political philosophy of "equity"; when that happens, toss education aside.  It's better to have no education at all than to have some education for some people, even if only temporarily.  Must. Have. Perfection.

Similarly, if Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos proposes something, it must be bad, right?

On the national level, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has suggested that Congress should consider microgrants to help teachers with online learning, especially for disadvantaged students. The proposal would target kids whose schools have been closed for at least 30 days and are either eligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or are enrolled in a special education program.

A spokesperson for DeVos said the grants could be used “to fund materials needed for home-based learning, like computers or software, internet access, or instructional materials. They could also support educational services like therapies for students with disabilities, tuition and fees for a public or private online learning course or program, and educational services provided by a private or public school, or tutoring.”

Sounds reasonable, right? Well, not if you are a union boss. An unhinged National Education Association President Lily Eskelsen García shot back, “Betsy DeVos is shamefully using this global crisis to push her privatization agenda.”

García also claimed that DeVos’ scheme “would use ‘microgrants’ to siphon scarce public funding to private programs. I say, if it looks like a voucher program, acts like a voucher program, and sounds like a voucher program, there’s only one thing it can be.”

García urged NEA members to contact Congress and tell them to “reject Betsy DeVos’s latest plot to undermine public education.” She added “Students, parents, and educators need real help, not another attempt to take funding away from the most vulnerable students.”

So, in Berkeley, there's no online teaching going on because some kids don't have computers.  Let's give grants so poor kids can get computers, says DeVos.  No way, that's bad because it might (somehow) lead to privatization!

Lefties, especially those in education, are deranged.  There's just no way around it.  Politics über alles, even über kids' education.

Update, 4/8/20:  A commenter noted that there is teaching going on in Berkeley.   Here is the Berkeley USD's lengthy distance learning plan.  I read it, the entire thing, and to be honest, it doesn't impress me.  I'm going to contact the author of the article I linked above and ask where he got his information about Berkeley.

Update, 4/10/20:  The article's author responded, and expressed horror that he'd failed to include his source link in his article.   The source was the Wall Street Journal:

The private school went online in two days with Zoom. I’m teaching all my law-school classes online. New York, the country’s biggest school system, is going online. Why not Berkeley? One teacher wrote a parent I know that Berkeley isn’t moving online “because of equity issues.” Ann Marie Callegari, the district’s supervisor of family engagement and equity, confirmed that in an email to me: “The answer to your question of course is Yes! There are existing inequities in our educational system and right here in Berkeley that will only be exacerbated by going fully online.”
 

Let me rephrase that: District officials feel that some students may not have computers to access online services, so they’d rather let everyone drown than save as many as possible and fulfill their educational mission. Starting next week Berkeley plans to post limited lesson plans online and offer students two 90-minute office-hour sessions a week...

The Berkeley district already had equity issues. It is one of the worst-performing in America in educating minority students. A Stanford study found it had the nation’s widest black-white achievement gap. But leaving all children behind will only make matters worse.

Petty Unions

As I wrote a couple weeks ago:

My local union wants the authority and power that comes with being the sole representative, but doesn't want to provide the representation.  They've taken a sharp turn for the worse.

As the Supreme Court ruled in Janus:

These benefits greatly outweigh any extra burden im­posed by the duty of providing fair representation for nonmembers. What this duty entails, in simple terms, is an obligation not to “act solely in the interests of [the union’s] own members.”

I hope these instructors win their case:

The National Right to Work (NRTW) Legal Defense Foundation has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case of four Massachusetts teachers who are asking the high Court to review a state law that allows a union to block non-members from having a voice in workplace conditions.

More information about the case brought by four Massachusetts educators can be found here:https://t.co/86mFOHUTko

The #SCOTUS docket is here: https://t.co/KCozzqsD1a

— Right To Work (@RightToWork) December 5, 2019

Branch v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Board involves lead plaintiff Dr. Ben Branch, a finance professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and three other educators. According to NRTW, the teachers are “challenging the application of the state’s monopoly bargaining law for its educational system as a violation of their Constitutional rights.”

The foundation states:

The educators argue that the state law, which is manipulated by union bosses to block teachers who are not union members from voting or otherwise voicing their opinions in the determination of their own working conditions, results in depriving nonmember teachers of their First Amendment rights.

