More From The NEA Representative Assembly

Mucho appreciado to the Education Intelligence Agency, which is providing "gavel to gavel" coverage of the NEA Rep Assembly in Los Angeles. There are so many tidbits I'll just snip them here. Most speak for themselves. BTW, NBI stands for "new business item".

* Delegates approved NBI 13, which reads, "That NEA continue to oppose attempts by billionaire Eli Broad and any other entities to remove elected school boards from cities in California and in any other state or territory." NEA is already on record as opposing mayoral takeovers of school boards, but it is still interesting that Eli Broad is mentioned by name and not the one man who most recently expressed support for a mayoral takeover of a California school board – the darling of the 2005 NEA Representative Assembly, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

*Also unmentioned is the fact that the Broad Foundation is a substantial financial contributor to the Teacher Union Reform Network, to which five California local affiliates of NEA (including UTLA!) belong. Teachers shopping at Wal-Mart is bad, but teacher unions taking money from Broad is OK, as long as you keep it quiet.
* Delegates approved NBI 32, which calls on NEA to study the feasibility of initiating a boycott of Gallo wine.

* After much back and forth, delegates approved NBI 33, which reads, "The NEA will develop a strategic program to help NEA Republican members advance a pro-public education agenda within the Republican Party." The measure was supported by the NEA Republican Educators Caucus, but some individual Republicans among the delegates found the language condescending. I'm unsure how Democrats are going to help Republicans persuade other Republicans, but apparently it can be done for the bargain price of $171,125 of your dues money. * NBI 48 directs NEA to urge universities and colleges not to use the new SAT for admissions purposes, because the writing section "increases the SAT's discriminatory impact."

* Here is my favorite – NBI 51 directs NEA to "create a web-based, research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting misinformation about public education in the U.S. media. This center will systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for misinformation – news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that fosters a negative image of teachers and public education every day and in real time."

* NBI 58 calls on NEA to advocate for a moratorium on new prison construction. No mention is made of where new prisoners are to be housed, but I'm sure there is some extra space at CTA headquarters in Burlingame.

* NBI 63 is an anti-CAFTA NBI.

Now let's look at a few anti-war measures....

* Delegates defeated NBI 24, after a long debate, which would have required NEA to publish information and links to materials "comparing the actual human and financial costs to education due to expenditures approved by Congress" for the war in Iraq.

* NBI 39 is another anti-war measure, calling on NEA to encourage state and local affiliates to "organize job actions up to and including strikes" in response to "massive cutbacks" caused by "the war budget." [Darren's comment--so let me get this straight. They want more federal money, conceivably from the DoD budget, but they don't want any federal oversight at all, a la NCLB? Got it!]

* NBI 49 speaks for itself -- "The NEA will promote and support the establishment of a federal department of Peace." [Darren's comment--why? Do we have a Department of War? And what is the State Department?]

* NBI 57 and 61 are two more anti-war NBIs.

Mike at EIA--you're providing a valuable service. Thank you!
.

More From The NEA Convention

Thanks to the Education Intelligence Agency, people the world over will get a view of the NEA Representative Assembly that's "slightly" different than the one that will be published by NEA itself.

I'll just cut/paste some of the interesting parts here.

The ostensible point of the show was to show displeasure with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and support for the California Teachers Association. The delegates collected petitions and resolutions, put them in a big barrel, and 300 of them walked over to the governor's Los Angeles office to deliver them. But first, the other state affiliates had to make it clear that California wasn't the only one with problems. So we were treated to speeches from NEA state affiliate presidents from Michigan, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts and Ohio – decrying their fiscal situations, referencing devastating cuts to education funding and complaining about "Third World budgets."

So I thought I would go to a couple of impeccable sources on issues of funding: NEA and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Here's what I found.

The percentage increases in current spending on public education for the last 10 years are: 4.7, 6.0, 5.7, 5.7, 6.5, 6.8, 5.5, 6.6, 3.0 and 4.4. NEA estimates that total expenditures on U.S. public schools in 2004-05 were $495,235,283,000.

Forget about Third World. OECD gives us gross domestic product (GDP) figures for Second World countries and the amount the United States spends on public education exceeds the entire GDP of countries like Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Sweden and Turkey. The U.S. public education system spends as much money as the total combined economies of 37 African countries.

How about devastating budget cuts? Here are the per-pupil spending estimates for 2004-05 from NEA, released just last week:
Michigan: up 3.6 percent
Illinois: up 6.0 percent
Kansas: up 3.5 percent
Massachusetts: up 5.1 percent
Ohio: up 5.8 percent
California: up 2.4 percent
Nationwide: up 3.3 percent

Don't you just love facts?

And then there was this one vestige of hope.

The debate continued, and a first-time delegate from Wisconsin amended it to add a provision to create an NEA blog. EIA was PRAYING this would pass. Unfortunately, another delegate probably had the same mental picture of what would happen that I had, and amended the amendment to make it a moderated blog, so that NEA could remove whatever it didn't deem suitable.

That bummed me out, but it also raised the cost another $100,000, which I didn't know was the going rate for a full-time censor. In the end, it was all for nothing. The delegates voted down the whole idea overwhelmingly.

But alas, it was not to be.

Then there were the New Business Items that were tackled.

* NBI 39 – Defeated this measure that would have encouraged strikes against the "war budget."
* NBI 46 – Defeated this measure that would have encouraged teachers to wear green the first Tuesday of each month to call attention to the "need for pension/retirement reform." It did, however, give me the idea of encouraging taxpayers to wear black and blue on April 15.
* NBI 48 – Defeated in a close vote this measure that would have directed NEA to urge colleges and universities to stop using the SAT for admissions.
* NBI 49 – This measure, which would have had NEA promote the establishment of a federal department of Peace, was ruled out of order after delegates defeated a similar amendment to the legislative program. Robert's Rules and NEA policies don't allow double jeopardy.
* NBI 54 – Approved this measure that, after amendment, now directs NEA to study the feasibility of informing its members of the "regressive taxation practices of the federal government."

Not as bad as it could have been.

Then there were these, from the last day. What do most of them have in common? Why, the fact that they have nothing to do with either education or working conditions, of course!

