Credit to Michelle Malkin: http://michellemalkin.com/index.htm "The National Education Association recently had its annual convention, where it called for President Bush to withdraw our troops from Iraq, vowed to defeat the Central American Free Trade Agreement, and resolved to educate about the need for debt cancellation in underdeveloped countries." http://www.nea.org/annualmeeting/raaction/nbi.html "And you wonder why Johnny can't read." ~ Exactly Michelle...Exactly!
Eh. Unions have made political stands for ages. I'm not a member of the NEA, nor do I intend to be (at least not for my first year. I want to see what they actually do for teachers before they get any of my money). I have no idea why they are commenting on a trade agreement, but I can see why they have a strong opinion on Iraq. ITN, aside from the families of the soldiers, I can imagine that the group most affected by the death/wounding of a soldier would be the school that he/she recently graduated from. After two years, I can see how teachers are upset at how many young men and women have died. More than anyone aside from their families and friends, teachers knew these soldiers. They helped them grow up and prepared them for a long, productive future. I can see how they would get upset when those futures end prematurely.
My respect for you just rose ten fold! I debated whether or not to post this (since Malkin wrote it all I posted it verbatim)...her words not mine! I have a big problem with the NEA's political stands; the NEA has become far too political, even for a Union... children are suffering and education needs every hand to help! Union political stands hardly help~THE NEA IS ALMOST LEFTIST! The NEA has lost focus from what it once was! I posted this, however, just to point out how political the NEA is!
Teacher's unions are hypocrites when it comes to teachers' pay. On one hand they complain about a lack of funding from any governmental level they can see. On the other, they raise the level of the political contribution they demand from teachers so they can waste time and money on political positions that have no bearing on teachers in the classroom. Those that have read my stuff in the past know how I despise the California Teachers Association. The example cited by the thread starter is just another example of why teachers' union are becoming counter-productive. The unions take a position on issues outside of education that are not popular with many people and then complain when those folks don't support the union and their politics. If teachers' unions want to gain the full-fledged support of ALL the people, they need to stick to education issues and leave the rest to the politicians. But instead they act like "politicians" themselves, the most disrespected group of people in the country. In this case, the title for this thread is very apt and appropriate.
It's a national organization and it deals with lots of issues which affect education. Thanks for posting the link which shows all of the different issues that clearly affect eduction that they are working on. Pick any national organization that is worth its salt and they are going to be involved in direct and peripheral issues that affect their membership. The cherry picking this buffoon did is worthy of contempt, not praise.
Doesn't it make some sense for them to stand up and say, look, it's been proven that this war in Iraq was largely based on falsehoods and exaggerations and is now an enormous drain of money. Where is the help teachers were promised for education reform etc.? With this huge deficit now looming, education is ever more important for our economy to continue strongly for the next generation. Believe me, I worked in inner city schools all of last year in Boston and while our wonderful Gov. Mitt Romney was cutting afterschools and school funding left and right, there was little help from the Federal Gov. I'm sure it is the same nationwide. Some of these buildings should have been condemned, most are too small, all are understaffed. Resources such as pencils, books, desks etc. all the basics, are in short supply. Maybe they are too political but I would hate to see them saying nothing at all. Especially since nobody else is really in their corner (teachers don't usually have lobbyists).
You just quoted him completely out of context, simply to make it appear as if he doesn't like the NEA. And as the SpeedyOne said, it does make some sort of sense that teachers would take a stand about this. A teachers union would probably be pissed about us fighting a futile war when there is, for all intensive purposes, a public education crisis going on back home.
As just a recent high school grad, I don't know much about what you said, but I agree with at last line. Teachers like to whine and complain about the current educational system. Instead of complaining, why don't they go ahead and teach? I know THREE teachers who complained about Bush during the last elections. For all I know, I learned the LEAST in their classes. Why? Because they don't freakin teach.
Let's try not to generalize here. For starters, I can't stand teachers who bring their politics into the classroom. I had a poetry class one semester in which the professor spent more time talking about Bush than teaching poetry. I agreed with his political viewpoint, but he annoyed the hell out of me. Why? Because I didn't pay 1500 bucks to hear his opinions about politics. The same standard applies to high school. There is no need to bring up political commentary in the classroom. BUT... That's not what dj was talking about. DJ, I know you have issues with the CTU, and having heard your complaints, I can easily see why you and your wife have those complaints. What you need to realize is that not every state teachers union is like the CTU. I would be outraged if someone told me I HAD to join the union (we don't here in MD). You asked why they don't shut up about non-educational topics, and in all honesty, your comment was addressed. The war is peripherally related to education for the reasons I gave in the second post of this thread. As for other issues, I may not like it, but unions have been politically outspoken since their inception. Do you honestly think that every issue lobbied by the steel union has to do with steel? Of course not. Why should the teachers union be limited more than every other union? Finally, in response to the "shut up and teach" comment, how many union officials still classroom teach in the first place (if, indeed, they ever taught)? Most of the teachers I've met don't really follow or care what the union does. They care about the union when it's time to negotiate the next contract or if they need an HR issue settled. Most of them are aware of the political stance of the NEA and most (not a huge majority, but most) of the teachers I've met hold similar views. Those that don't usually just don't join the union. DJ, I know you have valid complaints about the local union in California, but try and separate those feelings from the issue at hand, which deals with the national union. The NEA is simply doing what a union does: Making a political stand on a series of topics, along a range of relevance with little direct influence from the vast majority of its members.