The four plaintiffs have all turned down membership in the National Education Association (NEA) – the nation’s largest teachers’ union – and its local affiliates.

Power corrupts, etc.

The Union Mentality Is The Mindset of Children

I resigned my union membership in 2005.  They didn't have to, but the local union did the right thing and allowed me to participate in contract votes.  There was one hiccup, but it was resolved quickly and amicably.

Times have changed.  Yesterday I was told that I had been allowed to vote on contracts because I had been an agency fee payer.  In the post-Janus world, though, I don't pay a fee, so I don't get to vote on my contract.  Here's the email exchange that took place.  I'm tentatively removing identifying information:

Mr. Miller,

Thank you for your phone call inquiry yesterday regarding not being able to vote on the contract.

Our records indicate that you are currently a non-member of this association. As you may or may not be aware, Section IV (MEMBERSHIP) Sub-section 2(b) (RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND OBLIGATIONS) of the xxx by-laws states that only “active members” are able to vote. We would be happy to enroll you today and provide you the opportunity to vote on the contract.

If you would like to become a member, I would be happy to bring out a form so that you can sign-up to become a member. I can get the form to you anytime today, but if you would like to vote, it would need to be prior to 4pm. Once you have signed-up as a member, we will get you a temporary password so that you can vote on the contract. If you prefer, I can also bring you a paper ballot that you can place in a sealed envelope and I can provide that sealed envelope to the Elections Chair, xxx. He will include all paper votes into the final numbers.

Dr. xxx

Associate Executive Director, (local union)




xxx,

Thank you for your reply.

This is clearly a change, as I have always been able to vote on contractual matters since the days of (long-since former union president), when I left (local union). Clearly I don’t vote on strictly union matters, e.g. union reps and officers, but this change on contract voting is disconcerting.

When did the Executive Board make the change?

Darren





Darren,

I spoke with President xxx and the previous email expresses the view of the elected officers of (local union).

I would like to note that we have made no changes to the by-laws. However, the recent Supreme Court ruling has impacted bargaining unit members’ rights related to dues paying status.

As I mentioned in my earlier email, our by-laws contain guidelines on membership and voting. For your own edification the section reads:

2. RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND OBLIGATIONS (pg2):

a. Membership may be granted upon payment of annual (local union)/CTA/NEA dues through payroll deduction or cash appropriate to the class of membership and completion of a membership application.

b. The right to vote and to hold elective office or appointive position shall be limited to Active members.

Because of the loss of Agency Fee, some who had previously been granted voting rights as a result of their dues contribution, no longer qualify for those voting rights if they no longer pay dues.

As you may be aware, the Supreme Court ruled that membership can only be established through a voluntary process and cannot be compelled of any person not wishing to be a member.

I will reiterate my offer to come out to (your school) and bring you a membership form if you would like to sign-up. If we do that prior to 4pm, we will make sure that you have the opportunity to vote.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need clarification.




I’d be happy to join (local union).

I will not, however, be happy to join CTA and NEA. At all. They are the reason I canceled my membership. Please let me know when the unified dues structure is abolished so I can become a member of (local union) again.

Darren

It's unjust that they're allowed to negotiate my contract and I have no say in it at all.  The unionistas will say, Just join the union if you want to vote!  To which I reply, why should I have to?  Unions get special privileges--for example, getting to negotiate my contract!  In the Janus case the Supreme Court ruled that such privileges necessitate fair representation:

Exclusive representation of all the employees in a unit and the exaction of agency fees are not inextricably linked...

[A]voiding “the risk of ‘free riders,’ ” Abood, supra, at 224, is not a compelling state interest. Free-rider “arguments . . . are generally insufficient to overcome First Amendment objections,” Knox, su-pra, at 311, and the statutory requirement that unions represent members and nonmembers alike does not justify different treatment.As is evident in non-agency-fee jurisdictions, unions are quite willing to represent nonmembers in the absence of agency fees. And their duty of fair representation is a necessary concomitant of the authority that a union seeks when it chooses to be the exclusive representative.  (Boldface mine--Darren)

How can they represent me if they don't allow me to vote?