* Defeated NBI 58, the moratorium on new prison construction.
* Approved NBI 61 after amending language softened the "U.S. Out of Iraq" message. The NBI calls on the President and Congress to create an exit strategy to end the U.S. military occupation of Iraq.
* Approved NBI 63, which commits NEA to educating members about CAFTA "and its serious negative consequences for education."
* Referred NBI 75 to committee, designed to set aside a fragrance-free zone at the RA.
* Referred NBI 78 to the Executive Committee, to urge members to boycott Wal-Mart.
* Approved NBI 81, directing NEA to research the possibility of offering a labor union history training program that emphasizes curriculum for students. EIA will be happy to teach this.
*Approved NBI 91, the "alternative to latex" measure after minutes of entertaining debate about the "many satisfactory alternatives to decorative and recreational items containing latex" mentioned in the rationale for the NBI.

I would prefer it if these unions stopped trying to get involved in "education" and focused on working conditions--that is, collective bargaining issues. I'm mighty curious, though, about what prompted NBI 91.

Update, 7/7/05 11:39 pm: I learned of this article, originally apparently from the Washington Times, from Joanne Jacobs' site (see my blogroll). Here are the first two paragraphs:

NEA affiliate rejects freedom proposal

By George Archibald
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published July 5, 2005

LOS ANGELES -- The college affiliate of the National Education Association yesterday unanimously rejected a proposal to expand its policy on academic and professional freedom to protect "intellectual pluralism and the free exchange of ideas" in the nation's classrooms.

Randy Jackson, a delegate to the NEA convention now under way, appeared before the National Council for Higher Education (NCHE) summer meeting to defend his proposal, which was attacked roundly as part of a conservative agenda.

NEA Representative Assembly

Each year over the July 4th holiday, the National Education Association holds its annual Supreme Soviet--I mean, Representative Assembly. The Education Intelligence Agency is keeping the world up to date on the happenings at this year's powwow in Los Angeles. Here are some of the more interesting tidbits I've found.

California and New Jersey Nearly Empty Next Year’s Ballot Initiative Fund. If your state affiliate was hoping to dip into the NEA Ballot Measure/Legislative Crises Fund in the next school year, it may already be too late. The union released its expenditure report from the fund for 2003-04, but the startling news was delivered by NEA Secretary-Treasurer Lily Eskelsen, who told delegates at the budget hearing that $6.7 million from the 2005-06 allotment is destined for the California Teachers Association and the New Jersey Education Association (leaving a little more than $2 million for everyone else). CTA, as you well know, is ramping up for a major campaign against Gov. Schwarzenegger’s education initiatives and a paycheck protection measure. NEA has already sent $2.5 million to California for that fight. NJEA is waging a campaign against a proposed state constitutional convention that the union fears will affect public education’s revenue stream.

It just frosts me that a government agency (my school district) takes my money and gives it to these clowns, a non-governmental agency.

An amendment to I-9 [one of the many resolutions the delegates will adopt] adds NEA support for “an international judicial system that would hold accountable those who violate human rights” and New I calls for recognition of the International Criminal Court. EIA wonders who plays the role of police in this international judicial system.

What does this have to do with education, or even with the union? Again, it's my money they're taking to support this crap.

But my personal favorite by far came out of the Human and Civil Rights committee (also approved by the NEA board of directors) that “NEA and its state affiliates determine whether vendors or contractors have a history of profiting from slavery and if so, whether they have established plans for addressing said profit through reparations or other appropriate strategies.”

Is it just me, or are others just plain tired of hearing about reparations for slavery? I think the war dead and destruction from the Civil War are *plenty* of reparations. There's not a soul alive today who was a slave in this country, and the hand-wringing and money-grubbing that goes on regarding this topic is shameless.

Reports of committees – NEA has 10 standing committees, and this booklet summarizes what fun these folks had during the year. There are a few worthwhile nuggets, such as the advice from the Employee Advocacy committee (adopted by the NEA board of directors) to increase efforts at the state and national levels to “mobilize members, especially those who are Republicans, on Social Security and Medicare issues,” and the Membership Services and Affiliate Relationships committee’s discussion of contacting “companies associated with ALEC” (the American Legislative Exchange Council) and “partnerships to oppose ALEC.”

Wow, this is the first time I've ever seen the NEA acknowledge it has Republican members. They cannot count on my support.

Quote of the Day. “Audit findings are confidential documents.” – NEA Vice President Dennis Van Roekel, after being asked when members would learn the results of the IRS audit of the NEA. The audit is ongoing, and Van Roekel said he expects the IRS to complete its work within the next six months.

Of course they're confidential. Have these people no shame? No dignity? No decency?

NEA Continues To Push A Homosexual Agenda

I am exceedingly tolerant about homosexuality, but I do not think that everyone else in the country should have a radical homosexual agenda pushed on them by anyone.

I would prefer the NEA concerned itself with being a labor union, focusing on Darren's pay, benefits, and working conditions, and not serving as a not-even-subtle far-left-wing social organization. No, I don't want them even concerning themselves with education--I'm compelled to pay them money ostensibly because they "represent" me somehow in negotiations with my employer, I want them representing me. Education, and the students involved, are the purview of the parents, state legislators, and school boards.

But back to the topic at hand. I've identified before how NEA gives plenty of my extorted money to gay groups and organizations (see here). Their myriad resolutions contain many pro-gay points. Let's see how they're pushing the agenda this year:

The nation's largest teachers union, the National Education Association, attracted 9,000 delegates to its annual convention in Washington, D.C. over the Fourth of July weekend. Delegates sported buttons with provocative slogans such as "Gay marriage causes Global Warming only because we are so hot!", "Hate is not a family value," "The 'Christian Right' is neither," and "Gay Rights are civil rights."

While I can actually agree with the last message, I don't quite see why my labor union needs to use my money to push this message. It's not--or it shouldn't be--their charter.

The influence of the gay lobby is pervasive in dozens of NEA resolutions adopted by 2008 convention delegates. Diversity is the code word used for pro-gay indoctrination in the classroom.

The NEA's diversity resolution makes clear that this means teaching about "sexual orientation" and "gender identification," words that are repeated in dozens of resolutions. The NEA demands that "diversity-based curricula" even be imposed on preschoolers.

