Teachers' Pets

Tuesday, January 3. 2006

What does the nation's largest teacher's union spend it's members' dues on?

Well, according to stricter new federal disclosure rules, the National Education Association (NEA), the country's largest teachers union, gave $65 million (out of a total budget of $341 million) in contributions to politically liberal groups last year, among other things.

(Here's a look at its political contributions through the years.)

As this Wall Street Journal editorial notes:

We already knew that the NEA's top brass lives large. Reg Weaver, the union's president, makes $439,000 a year. The NEA has a $58 million payroll for just over 600 employees, more than half of whom draw six-figure salaries. Last year the average teacher made only $48,000, so it seems you're better off working as a union rep than in the classroom.
...

The NEA gave $15,000 to the Human Rights Campaign, which lobbies for "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equal rights." The National Women's Law Center, whose Web site currently features a "pocket guide" to opposing Supreme Court nominee Sam Alito, received $5,000. And something called the Fund to Protect Social Security got $400,000, presumably to defeat personal investment accounts.
...

There's been a lot in the news recently about published opinion that parallels donor politics. Well, last year the NEA gave $45,000 to the Economic Policy Institute, which regularly issues reports that claim education is underfunded and teachers are underpaid. The partisans at People for the American Way got a $51,000 NEA contribution; PFAW happens to be vehemently anti-voucher.

The extent to which the NEA sends money to states for political agitation is also revealing. For example, Protect Our Public Schools, an anti-charter-school group backed by the NEA's Washington state affiliate, received $500,000 toward its efforts to block school choice for underprivileged children. (Never mind that charter schools are public schools.) And the Floridians for All Committee, which focuses on "the construction of a permanent progressive infrastructure that will help redirect Florida politics in a more progressive, Democratic direction," received a $249,000 donation from NEA headquarters.
...

The NEA is spending the mandatory dues paid by members who are told their money will be used to gain better wages, benefits and working conditions. According to the latest filing, member dues accounted for $295 million of the NEA's $341 million in total receipts last year. But the union spent $25 million of that on "political activities and lobbying" and another $65.5 million on "contributions, gifts and grants" that seemed designed to further those hyper-liberal political goals.

Read the whole thing, but not on a full stomach...

Update: Teacher Betsy Newmark feels much the same.

Posted by Tom Elia in Education at 15:04 | Comments (29) | Trackback (1)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Fortunately for the NEA, I think the vast majority of their rank and file have no qualms with this kind of spending. Both my parents are public school teachers. The only thing in this article they would probably object to are the union salaries and I don't think they are unusual amoung their teaching peers.

#1 Gor on 2006-01-04 08:27 (Reply)

Having a majority agree does not make it OK or even honorable: I'm sure they would be very upset if the money was being spent to promote Intelligent Design, even though that does apply to the classroom. I'm sure you've belonged to groups that wanted to go in a direction with which you disagreed, but with most organizations you have the power to leave. The union has a lock on your dues and membership--they get to act in your name regardless of your own beliefs. That's why decent unions stick to the principles of the union charter and stay away from non-union specific politics.

#1.1 Edgar Lindamood on 2006-01-04 08:58 (Reply)

The current system of public education whereby the governments discriminate against parents who do not believe in the public education philosophy, agenda and belief system should be found unconstitutional for violations of the free speech, establishment of religion and free exercise clauses of the 1st Amendment and the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. Purportedly, tax dollars collected by the government are spent to assist parents (who have the primary responsiblility in educating their offspring) in educating their children. In fact, the tax dollars are spent to perpetuate governments' agenda, philosophies and belief systems.

#2 eddie on 2006-01-04 08:58 (Reply)

I find it amusing that the Wall Street Journal editorial board takes umbrage at Reg Weaver's $439,000 salary while elsewhere making excuses for the exorbitant salaries "earned" by business executives. Many of these executives make more in a month than Weaver makes in a year. Further, why shouldn't the NEA have a right to politically defend itself from the Republicans who are determined to tear down public education and destroy the NEA itself? I've been an NEA member for many years. I think the money the NEA spends on political activity is well spent. The Wall Street Journal is mostly angry about the nerve of public school teachers actually fighting back against the corporate Republicans who are their enemies. But after all, if the WSJ had its way, there would be no unions and all employees would we good, low-paid, obedient serfs.