The above quote is from the syllabus, the following comes from the opinion of the Court:

First, it is simply not true that unions will refuse to serve as the exclusive representative of all employees in the unit if they are not given agency fees. As noted, un­ions represent millions of public employees in jurisdictions that do not permit agency fees. No union is ever com­pelled to seek that designation. On the contrary, designa­tion as exclusive representative is avidly sought.5 Why is this so?  

Even without agency fees, designation as the exclusive representative confers many benefits. As noted, that status gives the union a privileged place in negotiations over wages, benefits, and working conditions. See §315/6(c). Not only is the union given the exclusive right to speak for all the employees in collective bargaining, but the employer is required by state law to listen to and to bargain in good faith with only that union. §315/7. Des­ignation as exclusive representative thus “results in a tremendous increase in the power” of the union. American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U. S. 382, 401 (1950).

 In addition, a union designated as exclusive representa­tive is often granted special privileges, such as obtaining information about employees, see §315/6(c), and having dues and fees deducted directly from employee wages, §§315/6(e)–(f). The collective-bargaining agreement in this case guarantees a long list of additional privileges. See App. 138–143. 

These benefits greatly outweigh any extra burden im­posed by the duty of providing fair representation for nonmembers. What this duty entails, in simple terms, is an obligation not to “act solely in the interests of [the union’s] own members.”

My local union wants the authority and power that comes with being the sole representative, but doesn't want to provide the representation.  They've taken a sharp turn for the worse.

Update, 11/24/19:  I've written about union privileges and responsibilities before.

CTA Loses 19,000 Members In One Fell Swoop

An avowed socialist at my school and I agreed many years ago that our district's teachers would be better off if our local union disaffiliated from CTA and went solo.  Without all that money going to CTA and NEA, our local could hire the best labor law attorney firm in Sacramento County to represent us at contract negotiations, rather than fellow teachers who received a little bit of training from CTA.  Our teachers would get better representation at a lower cost by cutting out the middle man; teachers could join CTA or NEA as individuals if they wanted to.

That's not going to happen in my district barring some catastrophic event, but it does happen every once in awhile, usually in a small district somewhere.  This announcement, however, is a biggie:

Ending a decades-long connection, the association representing California State University faculty has severed its ties with the California Teachers Association, resulting in a significant loss in membership for the state’s largest teachers union.

In a little noticed move, the board of the California Faculty Association voted in late May to “disaffiliate” from the CTA. The association, whose members include faculty, part-time lecturers, librarians, counselors and coaches on the 23 CSU campuses, is an affiliate of the CTA, which means that its members can be CTA members as well...

In a letter addressed “to whom it may concern” at the CTA, Charles Toombs, the CSU faculty association’s president, said the decision to disaffiliate was made following a review of the contract between the two organizations that “has taken place over the last several years” and to “optimize the association’s resources, members and operations.”  The faculty association also ended its ties to the National Education Association, of which the CTA is a state affiliate. Toombs, a professor of Africana Studies at San Diego State University, did not provide any further details in his letter to the CTA.

19,000 members off CTA's rolls.

So I Guess Their Arguments Against Janus Were Wrong?

Not only were their arguments obviously wrong, one wonders why they were so hell-bent on compelling me to give them money.  Was my money so important to them, or was it just the compulsion they liked so much?

NEA had projected a loss of as many as 200,000 members in addition to 90,000 agency-fee payers after the Supreme Court decision. Instead, as of March, more than 217,000 new members had joined NEA since the Janus decision, and the Association has more members today than it did last year before the Court’s decision. The American Federation of Teachers (AFT), with 1.7 million members, added 88,500 members by the beginning of this year, which offset the 84,000 agency-fee payers the union lost after the ruling. Even case defendant AFSCME reports that for every member opting out since Janus, the union has gained seven new members.

Which Senate Races Are Teachers Unions Focused On

If you want to know what teachers unions are up to, Mike Antonucci is your guy:

Thirty-five Senate seats will be contested this fall, including the addition of special elections in Minnesota and Mississippi, but only a handful of these are really up for grabs. The good news for the teacher unions is that the Democrats need a net gain of only two seats to win a majority. The bad news is — absent an overwhelming Democratic wave — they will have to pick up those seats in very unfriendly territory while keeping all of their own vulnerable seats.