Homosexuality is still a hot-button issue in our culture. I would prefer that parents pass on their own values to their children, not have left-wing values--even if I happen to agree with some of those values--forced upon children by their teachers in government education centers. When it comes to the values our schools should teach, I side with teaching tolerance as opposed to acceptance; let people think what they want. Schools shouldn't be taking a stance on moral issues that are still controversial. The schools should enforce appropriate codes of conduct, not thought.

The NEA is pushing plenty of other left-wing issues, too:

NEA resolutions cover the waterfront of all sorts of political issues that have nothing to do with improving education for schoolchildren, such as supporting statehood for the District of Columbia, a "single-payer health care plan" (i.e., government-run), gun control, ratification of the International Criminal Court Treaty, and taking steps "to change activities that contribute to global climate change"...

NEA resolutions include all the major feminist goals such as "the right to reproductive freedom" (i.e., abortion on demand); "comparable worth" (i.e., government control of wages according to feminist ideology rather than the free market); full funding for the feminist boondoggle called the Women's Educational Equity Act; and "the use of nonsexist language," i.e., censoring out all masculine words such as husband and father.

Keep in mind: I disagree with the author above in that I don't want a labor union worrying about the education of schoolchildren. If parents, legislators, and school boards are not looking out for children, and some other private organization is needed to do so, then let that organization live off of private donations and not via money extorted from my paycheck.

There are already plenty of pro-gay organizations out there. The NEA doesn't need to carry this (rainbow) banner. What do I think they should do? They could get their Democrat buddies in Congress to repeal the Windfall Elimination Provision. Now that would be just, would restore fairness to our retirement system--and would directly benefit Darren. I wonder how much time and money the NEA spends on that compared to pushing a radical homosexual agenda.

Update, 7/31/08: Dr. Pezz attended the Rep Assembly and says that while the pins were for sale, the NEA was not pushing this particular message. The linked article implied that delegates were given these pins, and that might not be the case.

Union Goings-On

This week's EIA (see blogroll at left) Communique gives us some interesting union stories from around the country:

NEA to Revive Booster Club Proposal. NEA's attempt to create a category of associate membership fell short at last year's convention, but the union will try again this July in Philadelphia. This would open NEA membership to people not employed in public education. Why? Well, as EIA revealed last year, NEA can only collect PAC money from members, so associate membership would help the union deal with its collection problem. Only seven percent of NEA members currently donate to the national PAC.

There will also be a proposal to immediately increase contributions to the union's ballot initiative and legislative crisis fund to $10 per member per year. The money is disseminated to state affiliates to support or defeat ballot measures or legislation the union deems important. This proposal simply accelerates a previously approved gradual increase to the fund.

During the 2006 campaign, NEA divided its staff into two groups and placed a virtual wall between them, in order to allow one group to operate in support of candidates and subject to federal election regulations, and the other to distance itself from candidates, but operate under the rules of union political activity. This must have worked well because NEA will make the set-up permanent. The union's Government Relations department will now have a Public Policy section to handled traditional lobbying activities, while the Campaigns and Elections section will work to recruit and support candidates for federal office.

Sault Tribe Charter Teachers Eject Union. It dragged on for a long time, and was a mishmash of conflicting national and state labor laws, charter school authorization policies, tribal sovereignty and internal tribe politics, but teachers at the Joseph K. Lumsden Bahweting Anishnabe charter school voted 19-13 to decertify the Michigan Education Association as its bargaining representative.

The school is associated with the Sault Tribe of Chippewas, whose leadership was very much opposed to the union presence. The intensity of feelings about the school on both sides was illustrated by the hundreds of comments posted by tribe members on Intercepts when EIA reported the story in October 2005.

Off the Reservation in San Diego. There have been fewer and fewer fireworks at the annual NEA convention as the years have gone by, but we may see some this year over NEA's "fix and fund" policy for the No Child Left Behind Act. The board of directors of the San Diego Education Association passed a resolution that states, in part, that NCLB "cannot be overhauled, fixed or properly funded," and instructs SDEA delegates to the NEA convention to introduce a new business item that would support scrapping NCLB entirely.

We can expect opposition to this at national NEA similar to that demonstrated against the petition championed by Susan Ohanian last December (see Item #2 here).

Interesting.

The NEA and Democracy

The NEA likes to bill its annual Representative Assembly as the largest democratic assembly in the world, with a couple thousand delegates who get to vote on the major issues facing the union.

This, of course, is complete and total crap.

There's so much more to democracy than just voting--after all, Saddam Hussein got "reelected" plenty of times. Hiding behind a façade of a fair election is the most evil of lies and the most cynical of acts.

Since the left is so fond of international governmental organizations (but not multinational corporations, go figure), I thought it might be fun to explore the democratic requirements of one of the treaties we've signed. Let's see what the Inter-American Democratic Charter of the Organization of American States has to say on the topic.

At the beginning of the charter is a large list of therefores, whereases, and recognizing-thats. This one stood out to me:

RECOGNIZING that the right of workers to associate themselves freely for the defense and promotion of their interests is fundamental to the fulfillment of democratic ideals;

What is probably the most important word in that recognition? Freely. Well, the NEA certainly can't claim title to that. Let's move on to the articles.

Article 3
Essential elements of representative democracy include, inter alia, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, access to and the exercise of power in accordance with the rule of law, the holding of periodic, free, and fair elections based on secret balloting and universal suffrage as an expression of the sovereignty of the people, the pluralistic system of political parties and organizations, and the separation of powers and independence of the branches of government.

Of course these articles relate specifically to governments and not to unions, but an organization that considers itself democratic in nature should at least support these requirements, if not abide by them. NEA doesn't believe in secret elections; as a union, it supports the card check process for certifying unions (learn how a card check works here). NEA doesn't believe in pluralism, it believes in acting as a monolithic bloc representing "teachers", even though it supports politicians and organizations that a large percentage of its membership most likely does not.

Article 4
Transparency in government activities, probity, responsible public administration on the part of governments, respect for social rights, and freedom of expression and of the press are essential components of the exercise of democracy.

The constitutional subordination of all state institutions to the legally constituted civilian authority and respect for the rule of law on the part of all institutions and sectors of society are equally essential to democracy.

Transparency is not a word I'd use to describe the workings of the teachers union. And when the NEA devotes even a page of its union rag to the 30+% of its membership that claims to be Republican, or that challenges NEA's actions, I'll consider revisiting this criticism. Until then, no.