#3 Joe (Homepage) on 2006-01-04 12:04 (Reply)

Republicans are the enemies of public school teachers? I though ignorance was the enemy of teachers. Evidently not.

The WSJ regularly excoriates execs who make high salaries for turning out a mediocre product. The real anger is among teachers who wish they too could get rich turning out a mediocre product.

The union bosses make a nice living tapping into that frustration. Creating a false enemy (Republicans) gives you a fight that feels good, as opposed to the more difficult and more real budget fights with local public officials, both Democrat and Republican, who know teachers get paid quite enough for the mediocre product they turn out.

#3.1 Paul Geary (Homepage) on 2006-01-04 12:29 (Reply)

"And something called the Fund to Protect Social Security got $400,000, presumably to defeat personal investment accounts."

Aren't teachers (and other government workers) in some states already outside the Social Security system, with the equivalent of private investment accounts? So isn't that 400K a good example of the NEA saying "We don't want the dirtbag public to get what we have already"?

#4 John on 2006-01-04 12:27 (Reply)

I used to be a Republican myself, and it took me a long time to accept the fact that conservatives were overwhelmingly hostile to what I did for a living. It's one of the reasons I am no longer a conservative myself. (Conservatives also demanded--demanded--that we stop teaching evolution by natural selection in the schools.)And I cannot help but observe that in those states where conservatives have political dominion and unions are the weakest that the "product" is the worst educated. An excellent case in point is Alabama, which is in the iron grip of conservatives and at the bottom of every measure of educational excellence.

My school is union. We were cited some years ago by Money magazine as being one of the top 100 values in high school education in the nation. Despite my school's educational excellence, conservatives in my district have repeatedly tried to vote down EVERY school levy, even when the schools were desperately overcrowded. They are organizing to do so again. Yes, my enemy is ignorance. But when conservative Republicans in my area attack us AGAIN AND AGAIN despite our record, I get fed up. By the way, the Republican goal IS to destroy the public school system. Bill Bennett said as much, saying that he hopes school reform will fail so the public school system will be shut down.

So what should I do? Passively sit while I get excoriated, often for things that are beyond my control? Or fight back against the people who have consistently attacked me no matter what I do?

#5 Joe (Homepage) on 2006-01-04 12:59 (Reply)

I couldn't help but respond to this portion of your comment:

"And I cannot help but observe that in those states where conservatives have political dominion and unions are the weakest that the 'product' is the worst educated."

Excuse me sir, but what about the underachieving public school systems in big cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Detroit, and Washington, DC - just to name a few cities?

Are you saying that conservatives are to blame for these underachieving school districts in overwhelmingly Democratic Party-controlled areas?

#5.1 Tom on 2006-01-04 13:19 (Reply)

By the way, while I am indeed on a pension, I have no control over how it is invested, and a very large portion of my state's investment money is in government paper, just as in Social Security. The current effort to "reform" (i.e., destroy) Social Security is ill-conceived, and the massive rejection of it by the public shows that they understand where their interests lie.

#6 Joe (Homepage) on 2006-01-04 13:06 (Reply)

I must take issue with this comment as well.

Teacher's unions, like all other public unions (which hold about 10% of the total market capitalization in both the stock and federal bond markets), invest their employees' retirement funds in approximately the same mix --55% stocks, 45% bonds.

Social Security does not -- repeat, does not -- have any similar investment holdings. It does not have investments in any publically-traded government debt.

That is a myth.

#6.1 Tom on 2006-01-04 13:27 (Reply)

Tom--I did indeed say a very large portion of my pension is in govt. paper--not all of it. And I personally have no say in ANY investment decision in regard to my pension money. Actually, it might be smarter if our state did stick entirely to govt. bonds as an investment.

Further, local governments don't usually control all financial support for big city schools. Big city districts have often had to contend with hostile state legislatures in regard to funding.

Big city districts have faced inconceivable social challenges caused by the collapse of urban industrialism and the disintegration of inner city society. Teachers in those cities have often done heroic jobs in trying to cope with this. And local urban governments have taken action where they could, as in Mayor Daley's takeover of the public school system. Does any district in Alabama, Mississippi, or South Carolina face problems of such a daunting nature? I don't minimize the problems these states DO have, but conservative efforts have done more to exacerbate them than anything else.