As much as we in the field would like to think that education is a critical issue, it barely makes an appearance in the national consciousness. Only two percent of Americans list it as the nation’s most important problem. “Dissatisfaction with government/Poor leadership” leads the way with 21%, followed by “Immigration/Illegal aliens” with 16% in the latest monthly Gallup poll...

That leaves eight campaigns where NEA will expend much of its resources and deploy political staff. Four are currently held by Democrats and four by Republicans. All eight are listed as toss-ups in the latest Cook Political Report. Democrats will likely need to win six...

The unions have long been a reliable source of campaign contributions to Democratic candidates, but their real value comes from independent expenditures and get-out-the-vote efforts. That spending comes out of dues money and is not limited to voluntary contributions to the union PAC by members. It will likely run into the tens of millions of dollars.

Click on the link to see which races the unions are sinking money and effort into.

Those Selfless Union Leaders

The Janus decision is going to take a bite out of union coffers, so what do they do?  Plan for budget cuts, of course.  Oh, and give union leaders a pay raise:

We reported exclusively in May that the National Education Association planned to cut $50 million from its budget, anticipating that it would lose 300,000 members in the wake of a Supreme Court decision ruling agency fees unconstitutional.

NEA’s national headquarters took in $385 million last year, and its proposed two-year budget will affect virtually every aspect of operations. Vacant staff positions will go unfilled, leading to a reduction of 16 percent of spending on compensation. No layoffs are planned.

Spending on travel will be cut 4 percent. Publication costs cut 27 percent. Office expenses cut 15 percent. And so on.

Even the national union’s largest and most important expense, cash grants to its state and local affiliates, will be cut by 9 percent.

But one line item in the budget will actually increase: salaries for the union’s executive officers.

The base salary for NEA president Lily Eskelsen García will increase to $293,434. NEA’s vice president and secretary-treasurer will each receive $257,954. Additionally, all three executive officers receive cash allowances equal to 40 percent of their base salary — at least $103,182 each — to cover benefits and living expenses.

My Picture Next To That Of The NEA President!

The horror.  The horror!  :-)

Long-time readers might remember that I modified my travel plans this past February and, instead of coming directly home from Iceland, diverted to DC in order to be at the Supreme Court on the day Mark Janus' case was heard.  The next morning a few of us had some interviews planned, then I stopped by the Air and Space Museum annex at Dulles before boarding my flight home.

There were several outlets represented at the interview, including Reason and The 74 Million.  The article at the first link above stems from that interview.  Yet again, it shows that I'm not anti-union, but I am anti-forced-union and anti-bad-union:

Leaving state and national affiliates could mean lower dues and better contract outcomes, said Darren Miller, a high school math teacher in suburban Sacramento, also a plaintiff in the Yohn lawsuit.

“We could hire the best labor law attorney firm … as opposed to having marginally trained teachers up against district accountants and attorneys. I think disaffiliation would be a net benefit for teachers,” he said.

I discussed this idea over a decade ago with a far-left-leaning teacher at my school, and we agreed on it!

But back to the picture.  A friend has been razzing me this afternoon by sending out the link, with the photo in question prominently displayed at the top of the story, with the email subject line "Rare photo of a CTENer and a union president side by side!"

Quelle horreur, indeed.

Today's Post Over At Joanne's

NEA Thinks High Court Will Rule For Mark Janus

Here's One Time I Hope the NEA Is Correct

Does the NEA think the Supreme Court will rule for Mark Janus?  Evidence points to a yes, and I hope they're right:

The nation’s largest teachers union plans to reduce its budget by $50 million in anticipation of an unfavorable verdict in Janus v. AFSCME, a case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in February that challenges the right of government unions to charge non-members for representing them.

When delegates to the National Education Association meet in Minneapolis in July, union leaders will introduce a two-year budget that cuts expenditures by $50 million, an estimated 13 percent reduction from this year.

NEA’s budget committee forecasts a two-year loss of 307,000 members if, as expected later in the spring, the Supreme Court eliminates agency fees — mandatory costs to workers who don’t become union members but are covered by union agreements. Those near-term losses will almost entirely occur in the 22 states where fees are still charged, erasing post-recession membership gains in places like California, New Jersey, and New York.