Article 5
The strengthening of political parties and other political organizations is a priority for democracy. Special attention will be paid to the problems associated with the high cost of election campaigns and the establishment of a balanced and transparent system for their financing.

Opposing viewpoints expressed in the NEA? Perish the thought. It takes outside organizations to stand up to the NEA because there isn't a fair process with which to do so internally.

Article 6
It is the right and responsibility of all citizens to participate in decisions relating to their own development. This is also a necessary condition for the full and effective exercise of democracy. Promoting and fostering diverse forms of participation strengthens democracy.

I'm not quite sure what a diverse form of participation is--maybe it's supporting a Republican for president, something the NEA has never done in its 150 year history? Nah, couldn't be that!

Well, that was fun. Now let's try something domestic--the US Department of State. Here's what our own State Department, darling of the liberals, has to say about majority rule and minority rights:

On the surface, the principles of majority rule and the protection of individual and minority rights would seem contradictory. In fact, however, these principles are twin pillars holding up the very foundation of what we mean by democratic government.

Majority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual.

Minorities -- whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief, geographic location, income level, or simply as the losers in elections or political debate -- enjoy guaranteed basic human rights that no government, and no majority, elected or not, should remove.

Minorities need to trust that the government will protect their rights and self-identity. Once this is accomplished, such groups can participate in, and contribute to their country's democratic institutions.

Among the basic human rights that any democratic government must protect are freedom of speech and expression; freedom of religion and belief; due process and equal protection under the law; and freedom to organize, speak out, dissent, and participate fully in the public life of their society.

Democracies understand that protecting the rights of minorities to uphold cultural identity, social practices, individual consciences, and religious activities is one of their primary tasks.

Acceptance of ethnic and cultural groups that seem strange if not alien to the majority can represent one of the greatest challenges that any democratic government can face. But democracies recognize that diversity can be an enormous asset. They treat these differences in identity, culture, and values as a challenge that can strengthen and enrich them, not as a threat.

There can be no single answer to how minority-group differences in views and values are resolved -- only the sure knowledge that only through the democratic process of tolerance, debate, and willingness to compromise can free societies reach agreements that embrace the twin pillars of majority rule and minority rights.

U-bots will claim that the NEA does this, but I disagree. Vehemently.

For starters, the NEA is entitled to my money--whether or not I want them to have it. They can vote all they want what to do with my money, but the fact that they get it against my will is tyranny.

I do not believe the NEA will protect my individual rights and self-identity, since the very idea of a labor union is that we're all one and speak with one voice. The NEA has no outreach to people of my political persuasion--and why should they? They get my money anyway. If I had remained a union member I wouldn't have minority status, I'd have invisible status. Yet even after resigning, they still get my money.

If you've ever seen a union at work, you'll know that dissent is never tolerated. Don't believe me? Shame on you. (Updated link here.)

Incidentally, did you know that according to the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, that during the period 1975-1993 (the last time period for which I have found data), NEA ranked as the most violent public-sector union? I didn't, either, but I do now.

How can all this be fixed? Hayek answered that question decades ago in The Constitution of Liberty:

[T]he coersion of employers would lose most of its objectionable character if unions were deprived of this power to exact unwilling support.

I've said it before, several times:

Every (non-military) American has a right to join a union. Every American has a right not to join a union. Every American should have the right not to be required to support a union financially.

It must be this way if free will and freedom of association are to have any meaning at all.

The NEA Wants More Of Your Money

And remember, in 28 states they're entitled to your money it by law:

NEA to Double Member Dues Contribution to Political War Chest. Amid substantial membership losses and a $14 million shortfall in its general operating budget, the National Education Association plans to double each active member's annual contribution to the national union's political and media funds.

Currently, $10 of each active member's NEA dues is allocated to these special accounts. The more than $20 million collected each year is then disbursed to state affiliates and political issue campaigns - such as last year's SQ 744 in Oklahoma. A portion of the money also pays for state and national media buys to support the union's agenda.

But the most recent numbers show NEA lost more than 54,000 active K-12 members since this time last year. Coupled with less-than-expected increases in the average teacher salary - upon which NEA dues are based - the union will find itself with $14 million less revenue than it had planned. This includes about $500,000 less in the political and media funds.

Faced with unfriendly legislatures and governors seeking to roll back the union's influence, the NEA Executive Committee decided to double down - literally. It proposed raising each active member's assessment to $20, effective in September 2011. The union's board of directors ratified the decision, and it will go before the NEA Representative Assembly for a vote this July in Chicago. If passed, NEA's national dues for teachers will total $178.

The increase in the assessment has a five-year sunset clause, but this is just eyewash, since the last time the contribution was doubled - from $5 to $10 in 2004 - it also had a five-year sunset clause. The 2007 NEA Representative Assembly made the $10 contribution permanent.

NEA is already the top political campaign spender in the nation. This increase will give the national union an additional $40 million per election cycle. The increase alone is larger than all but two other groups spent during the entire 2007-08 cycle.

Union News

EIA (see blogroll at left) has an interesting post (May 8th communique) that contains info about unions in the Golden and Empire States.

California:

Not many details available, but it seems the California Teachers Association is playing hardball with its staff unions in contract negotiations.

CTA has been altering its evaluation of the union's financial condition based on the audience. When CTA was trying to stop a court injunction against its special assessment last October, it claimed it was in danger of great financial harm. When word of this reached the members, CTA reversed course and assured everyone the union was not broke. Now union officials are claiming financial hardship while negotiating with both professional and support employees over contracts that expire August 31, 2006. EIA will be watching this closely.

New York:

NEA, NYSUT Approve New York Merger, Rumore Lays Out Options. You really have to admire NEA's ability to spin. By its own admission (see last paragraph here), NEA New York was in financial free-fall, losing members and locals to the AFT-affiliated New York State United Teachers (NYSUT). NEA New York finally threw in the towel last year. Now, representatives of NEA New York and NYSUT have agreed to a merger… which is a merger in the sense that Britain and India merged in 1757.

The NEA Executive Committee approved the merger, and sent out a press release over the weekend proclaiming itself "the largest union in U.S. history," with 3.2 million members. This is a pretty bold claim, since NYSUT's half-million members will pay no dues to NEA, and will have no representation in NEA.