Conservative Republicans in my state (IL) have been atrocious in regard to public school policy. They have looked at Chicago as an enemy to be destroyed as much as something to be reformed.

#7 Joe (Homepage) on 2006-01-04 14:08 (Reply)

It would not be smarter for you to be only invested in bonds, just as it would not be smart to be invested only in stocks.

Be that as it may, Social Security has no investments whatsoever, and is merely a pay-as-you-go system.

Your assertion that the system has anything approaching investments in government paper is simply false.

The fact is, government workers in the US have far better retirement plans than their private sector counterparts -- precisely because they have market investments.

That's why the unions' opposition to private accounts is so very, very hypocritical. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, the public sector employee unions' participation in the opposition to private accounts is scandalous.

(The average Social Security beneficiary receives about $1,000 per month; 20%-25% of all beneficiaries receive SS as their sole source of income. I know for a fact that most teacher's retirement benefits are at least double or triple that of the average SS recipient. In Illinois, the average teacher's retirement benefit was over $4,000 per month last year, according to the Trib. This was possible, precisely because of market investments -- and also because of the fact that a lot of gaming of the system goes on by the retirees. Of course I'm shocked! Shocked! that something like that would happen in Chicago.)

As for you assertions about interference from "hostile state legislatures" -- I too am from the Chicago area -- please spare me that old meme.

The abysmal state of Chicago's public school system isn't for lack of funding (the average per-student-expenditure for Chicago public schools is way over the national average -- somewhere around $11,000 per pupil, yet only 54% of students actually graduated last year).

No, the argument that a lack of funds is what has caused the problem for inner city schools is not borne out by the facts.

For example, Washington, DC spent almost $15,000 per pupil a couple of years ago -- that's almost as much per student as the New Trier school district spends does for God's sake!

Do I contest the fact that some inner city teachers have done heroic work? No I don't. But the key word in that phrase is "some." There are an awful lot of very poor teachers in Chicago.

There were plenty of very poor Chicago public school teachers in the 1960s when I lived in Chicago, and my parents sent me to parochial schools while we lived in the city as a result.

They only considered public schools when they later moved the family to the suburbs.

That was more than 30 years ago! And guess what? The schools are worse now than they were then.

The fact is, large city public school systems' first goal is the employment of workers, not the education of children, sad to say.

And it has been that way for a long, long time.

And I believe that teacher's unions bear a lot of the responsibility.

#7.1 Tom on 2006-01-04 15:47 (Reply)

You said:
The fact is, government workers in the US have far better retirement plans than their private sector counterparts -- precisely because they have market investments.

That's why the unions' opposition to private accounts is so very, very hypocritical. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, the public sector employee unions' participation in the opposition to private accounts is scandalous.

My response:
Social Security in not a retirement plan. Why would you compare government workers retirement to social security? Private sector employees have retiremnet plans called 401k and the ilk.

The union opposes private accounts for SS because SS is not supposed to fluctuate based on market whims. We would have a huge solevency problem every time the market took a huge dive like the one in 2000-2001.

Every American employee should have SS, a retirement fund such as a 401k, and personal savings. Of course this is an ideal situation and some people rely on SS for all their needs later in life. We need to make sure the money is there for those people.

#7.1.1 adam on 2006-01-05 11:28 (Reply)

I disagree strongly. Social Security IS a retirement plan.

Unfortunately, it is a plan that uses the known operational knowledge of late 19th/early 20th century financial thought.

Financial thought has improved immeasurably since then.

SS is a system that takes almost 12.5% of a person's pay for about 40 years, and pays out an average of $1,000 per month. The average salary in the country is about $43,000, or around $3,600 per month. At that rate, the average taxpayer pays about $400 per month in SS taxes.

This is a horrible deal. Do the math!

You say that retirees should have a mix of SS, 401K, and savings.

How the heck are lower and middle income people to do this when so much is taken in SS taxes? Where are they going to get the money!

SS pays, on average, $1,000 per month!!! Why is this acceptable? We know how to do better.

How can anyone defend the current system?

Additionally, the point about market fluctuations is a canard that neglects the bond component in the equation -- and the fact that the stock and bond mix gets adjusted as people get older, so that the older one gets, the less stocks one holds.

I believe the politics surrounding the oposition to fixing SS has been the most cynical and shameful of the post-war era.

I believe history will bear this out.