Union Dues

My current union dues are a few quarters short of $1100/year.  Yes, I get an agency fee rebate each fall (but only if I request it), but $1100 is the amount deducted from my paycheck.  Via the Education Intelligence Agency, here are the state dues for NEA affiliates.  Keep in mind that this is just the state dues, not the local or national.

1. New Jersey -$897
2. Alaska – $740
3. California – $677
4. Michigan – $645
5. Hawaii – $610
6. Oregon – $607
7. Wyoming – $532
8. Indiana – $531
9. Pennsylvania – $523
10. Connecticut – $499
11. Massachusetts – $494
12. Illinois – $472
13. Minnesota – $471
14. Idaho – $468
15. Delaware – $463
16. Rhode Island – $455
17. Ohio – $454
18. New Hampshire – $452
19. Iowa – $451
20. Washington – $449
21. Vermont – $445
22. South Dakota – $427
23. Maine – $414
24. Montana – $412
25. New Mexico – $409
26. Nebraska – $406
27. Kentucky – $406
28. Colorado – $395
29. Missouri – $392
30. Kansas – $389
31. Utah – $382
32. Nevada – $378
33. New York – $378
34. North Dakota – $371
35. Arizona – $364
36. Arkansas – $359
37. Texas – $324
38. Maryland – $322
39. West Virginia – $310
40. Georgia – $300
41. Alabama – $294
42. North Carolina – $289
43. Tennessee – $288
44. Oklahoma – $287
45. Louisiana – $284
46. Virginia – $283
47. South Carolina – $275
48. Mississippi – $273
49. Wisconsin – $238
50. Florida – $234

That’s an average state dues level of $424.36. Include NEA dues and your average NEA member is paying $613.36 plus local dues.

California is #3.

Report: IRS Investigating the NEA

No details yet, but the report is here.  The linked source is credible to me, I obviously cannot evaluate his unnamed sources.

Jive Turkey

In the aftermath of what clearly seems like a staged coup to give cover to a purge, Turkey's government has (rather quickly identified and) rounded up over 50,000 people, teachers among them:

Teachers, journalists, police and judges alike have been caught in a net authorities are casting wider by the day, in what is increasingly looking like a witch-hunt to suppress dissent.

Last month, when teachers clashed with police in Oaxaca, Mexico, the press was all over it.  The National Education Association has certainly addressed Oaxaca.  If you want to hear crickets chirping, however, go see the lack of any mention of Turkey over at NEA's web site.  Why do you think that might be?  Hmm, I wonder.

What's Missing In This Article

The National Education Association applauds the new Every Student Succeeds Act:

“Today, the U.S. Senate took a bold and historic step to usher in a new era in public education,” said NEA President Lily Eskelsen García. “This is a deserved victory for public education because the Every Student Succeeds Act will ensure all students have equal opportunity to a high-quality public education regardless of ZIP Code.”

Students and educators have lived with the unintended consequences of the failed No Child Left Behind (NCLB) for more than 14 years. NEA members have waged an unprecedented mobilization and advocacy campaign on behalf of the nation’s students in an effort to turn the page on the failed NCLB law and to bring in a new federal education law that provides more opportunity for all students.

As is typical of such union pronouncements, there's no mention of what was wrong with the previous law or what is good about the new law.  (My guess is that the answer to the first part is "President Bush signed it" and the answer to the second is "President Obama will sign it", but that's just me.)

What do you think you can infer from this?  And if you don't like a law drafted by the (Democratic) Lion of the Senate and voted for by all these people, what do you like?  Answer:  probably nothing that's good for kids in particular or education in general.

This Is What They Admit To

Notice how much of your dues money goes to activities other than what the union is supposed to be for--collective bargaining of pay, benefits, and working conditions.  A full 2/3 of the money NEA gets is spent on non-related activities.  This is why I'm an agency fee payer of the unions and a full member of the California Teachers Empowerment Network and the Association of American Educators.

Is It A Teacher's Place To Turn Students Into "Agents of Change"?

When it doesn't impede instruction I feel free to share ideas with students.  It's not uncommon at all to be asked what I think, and knowing that my views are not "mainstream California" views it probably does no harm for students to hear them.  If I can challenge a few assumptions, then so much the better.  It's all that "critical thinking" that we expect students to do, but without giving them a wide base of information from which to draw!