Meanwhile Phil Rumore, merger opponent and president of the Buffalo Teachers Federation (BTF), has notified his members of the situation, and presented them with their choices.

According to a letter from Rumore to BTF members, the options are:

"1. We can join the new organization.

"2. We can become an independent local, as are the Buffalo Police and PCTEA, and work cooperatively with other unions, as we do now.

"3. We can join with other local unions who have approached us to start a new state organization.

"4. We can affiliate with another state and national union."

Rumore is at least convinced that BTF could make better use locally of the $1.7 million it sends annually to NEA New York and NEA.

I've said for a long time that the smartest move for any moderate-sized local teachers' union is to disaffiliate from the state/national organizations. All the money that is currently sent to those headquarters--let the members keep half of it, and use the other half to retain the best labor law firm in the county. Let them represent you in contract negotiations, not your fellow teachers. It's a win-win--people keep more of their own money, and you get better representation when it comes to legal and negotiation issues.

Letter to the NEA

I sent this letter to the editor of the NEA Today earlier this month. I'll repost it here since I don't expect to see it in their Letters section.

******************************************

In the "What Now?" article in the January 2005 NEATODAY, our organization's leadership shows once again how they just don't get it. Three different quotes show this:

1) "NEA Republicans need to become very active in the GOP to change this...party..."
2) "NEA recommended 22 Republican hopefuls for the US House and Senate 'out of a total of 298 candidates'..."
3) "NEA Republicans, who comprise one-third of the Associaton (NEA) membership, need to become more active in the GOP..."

Perhaps NEA Republicans need to become more active in the NEA and help turn it from being little more than a shill for the Democrat Party.

Thank you again, Reg Weaver and the rest of the NEA leadership, for being so partisan, for putting all our eggs in the Democrat basket, that teachers can effectively be ignored by the Administration for another 4 years. Why should the Bush Administration listen to an organization that opposes its every move?

And lastly, quit carping about the NCLB Act. Despite it's few small flaws, it's shining a beacon of light on underperforming and nonperforming schools. For too long those schools, and the disproportionately minority students they served, were ignored by the government, by NEA, by everyone, while their students didn't learn. This law compels us to look at those children--those we claim we want to help the most--and find ways to teach them. I agreed with a quote of Reg Weaver's from another article in the same issue: "It's time to change the focus from defining the problem to doing something about it." That's exactly what NCLB does.

NEA Has Secretly Paid Millions to Discredit NCLB

Joanne Jacobs and EIA (see blogroll at left for both) have posts today which discuss the NEA's secret war against the No Child Left Behind Act. USA Today has what is to me the most obvious point about NEA hypocrisy:

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.

NEA wasn't too fond of the Williams deal. How, then, do they explain this?

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.

NEA President Massa Reg doesn't quite come off sounding like a genius:

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.

Whom does this law help the most? Clearly, it's inner city kids--the law shines the spotlight on the failure of these kids, their schools, and in all probability the culture of poverty that encourages continued failure. Keeping that in mind, let's take a look at a partial list of the organizations to whom the NEA is giving money to fight this law:

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.

The mind boggles.

News From the NEA Convention

My mole at the convention hasn't contacted me, so like the rest of the world I must get my information straight from the Education Intelligence Agency. NBI stands for "new business item".

NBI 33 reads, "NEA will create a committee to explore joining with other associations and organizations interested in public education with the purpose of creating, using the NEA website, a website dedicated to defending public education from negative propaganda in the media."

As Yoda might say: "Do, or do not. There is no 'create a committee to explore.'"

I guess the education-textbook complex never issues propaganda.

* I just liked the vocabulary used in NBI 35, which calls on NEA to educate its members about NCLB and instruct them "in the necessary steps to impede its reauthorization."

Yes, because that's what a good teacher should be doing.

* NBI 39 calls on NEA to publish an open letter to President Bush and the U.S. Congress under the headline "Support our Troops and Their Families – Bring the Troops Home Now." Apparently top-down mandates from non-practitioners are OK when it comes to national defense. Maybe the troops should be consulted before anything is done in their name.

Hear hear! How many times must I say it--consistency is not a strong suit of the left.

Here are a few suggested amendments to the union's legislative program:

* Legislative Amendment 6 would put NEA on record in opposition to voter identification at polling places.

Of course! Because voting is too important to restrict it to only legal, living, American voters.

* Legislative Amendment 8 would have NEA call for the repeal of NCLB.

* Legislative Amendment 10 directs NEA to call on the federal government to restore the old dates for Daylight Savings Time.

Because that's an important component of Darren's pay, benefits, and working conditions.

You people who continue to be NEA members--how long can you put up with this? Surely cognitive dissonance will affect you eventually.

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.

NEA Has No One To Rubberstamp This Year

Usually the Democrats have a clear front-runner in the presidential race, and the NEA Rep Assembly in July rubberstamps the NEA governing board's rubber stamp of the Democratic candidate for president. Then the NEA really kicks it into gear, enlisting the services of its members for phone banks and canvassing--and giving beaucoup dinero--for the Democratic candidate.

The Education Intelligence Agency links to this article, but has heard this information from nowhere else:

Reg Weaver, president of the National Education Association, said his frustration with the candidates' lack of focus on education caused him to write to all four candidates saying the NEA, the country's largest teachers union, with 3.2 million members, would not endorse a candidate this year.

Almost impossible to believe. Or maybe not--the NEA can always count on the Democrats to give it whatever they ask for (except eliminating the Windfall Elimination Provision), and the Dems can always count on the votes and money of a large percentage of NEA's members.

But being unable to choose when the race is tight, for fear of alienating the winner if they choose incorrectly--this does seem to make the NEA look weaker than their image and dollars suggest.

NEA Donates Teachers' Money To Dead Wacko

From the November 13th Education Intelligence Agency (see blogroll at left) Communique:

Your NEA PAC Dollars at Work: Lucian Wojciechowski for President. While researching the above story, EIA discovered a strange entry in the disclosure report of NEA's Fund for Children and Public Education, the union's political action committee. It appears NEA contributed to a U.S. Presidential candidate in the 2006 election cycle. If the contribution was odd, its recipient was even more so.

NEA donated $5,000 to Lucian Wojciechowski's presidential campaign. Who the heck is Lucian Wojciechowski, you ask? Good question, because it took a lot of digging to turn up this little bit.