#7.1.1.1 Tom on 2006-01-05 11:47 (Reply)

You cited that SS takes 12.5% of a persons pay and then gave and average of $43,000 for the average salary.

Employers must pay half of the 12.5% as payroll taxes which brings the personal rate down to 6.25%
You could argue that employers take payroll taxes into consideration as part of wages but you have established $43,000 as the average salary so we should only take 6.25% or $2687.5 off of the average. Your statement makes it seem as though one would have to pay the full 12.5% of $43,000 which is $5375. After SS is taken out of a person's check we are talking about a difference of taking home $40,312.50 instead of $37,625.
That would bring the average payment into SS per month to $224 and not $400 as you stated.

As far as I can tell, the average household income is about $43,000 but many households include two wage earners. Could you please site reliable source that could give data on individual incomes? A link to the government data would suffice.

Were are you getting the average data for SS per month? I was under the impression it was about $2000

Also, should we be using the median salary rather than the average? In the same regard we should probably use the median SS payout.

Anyway, the SS arguement is a good one. No doubt it is a retirement benefit as you don't draw from it until you retire. I'd hesitate to call it a retirement plan, as would the 75%-80% (based on your data) that have other retirement funds of their own already.

The inception of SS, as I'm sure you are aware, was implemented during the mid 30's as a response to the overwhelming poverty of the elderly after the great depression. Let it be noted that the very reason there was so much poverty at the time was BECAUSE of the stock market and SS was there to help bail people out. Anyway, I'm running out of time right now but this page gives good details of the various pros and cons for privatization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_debate_%28United_States%29

Before signing off, I'd like to say that I found the NEA data here http://erds.dol-esa.gov/query/orgReport.do

Below is what you said about it:
According to the article, which used data from this site (www.union-reports.dol.gov), the NEA's total budget was $341 million, of which $295 million came from dues. That means that $46 million came from other sources.

The union spent $25 million on "political activities and lobbying," and $65 million on "contributions, gifts, and grants."

To amend what you wrote:
$295 million came from "dues and fees" (I'm not saying that fees should go to political parties)

So the $46 million could have been from the PAC. Take away $25 million for politics and that leaves $21 million they can spend under the "contributions, gifts, and grants." catagory without looking foul. Unfortunately they spent $65 million which leaves a $44 million discrepency.

I would really like to see this data broken down into better catagories because the NEA gives away tons of grants to schools all over the country. I don't know if it is $44 million worth though.

I'd like to point out that there is a lot of money floating around on both sides that shouldn't. Still, if the NEA is using union dues to fund political action, they should stop and raise more money in their PAC.

The WSJ leading the story with NEA spending $65 million on politics from union dues is completely unjustified though. They are taking it from the same data as above.

Finally, (gee, I thought I was going...) I really want to pick a bone with the part of the article that mentions charter schools. Yes. The NEA is against charters. But the article says that the charters are public schools. That is incorrect. They are privately owned. (at least the ones in Michigan are)

That is just absolutely wrong.

#7.1.1.1.1 adam on 2006-01-06 12:18 (Reply)

You and I could argue about who the employer's portion of SS is actually coming from all day (I think it actually comes from the employee; I gather you don't), but it doesn't change the fact that about $400 per month is going into the system on behalf of the average employee (the same sort of employer matching happens in many 401k plans).

Here is the url for SS data, from the Social Security Administration (see table 2):

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/index.html

Here is an article from USA Today that gives some more easily found data from the SS Admin.:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/general/2005-08-15-getting-by-usat_x.htm

By the way, while 20%-25% of all recipients receive SS as their sole source of income, the notion that the other 80% have effective plans is not the case.

In fact, about 67% of recipients receive more than half of their retirement income from SS. So 20%-25% receive about $1,000 per month, and about 40% receive somewhere less than $2,000 per month.

The inefficiency of the SS system is staggering. We know how to do better than this!

A point of contention: the Great Depression was not caused by the stock market crash. The Crash was a symptom of the economic woes facing the country.

In point of fact, it was probably government actions (or the lack of them, in some instances) that exacerbated and lengthened the economic decline.

Some quick fun facts about the stock market:

In the last 75-80 years (including the market crash), the real rate of return on the S&P 500 is about 7% (this excludes inflation; with inflation the market return is about 11%) .

Starting from anywhere during this period, there is no 15-year period where S&P 500 loses money.