But teachers who think they should turn their students into "agents of change" or some similar term, that seems a bridge too far for me.  Should teachers be requiring students to write letters to legislators or executives  about specific proposals?  In most cases I'd probably say no.  Teaching kids that they should work for change in their communities--why, exactly?  You may think the community needs changing, plenty may not.

I don't have a problem with sharing facts, opinion, or commentary with students.  I do, however, have a problem with forcing it on them.

And that's what I saw when I read Larry Sand's article at UnionWatch.org:

With the election season in full swing, expect a tide of union-led anti-reform, anti-choice and anti-Republican politicking in our kids’ classrooms.

“I watched the GOP presidential debate because my students are counting on me” is the title of a piece posted on the National Education Association website by “guest writer” Tom McLaughlin, a high school drama teacher from Council Bluffs, IA. He claims that “…in addition to this debate, I had an obligation to watch future debates, take notes, and share the truth. I have a responsibility to do that for my students"...

Obviously McLaughlin never intended to report on the debate, but rather to deliver a diatribe infused with standard teacher union talking points against any and all who favor reform and dare have an “R” after their names...

Many teachers now take their cue from the likes of National Education Association Executive Director John Stocks who, at the recent NEA convention, told his flock that teachers need to become “social justice warriors.”

Silly me, all along I thought teachers were there to teach.

Teaching is one thing, indoctrinating is another.

Full disclosure: Larry Sand is President of the California Teachers Empowerment Network, a non-partisan organization of California teachers which provides reliable and balanced information and peer support for teachers who may adopt different views than their peers, especially as regards union membership. I am on the board of directors of CTEN.

How Many More Hits Can They Take?

Salvo after salvo gets fired:

Bain v. CTA is the latest lawsuit to challenge teacher union hegemony.

For the third time in three years, a lawsuit has been filed in California that challenges the way the teachers unions do business. In May 2012, eight California public school children filed Vergara et al v. the State of California et al in an attempt to “strike down outdated state laws that prevent the recruitment, support and retention of effective teachers.” Realizing that some their most cherished work rules were in jeopardy, the California Teachers Association (CTA) and the California Federation of Teachers (CFT) chose to join the case as defendants in May 2013.

But three days before they signed on to Vergara, the unions were targeted again. On April 29, 2013, the Center for Individual Rights filed suit on behalf of ten California teachers against CTA and the National Education Association (NEA). The Friedrichs case challenges the constitutionality of California’s agency shop law, which forces public school educators to pay dues to a teachers union whether they want to or not.

Now in April 2015, the teachers unions are facing yet another rebellion by some of its members. Bain et al v. CTA et al, a lawsuit brought by StudentsFirst, a Sacramento-based activist outfit founded by Michelle Rhee, was filed on behalf of four public school teachers in federal court in California. It challenges a union rule concerning members who refuse to pay the political portion of their dues. Contrary to what many believe, teachers are not forced to join a union as a condition of employment in California, but they are forced to pay dues. Most pay the full share, typically over $1,000 a year, but some opt out of paying the political or “non-chargeable” part, which brings their yearly outlay down to about $600. However, to become “agency fee payers,” those teachers must resign from the union and relinquish most perks they had by being full dues-paying members. And this is at the heart of Bain. As EdSource’s John Fensterwald writes,

Although paying this portion is optional, the teachers charge that the unions punish those who choose not to pay it by kicking them out of the union and denying them additional economic benefits, such as better disability and life insurance policies. The unions provide those benefits only to members. This coercion, the teachers argue, violates their constitutional right to free speech. About one in 10 teachers in California have opted out of paying the portion of dues supporting politicking and lobbying.

In addition to losing various types of insurance, the affected teachers also give up the right to vote for their union rep or their contract, the chance to sit on certain school committees, legal representation in cases of employment disputes, death and dismemberment compensation, disaster relief, representation at dismissal hearings and many other benefits.

The question becomes, “Why should a teacher lose a whole array of perks just because they refuse to pay the third or so (it varies by district) of their union dues that go to political causes?

Why, indeed?