Evidently, Wojciechowski was a fringe candidate in the 2004 U.S. Presidential campaign. He ran as a Democrat, along with other notables, such as Lyndon LaRouche and Vermin Supreme. According to the American RealPolitik web site, Wojciechowski finished last in the DC primary, picking up 38 votes. RealPolitik reported:

"A phone call to Wojciechowski did not yield abundant information about his political views, though he did forcefully advocate the construction of 40-story buildings, each many miles long, to run up the California coastline from San Diego to Los Angeles.

"He also mentioned a recent skirmish with the court system.

"'I couldn't leave Imperial County for a while because two women accused me of doing something I didn't do, and I had to go to court, and I missed the debates. We're going to sue them for a billion dollars,' he said.

"The accusation?

"'Lewd conduct.'"

Wojciechowski also made a short appearance in the January 14, 2004 issue of The Hotline, which highlighted his candidate statement in the DC Voters Guide. Wojciechowski stated his main objective was "to replace Alan Greenspan in the Treasure Dept., return the monies to investors in T notes, bonds, & bills, or certificates at banks and money markets at investment brokers that is due to them." He also mentions the lewd conduct charges, adding that he was convicted.

A further examination of NEA's disclosure reports indicates the union's PAC made the $5,000 contribution on June 21, 2005, via the California Democratic National Committee. There were only a handful of other contributors.

If all of this isn't oddball enough, it appears this same Lucian Wojciechowski was shot to death while sitting in a parked car in Palm Springs at 3:21 a.m. on March 16, 2005 – three months before NEA's presidential campaign contribution.

EIA can only assume there is a bizarre clerical error behind this whole thing, but the long journey of a PAC contribution from the checkbooks of teachers to the committee of a dead fringe presidential candidate is worth asking about.

You gotta love a story like that. Anyone think the NEA will explain itself?

NEA Will Introduce Yet Another Gay Marriage-Approving Resolution At It's Rep Assembly This Year

Before you libs get your panties in a bunch and fire up the homophobic name-calling machine, I'll just state up front that, absent getting government out of the marriage business altogether, I support government's sactioning the marriage of any two consenting adults.

But I see no reason why the union to which I still have to contribute money each year, despite the fact that I'm not a member, needs to put forth a resolution approving of gay marriage. Honestly, what possible impact could that have on education or on educators?

NEA can't seem to decide if it's a labor union, a leftist front group, a political action committee, or a social services organization. So part of the time they focus on education, another part of the time they focus on the educators who make up their ranks, and another part of the time they spend on things unrelated to either of those two issues. Like this gay marriage issue. Why does NEA do this?

NEA is a liberal-left organization run by liberal-left people. It will support a liberal-left agenda. The resolutions debates are often an exercise in semantics to disguise this fact.

That explains it quite well. So what exactly is this resolution that's being put forth?

This time around it is an amendment to Resolution B-8, Diversity. The resolution currently calls for "appreciation and acceptance of the various qualities that pertain to people as individuals and as members of diverse populations." The diverse populations are noted by 17 categories, including race, sexual orientation, gender identification, size, marital status, and geographic location. The proposed amendment, sponsored by the union's GLBT Caucus, adds the following language as a new fourth paragraph:

"The Association believes that legal rights and responsibilities with regard to medical decisions, taxes, inheritance, adoption, legal immigration, domestic partnerships, and civil unions and/or marriage belong to all of these diverse groups and individuals."

If you accept my premise that a union should focus strictly on pay, benefits, and working conditions, then a resolution of this type is meaningless. It may or may not be a nice gesture (like the NEA's resolution supporting veterans) but it has no purpose at all. Some would say that the incidents of marriage are "benefits" that teachers would get if gay marriage were legalized, but I counter that everyone would be entitled to those benefits, not just teachers, if gay marriage were legalized. There are no benefits that a school district could or would offer gay couples that the state would not, so this isn't really an issue of pay/benefits/working conditions. What is it, then?

Yet another nod to the far left.

Oh, and those of us who don't support this resolution, whether or not we support gay marriage? We're just intolerant. May as well fire up that name-calling machine.

Thanks to EIA (see blogroll at left) for providing a history of GLBT resolutions at the NEA, as well as commentary on this one, in the June 19th Communique.

Update, 6/23/06: EIA says there's a change in the works because the NEA is getting mambo-gobbo amounts of unhappy email on the topic. I'm curious about this quote from Massa Reg, though:

"While I understand that the e-mails and phone calls you are receiving are generating concern, we must not allow the tactics and manipulations of these divisive groups to derail our process. NEA has no position on same-sex marriages, and leadership is not seeking to establish such a position."

Then what the heck is this resolution for?

September 2005 Issue of NEA Today

There were all sorts of quotes in the September 2005 issue of the NEA rag so I'll just list a few here, with pithy commentary.

From NEA President Reg Weaver, in his Viewpoint article: "Credibility is also very personal. This year, I stressed to delegates that we must preserve professional credibility by insisting upon the professionalism of all our education colleagues." Oh, Reg, if only the union truly acted that way.

In what must rank as one of the most coherent letters to the editor ever published by the NEA, a reader from San Francisco (of all places!) had this to say:

"I was pleased to see 'Teaching 9/11', since I'm always interested in hearing about teaching currentl global events. However, Robert Peterson does not seem to be teaching about 9/11, but rather about global economic injustice.

"The attacks of September 11 were carried out by people who were neither poor, nor acting on behalf of the world's poor. Their motivations were apparently religious and nationalistic. Let's dispel the myths of the right and left right now: Saddam did not aid Bin Laden, and Islamic fundamentalism terrorism is not retaliation for the sweatshops of Asia and the poverty of Africa. We can teach our kids to understand America's flaws and strengths honestly, without ascribing noble motivations to terrorists."

I would only add that there's no evidence that Saddam aided bin Laden in the September 11th attacks, but otherwise an eminently reasonable position to hold.

Here was an interesting tidbit. I wonder if NCLB had anything to do with this:

"Black and Hispanic 9-year-olds are closing the achievement gap in math and reading, according to the 2004 National Assessment of Educational Progress.

"Overall, White, Black, and Hispanic 9-year-olds scored higher, on average, in 2004 than in any previous year. At the same time, the White-Black gap in reading decreased from 44 points in 1971 to 26 points, and the White-Hispanic gap fell to 21 points."