Starting from anywhere, there is no 20-year period where the S&P 500 grows by less than 3%.

Here are some links about SS that we've previously written:

http://www.theneweditor.com/index.php?/archives/538-Little-Known-Facts-About-Social-Security.html

http://www.theneweditor.com/index.php?/archives/407-The-Dems-Continue-to-Misrepresent-Private-Accounts.html

#7.1.1.1.1.1 Tom on 2006-01-06 13:30 (Reply)

Okay...I never intended to get into a discussion about SS. I was writing about the unfair WSJ editorial. My final comments are as follows:

The article you referred me to states in contrast to your opinion on whether or not SS is a retirement, or pension, program:

"When Social Security was launched 70 years ago Sunday, it was meant to be a supplement for retirees, not a full pension"

Now we are addressing the problem as if people are supposed to live of of SS alone. Doesn't make sense to me.

All of the "facts" about the market are moot when dealing with privatization of SS. You don't retire in 15 and 20 year increments. You retire during a specific year and if you need to start drawing out money during a bad year, you're screwed...or maybe you don't retire at all.

Anyway, there's one point I can't get past no matter if the financials work out better for privatization or not. Government has no place managing private money in the stock market. If you think there's corruption now....

Case closed for me. I won't budge on that one. No point of trying.

What I really wanted you to do was address the comments I made regarding the WSJ article.

For instance, it mentioned that charter schools were public. They are not. That is why the NEA is against public money going to them.

Accounting for the money in the article ($65 million in union dues) is not supported by the data from the source they cited. One might be able to infer that $44 million of union duese were used for political puposes but they haven't accounted for whether those monies fell under "grants" "gifts" or "contributions".
Finally, saying that being a union rep pays better than a teacher because of the 6 figure pay scales for half of the NEA administration is a completely stupid statement. My good friend is a union rep for the MEA and NEA. Combined he recieves about $500 per year. There's multiple reps in every district in every state. It's completely insulting to see such a false statement from what should be a respectable paper.

How about some comments on the article?

#7.1.1.1.1.1.1 adam on 2006-01-09 11:03 (Reply)

I know you don't want to talk about it, but your misconceptions about Social Security need to be addressed:

1) It doesn't matter what the program was meant to be 70 or so years ago. What matters is what the program is now.

None of the stats I cited changes because of what was meant to be in the 1930s: $1,000 average payout per recipient; 20%-25% of all recipients recieve it as their sole source of income; 40%-45 receive it as more than half the retiement income.

2) You write: "You retire during a specific year and if you need to start drawing out money during a bad year, you're screwed...or maybe you don't retire at all."

This is a canard. By the time you near retirement your investment mix shifts towards holding the majority of your portfolio in income instruments.

If your postulation is that those bad stock market periods defer or ruin retirements, we would have seen hundreds of thousands of public-sector employees unretire in 1986 and 2000.

Of course that didn't happen.

3) I am not advocating that the government control retirement investments.

All we need to do is follow what the members of teacher's unions have available.

As for charter schools – your statement that they are private is inaccurate -- they are public schools in most locales -- they are controlled by local governments.

As for the salary stats on the union, I think it is misleading to include part-time workers in the mix when attempting to divine the average salary per employee. That's like mixing apples and oranges.

The fact is full-time NEA employees on average are compensated by almost double that of the members.

#7.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Tom on 2006-01-09 11:29 (Reply)

Okay Tom, first of all, you're comparing what people pay into SS today to what they get out of it today. That's not how it works. Find out what the $1000 a month people paid in 1985-1990 and then compare it to $1000 a month return.

At what point in the last 70 years was SS changed to be a retirement fund instead of a supplement? Do you think the statistics you presented change the nature of the program?

Okay, disagree with me about my "canard". Have you read my links from the CBO that echo the same thing?
You said:
3) I am not advocating that the government control retirement investments.

All we need to do is follow what the members of teacher's unions have available.

Exactly the problem. The govenment shouldn't run teacher pensions. Of course, Washington would just be a ton worse than any state government for corruption and mismanagement of funds. Same as it is with any other type of corruption in govenment now. Federal level is much worse than state.
Here, read this link from the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation. I'm even backed up by the right...(at least in part)
3) I am not advocating that the government control retirement investments.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/draft-govinvest.cfm

Yes, charters are controled by local governments, but they are owned by private managing companies. So they receive public funds to cut profits for private companies. This would never be okay in my book but could be mitigated if the charters were held to the same standards and testing as regular public schools. So far, they've escaped that.