It seems that America's kids are getting fatter. How much responsibility for changing this should schools accept? Should BMI (body mass index) be included on school report cards, as was discussed recently on other education blogs? Here's the factoid from NEA: "A campaign to fight fat among Singapore's children through mandatory exercise, wieght monitoring, and healthier lunch programs seems to be working. Ten percent are overweight, down from 14 percent 10 years ago."

This again from Reg Weaver on page 16: "Teachers are tired of elected officials 'acting' like they care about students when it's election time and then turning their backs on campaign promises later." Might I suggest then, Reg, that you stop giving my money to all those Democrats you give it to.

A couple lines below that quote shows what a wonderfully democratic organization NEA is: "NEA President Reg Weaver, who was elected without opposition to another three-year term...." And page 45, which describes some of the NEA Resolutions adopted at this summer's Representative Assembly, has the headline "Democracy in Action."

I'll skip a discussion of the adopted resolutions here--that's for a separate post.

More On NEA and Wal*Mart

Should I be surprised or disgusted?

It would be nice to be surprised, but I'm not. It would be nice not to be disgusted, but I am. Oh-for-two, in sports parlance.

On page 12 of NEA Today is a 1/2-page article slamming Wal*Mart. Why my union, which should be worrying about my pay and working conditions and nothing else, has an article about a corporation completely unrelated to those topics, or even to education, should surprise me. But I know why. It's because NEA couldn't care less about Darren. The NEA cares only about itself, and it feeds off my mandatory dues to satisfy itself. It's a blood-sucking leech, and that disgusts me.

What do they have against Wal*Mart? They're anti-union, the Walton family donates money for voucher initiatives, and wages are substandard. Yet how is it their profits soar? Oh, I know! They provide goods and services that droves of Americans seek! And they offer a number of jobs that are miniscule compared to the number of people who want them. People vote with more than ballots, they vote with their feet and with their wallets. And apparently there are lots of votes at Wal*Mart--except votes for unionizing.

Singling out a company by name? With my money? Am I the only one who sees anything wrong with this picture?

So I get frustrated and turn the pages of the magazine, and what do I spy on page 55? Why, a short blurb encouraging me to join Costco, a Sam's Club (and hence Wal*Mart) competitor. I have nothing against Costco, and apparently they're quite the good "corporate citizen", but it shouldn't be the place of the teachers' union to denigrate one company and promote its competitor.

Hurricane Relief:
Wal*Mart/Sam's Club: $28,000,000 in cash so far, plus more in goods http://www.walmartfacts.com/community/article.aspx?id=1331
Costco: offering members the "opportunity to donate directly to the American Red Cross" http://www.costco.com/Service/FeaturePage.aspx?ProductNo=11034068
NEA: $1,000,000 (to be raised and given, not just given from current funds) http://www.nea.org/newsreleases/2005/nr050907.html

I wonder if Wal*Mart will try to make any points off these data? Nah, they're too busy providing services that people actually want--unlike the NEA.

Update: OK, this story isn't about the NEA in particular, but it is about a union that uses temporary employees as paid picketers outside a Wal*Mart in Henderson, NV. The closing says it all:

Yes, the UFCW is outsourcing its picketing to non-union workers, at a sub-standard pay rate with no benefits, in unsafe conditions, with no transportation or means to leave the premises, in order to protest the poor jobs inside Wal-Mart, where workers make twice as much.

To quote Glenn Reynolds: Heh.

What Is The True Purpose of the NEA?

Why does the teachers union exist?

I believe that a union should look out for the best interests of those who support it financially, and should focus on their pay, benefits, and working conditions.

It seems, however, that the NEA disagrees with me. It apparently sees itself as a union cum social services organization, a left-wing organization of the highest degree.

What prompts me to say this? Why, their very own resolutions, posted on their very own web site. There are some 300 resolutions there; how many of them pertain directly to pay, benefits, and working conditions? Even if you like or agree with some of the resolutions, why should a labor union--financed in part by extorted dues--be involved in these issues that have nothing to do with pay, benefits, and working conditions?

Seriously, go read just the table of contents for their resolutions.

Tell me why a labor union should be looking out for others people's children instead of (or in addition to) its members. And if you think that a labor union of teachers should be looking out for students--as if that's not the responsibility of the elected school board--explain the 2nd paragraph of Resolution B-75 to me, which punishes students whose parents pay taxes for public schools but don't want their children educated in public schools.

See if the NEA itself lives up to Resolution B-11 with regards to white people or Republicans, both of whom are specifically left out of the list of people who should be respected. Explain how the NEA can support affirmative action and other set-aside programs--and why it disliked the school segregation cases ruled up on by the Supreme Court in June--when it claims Part D of Resolution B-11.

Tell me why a labor union to which I'm compelled to give money should give a darn about "Equity for Incarcerated Persons", which is Resolution B-23.

I'll skip a hundred or so resolutions--what possible interest could a labor union have in "Statehood for the District of Columbia", Resolution H-11? or in the "International Court of Justice" or the "International Criminal Court", Resolutions I-2 and I-3? or "Protection of Senior Citizens", Resolution I-35? or in "Businesses Owned By Minorities and/or Women", Resolution I-54?

I could go on but I'll stop there. While the ideas represented by those resolutions may (or may not) be good ideas, the NEA has no business concerning itself with them--or in using my money to do so. Pay, benefits, and working conditions, and nothing else.

Want to know why I have so much disregard for the NEA? There are only two reasons:

1. the fact that I'm compelled to give them my money, and
2. the things on which they spend my money.

The second point I've addressed in this post, the first I've addressed in so many others:

Every (non-military) American has a right to join a union. Every American has a right not to join a union. Every American should have the right not to be required to support a union financially.

That NEA gets a cent from me is an injustice of the highest order.

Dog Bites Man--NEA To Challenge "No Child Left Behind" Law

What a shocker. They don't like NCLB. I'll bet they also say that class sizes are too large and pay is too low.

The plan approved Monday calls for increases in the $23.5 billion budget currently authorized by Congress and a decrease in the number of students in each classroom. The union also is calling for a national minimum wage of $40,000 a year for teachers.

What a shock! Can I call 'em, or what?!