BTW: The vast majority of charter school teachers are not certified which is a requirement under NCLB

Fine...through out the salaries for the NEA members. I don't happen to think that $100,000 a year is that much, and yes $430,000 for Reg, when you take into account the amount of people they represent and are working for. NEA is no small operation and a comparable company would pay these people as much in a heartbeat.

You never addressed the crux of the whole article. What about the headline and following text regarding $65 million dollars of union dues going to political causes?

#7.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 adam on 2006-01-09 15:41 (Reply)

Adam,

I'm confused by what you write. I don’t mean for this to be offensive, but your knowledge of SS, the program's history, and financial theory appears to be a little thin.

First, you write:

"... first of all, you're comparing what people pay into SS today to what they get out of it today. That's not how it works. Find out what the $1000 a month people paid in 1985-1990 and then compare it to $1000 a month return."

But of course that's how it works! We're talking about real dollars -- SS is a pay-as-you go system!

The money going in today pays today’s recipients. There are no SS investments accruing interest, or cap gains that increase the benefits...

Second, you write:

"At what point in the last 70 years was SS changed to be a retirement fund instead of a supplement? Do you think the statistics you presented change the nature of the program?"

Here's how it's been changed: in the 1930s the original SS tax was 1%-2% and only applied to upper income earners.

Since the 30s, there have been about 20 tax increases, so that today the tax rate is 12.4%, and it applies to all income earners.

That's how the program has changed.

Third, you write:

"The government shouldn't run teacher pensions."

Adam, the government doesn't run teacher pensions -- pension fund managers do!

The government pays for road building, but doesn’t actually build the roads; private companies do most of that.

The government pays for defense spending, but doesn’t build the weapons systems, private companies do.

The idea behind teacher’s pension funds are the same.

Four, charter schools are set up by local and state governments in an attempt to improve the abysmal achievement in many of our public schools.

They are set up for limited a time outside of the usual rules and regs that are strangling innovation in our public schools -- they are public schools operating out of the box.

As for your assertion that many charter school teachers aren't certified -- so what?

There is no evidence I know of that shows that teacher certification produces better teachers.

None whatsoever.

#7.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Tom on 2006-01-09 16:35 (Reply)

And this is exactly where we part ways.

For the first part, comparing what people pay today to what people get today is wrong. It seems that your knowledge is quite thin. Read the links I put up from the government studies on private accounts. They address this exact point as a fallacy.

So, since the 30's the amount of taxes have increased, not the intention of the program. I'm arguing what the program is for, while you complain it costs too much. Those are seperate arguments. It's still not a program to solely retire on. Because you wish it to be so doesn't make it that way.

As for teacher pensions. Did you even bother to check the link about them from the Heritage Foundation? The answer to how government influences stock decisions in the pensions are there. Nice dodge on the corruption issue though.

I'm aware of why charter schools were set up.

How do you compare schools when they aren't held up to the same standard? What metrics would you use? Charter schools are exempt from public rules and regulations, even though they receive public money, and it behooves them to be so. Average charter performance is MUCH worse than average public school performance. Any common benchmarks we have now show that.

The issue about whether charters are public or private I suppose can be an argument over semantics. Bottom line is that the management of each school is private. Companies build them and control them. They are there to make a profit just like any other private sector business. When priorities of the administration of a school shift from students to profit, there's a big problem.

Teacher certification: So what?
You state that there is no evidence "I know of" that shows teacher certification makes better teachers.

The short and rude answer to this can be borrowed from Dan Akroyd in SNL "Jane, you ignorant...."

For a different answer consider the following:

NCLB legislation puts more strict requirements on teacher certification
Democrats and Republicans both overwhelmingly agree that teachers should be certified
When I worked at a charter they were desprately searching for teachers that were certified. Many other schools were doing the same.
Parents request teachers that are certified. They are the "customers" of education.

So what?

How can you compare (in general) someone who only has a high school diploma and worked in retail as a physics teacher to someone who graduated from a 4 year university with a physics major and then took classes in education to learn how to teach?
(actual comparison from experience)

Which one of these professions shouldn't be certified? CPA, lawyer, plumber, HV/AC, auto mechanic, doctor, etc...

With your last comment, you lost me. There's no point in a future response from me. Besides certification making logical sense on a very basic level, the fact that you aren't aware of studies doesn't mean that there aren't any. There are plenty.

I asked you 3 times to respond in regards to the WSJ article and yet you have not. I'll assume you are defaulting.

As for the post below, I'll see you on here in 10 years. Please don't have excuses when your prediction isn't true.

This is my last post until Jan 2016. I will not argue about the world being round.

#7.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 adam on 2006-01-10 11:09 (Reply)

In writing my previous post, I forgot to put in one of my key findings.
Instead of checking out the SS page of the government's website, which might read more like a commercial for the presidents agenda. Why not look at the Congressional Budget Offices page which has a responsibility that extends past the next 3 years.

The documents it has produced....let me rephrase...ALL of the documents it has produced have been critical of private accounts.

Here is the overaching one from 2000:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/32xx/doc3213/EntireReport.pdf

This is the page that links to the rest of their reports on the matter:

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/socialsecurity.cfm#pt5

#7.1.1.1.1.1.2 adam on 2006-01-09 11:20 (Reply)

I sent you the link to the SS because you asked for a source on average SS benefits. And I did so. That was it.

Here'as prediction for you:

In 50 years the Dems' opposition to private accounts will be laughed at by the vast majority of Americans. Mocked. Derided. Ridiculed.

#7.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 Tom on 2006-01-09 12:40 (Reply)

Safe statement considering neither of us will likely be around to gloat.

#7.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 adam on 2006-01-09 15:44 (Reply)

Okay. How does ten years sound?

#7.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 Tom on 2006-01-09 19:52 (Reply)

So, its somehow supposed to be a bizarre mispending of their cash to sponsor political candidates and organizations that support things their members like (liek higher salaries), but it's perfectly reasonable for the coal industry to spend millions to ensure that their lobbyists end up overseeing their industry via the election of George Bush.

What a bizarre alternate realtiy you inhabit.

#8 plunge on 2006-01-04 20:46 (Reply)

How much of that spending has anything to do with getting teachers better salaries?

Doesn't seem like that much to me...

#8.1 Tom on 2006-01-05 00:35 (Reply)

If the NEA spent that much money on politics with their *union dues*, then what are they doing with the PAC money?

Most teachers contribute to the PAC but it is not a requirement. The union provides full protection to those that don't contribute.

If they are using PAC money for the contributions listed above it shouldn't be suprising to anybody. Where's the documentation to substantiate they were using union dues. I followed the links but could find no such source.

#9 adam on 2006-01-05 11:54 (Reply)

According to the article, which used data from this site (www.union-reports.dol.gov), the NEA's total budget was $341 million, of which $295 million came from dues. That means that $46 million came from other sources.

The union spent $25 million on "political activities and lobbying," and $65 million on "contributions, gifts, and grants."

It would seem that at least some of the dues money went to the latter.

#9.1 Tom on 2006-01-05 12:08 (Reply)

Adam,

You make so many faulty assumptions, the mind boggles.

What you don't know about me is a lot.

Your argument on teacher certification is either an example of purposeful, false extrapolation, or simple misunderstanding of my point.

I assumed that you would take my point to mean teacher certification with regard to holders of advanced degrees.

I won't be sad to see you go, you've complteley wasted my time.

Best,

Tom

#10 Tom on 2006-01-10 12:53 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Historical US House Composition

Syndicate This Blog

Major Newspapers,
Magazines,
and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,
Magazines, and
Other Journals

Blogs

Economics, Science, & Technology Related
Blogs and Web Sites

Research Tools

Regional Newspapers

Features

Archives

Categories

Business News

Libertarian Ad Network

Old Archives

Tuesday, January 3. 2006

Teachers' Pets

Stephan Challenge

Search

Historical US House Composition

Syndicate This Blog

Major Newspapers,Magazines,and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,Magazines, andOther Journals

Blogs

Economics, Science, & Technology RelatedBlogs and Web Sites

Research Tools

Regional Newspapers

Features

Archives

Categories

Business News

Libertarian Ad Network

Old Archives

Tuesday, January 3. 2006

Teachers' Pets

Stephan Challenge

Search

Major Newspapers,
Magazines,
and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,
Magazines, and
Other Journals

Economics, Science, & Technology Related
Blogs and Web Sites