I actually found the information at the end of the article to be the most interesting because it might mean that the NEA actually told the truth about something:

Packer said Monday's vote reflects a recent NEA member attitude survey of 1,000 NEA members, which found a majority dislikes the No Child Left Behind Act but would rather modify it than repeal it.

About 30 percent of NEA members approve of the law, the survey found.

If I were an NEA member, I'd be part of that 30%. But I'm not, so I'm not.

I find it interesting that the NEA, however slowly, might start playing ball here with the Republicans.

"We're moving from just being critics to saying this is our own vision," Packer said. "It is very powerful because it's the voices of classroom teachers."

In an hourlong discussion, only three of the 9,000 members of the union's Representative Assembly argued against the lobbying effort. They said the law was too flawed to fix and wanted the union to focus on repealing it.

A significant number of delegates shouted "No" during the vote, but not enough to swing the outcome.

Might the union higher-ups have finally realized that they've effectively shut themselves out of the decision-making process for the last 5 1/2 years, and that maybe they should try a different technique besides "complain, degrade, and attack" if they want to be taken seriously at all? Naw, that's too much to hope for. That would probably be reading too much into this one particular event.

Update, 6:15 pm: The Education Intelligence Agency provides this commentary straight from the convention:

It's difficult to take seriously all the NCLB horror stories about soul-deadening curriculum, skyrocketing school budget deficits, employees thrown out into the streets, and intimidated and frightened students, when not a single state has turned down the money appropriated by Congress to implement it. Reject the money, avoid NCLB mandates.

When the education establishment truly embraces the Tenth Amendment (item #6), we'll all be better off. Don't take the handout and then complain when you're asked to chop wood.

Where The NEA Is Spending Your Money

EIA (see blogroll at left) reports in the December 4th Communique that the NEA gave almost $5 million to (mostly liberal) advocacy groups. Form LM-2 was filed with the Labor Department last Wednesday, but I'm not sure if it deals with the last calendar year or with the last fiscal year (Sept-Aug?). But here's where the NEA is giving a lot of money:

The expenditures range from $1.3 million to Communities for Quality Education (formerly America Learns), an NEA front group created to advance the union's agenda on the No Child Left Behind Act, down to several $5,000 grants to groups such as Rainbow PUSH, GLSEN, and Amnesty International.

Here is a list of the recipients of NEA's largesse, with relevant web links:

100% for Great Public Schools - $110,000

AIDS Responsibility Project - $5,000

Alliance for Justice - $10,000

America's Agenda - $50,000

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education - $16,500

Americans United to Protect Social Security - $250,000

Amnesty International - $5,000

Asian American Justice Center - $5,000

Asian and Pacific Islander American Scholarship Fund - $5,000

Asian Pacific American Institute for Congressional Studies - $5,000

ASPIRA - $5,000

Baptist Center for Ethics - $20,000

Campaign for America's Future - $41,000

Center for Community Change - $25,000

Center for Innovative Policy - $125,000

Center for Law and Education - $50,000

Center for Policy Alternatives - $5,000

Center for Teaching Quality - $17,150

Center for Women Policy Studies - $5,000

Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association - $52,500

Citizens Who Support Maine's Public Schools - $100,000

Committee for Education Funding - $16,182

Committee for Fair Elections - $100,000

Communities for Quality Education - $1.3 million

Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Inc. - $56,800

Consortium for Educational Change - $11,900

Council of State Governments - $10,000

Democratic GAIN - $10,990

Democratic Leadership Council - $25,000

Economic Policy Institute - $208,474

Educational Impact Inc. - $40,000

Educational Testing Service - $42,266

Everybody Wins DC - $8,000

FairTest - $35,000

Faith and Politics Institute - $5,000

Funniest Celebrity in Washington - $20,000

Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation - $5,000

Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network - $5,000

Generations United - $30,000

Grassroots Democrats - $7,500

Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice - $250,000

Great Lakes Inter-tribal Council - $9,500

Harvard University Office for Sponsored Research - $50,000

HEROS Inc. - $79,890

Hispanic Press Foundation - $7,500

Home and School Institute - $45,131

Howard University School of Business - $5,000

Human Rights Campaign - $30,000

Institute for Women's Policy Research - $5,000

International Civil Rights Center - $15,000

Iowa Teaching and Learning Center - $17,000

Jobs with Justice - $10,120

Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies - $10,000

Latino Book and Family Festival - $6,000

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights - $13,000

League of United Latin American Citizens - $15,000

Learning First Alliance - $52,890

Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change - $5,000

Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund - $10,000

NASA/PSTP - $12,500

National Alliance of Black School Educators - $5,000

National Association for Asian and Pacific American Education - $5,200

National Association for Bilingual Education - $5,000

NAFEA - $5,000

National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Education Fund - $10,000

National Coalition of ESEA Title I Parents - $5,000

National Coalition on Health Care - $25,000

National Conference of Black Mayors - $5,000

National Conference of State Legislatures - $37,000

National Consumers League - $5,000

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education - $320,160

National Council of La Raza - $8,000

National Equity Center - $15,000

National Indian Education Association - $40,800

National Parent Teachers Association - $5,000

NTL Institute - $52,250

National Women's Law Center - $10,000

New Organizing Institute - $25,000

Organizations Concerned About Rural Education - $5,000

Organization of Chinese Americans - $5,000

Partnership for 21^st Century Skills - $45,000

People for the American Way - $160,805

Public Agenda - $32,351

Rainbow/PUSH Coalition - $5,000

Rebuild America's Schools - $10,000

Richard Ingersoll - $12,000

Ripon Society - $12,500

Southeast Center for Teaching Quality - $180,000

Southern Christian Leadership Conference - $11,450

Task Force Foundation - $10,000

United South and Eastern Tribes - $5,000

U.S. Action - $35,000

U.S. Hispanic Leadership Institute - $15,000

WAND Education Fund - $12,000

Wellesley College Center for Research on Women - $10,295

It was also a good year to be Robert Chanin, NEA's general counsel. Chanin's firm, Bredhoff & Kaiser, received a total of $557,433 from NEA, while Chanin personally received payments in the sum of $317,750.

Now how much of that relates to teacher pay, benefits, and working conditions? How much of that relates to liberal ideology that has nothing to do with teacher pay, benefits, and working conditions? Round percentages will do.