There are 92 items presented in the NEA link you provide. Some were voted down, but the rest are all presented. Here is Item 61, which considers Iraq: "New Business Item 61 The NEA calls on President Bush and Congress to: *support our troops by creating an exit strategy to end the U.S. Military occupation of Iraq and bring our troops home. *provide adequate veterans benefits and meet the needs of our veterans for adequate jobs, education, and healthcare. The NEA will: *support NEA members and their families called upon to serve in Iraq by identifying and providing information about resources and services to help meet their special needs, by advocating for their interests and by protecting their jobs, seniority, and benefits. *advocate the reordering of national priorities toward peace and the human needs of our people. ADOPTED AS MODIFIED" Of the four items listed, one is clearly against the war, two consider education directly, and one is about redirecting funds to human needs, including (I suppose) education. Would you find it acceptable without the first statement? I don't consider advocating "the reordering of national priorites toward peace and the human needs of our people" as overtly political, though I would concede that "leftists" tend to be more adamant about doing so. However, few "rightist" or conservatives I know want war and militarism.
Here's an interesting one: "New Business Item 38 NEA Representative Assembly directs President Weaver to express NEA's opposition to the annual observance of "Take Your Child to Work Day" during the traditional school year to the appropriate organization(s). We request this worthwhile day be observed during a non-attendance day for students (or one with less impact on student learning). ADOPTED" Maybe they should just make it one of their professional development days, though that would be "giving in" I suppose. It's been an odd hour reading everything. Lots about pensions, benefits, and social security - not out of the ordinary for unions. Some things I would need to know more about - Gallo wine boycott? Pro Wal-Mart? - to understand at all.
This is international policy rather than educational policy; the NEA has no business advocating one way or the other on this matter! I firmly believe that the President wants to bring the troops home, the sooner the better... he has said, however, he has maintained time and time again they will come home when the mission is complete.That is the Exit Strategy... You can't build into Military Plans specific dates when military role is complete. That said, this topic has no business in the sphere of an education union or teacher union, unless discussed in a proper political science class!
First let me say that we really shouldn't be in Iraq since it has very little to do with any kind of war on terror. That being beaten into the ground, I'd like to ask how many childhood friends you've personally had killed in Iraq? Are you past the age where you could join up and contribute to ending the mission? When these 18,19,20 etc. year old soldiers are getting killed daily, I'd say they are probably still well remembered by teachers, schools etc. Teachers often form personal relationships with their students so it seems natural that they would care when those lives that they have had so much influence in get cut short. Is it a political stand? Yes, obviously. But it's much more personal than, I Hate Bush, I Hate War, etc.
This lends greater credence to the NEA not advocating political causes than anything I could contribute....thanks SpeedyOne... you've demonstrated quite clearly, and succinctly too, why the NEA should focus on education and not political causes!
Point #4 was about the California Teachers Association (CTA). CTA is unique among state union affiliates in that it essentially mandates that teachers join the union. The annual fee is deducted automatically from certificated teachers' paychecks. (IIRC, in the mid to late 90's this was about $600 per year; though this could have included the national union dues as well.) Suppose you don't want to join the CTA? Well, you don't really have a choice. The "out" option (again, according to memory) was that the dues could be channeled to some other purpose (though I can't remember what that is/was) if a special petition was completed. Basically, you had no option but to join the union or pay the money to some other purpose and get no union benefits. Is this fair? Not in my opinion. And the benefits of union membership are most pronounced at the local level--in the event you need representation or assistance (for example, in the event a teacher needs help handling a dispute with an administrator). The local union (at the district level) goes to bat for the teacher in this case--at a cost of something like $7-$20 a month. The CTA or NEA really does not go to bat for the teacher in the "realm of the immediacy" that teachers inhabit. That said, the NEA (and the CTA) provides a strong and important counterbalance to interests that seek to destroy public education. In the past, I thought the NEA's policies were a bit shrill and reactionary, though in many cases I agreed with them. As I get older I realize that this stance is a necessary one. The powerful agencies that lobby for charter schools, vouchers and privatization have a hidden agenda--and it's not the same agenda that crusaders for the poor and underprivileged are fighting for. On the surface, who can argue with a system that gives poor families a "choice" of private schools (which implies lots of good options), or a system driven by "competition" (which, as we are taught, always produces "efficiency")? When these issues emerge I am reminded of the famous quote, introduced into the lexicon by Deep Throat: Follow the Money. Who benefits from the destruction/weakening of public schools? In the early period of charter school expansion there is room for small-time entrepreneurs-some of whom do excellent work, some of whom are charlatans-to offer new options to the struggling inner city masses. Ultimately, though we are bound to go down the road of "McSchools": large chains of schools that see each kid as a dollar sign and have no hesitation to accept money from corporate interests that seek to market to the (captive) student population. This trend is already evident in public schools (Coke machines that pay for sports programs, ads for Snickers bars in the hallway, even television programs with references to corporate sponsors, and so on). The only thing holding these trends in check are the "political activists" with shrill voices working for the unions. I would fight the CTA policy if I still taught in California, only because it is categorically wrong and patently unfair. Then I would pay the dues anyway.
Thank you for your response. Not much has changed as fair as CTA dues are concerned. However, do to heavy pressure from teachers who objected to being forced to pay to support numerous, non-education related political issues, the union now allows the teacher to opt to have the amount of money otherwise going to the "political" fund, now going to the teacher's choice of a list of charities the union has offered. The teacher must contribute to one of those organization, not something of the teacher's choosing. So on the surface, it looks like some progress has been made. Unfortunately, the CTA Exec Council just voted to increase the amount by $60/ for the next 3 years. So, the teacher is now forced to give even more money to the union-identified charity. Summarily, still a bad deal. Thank you also for response on the idea of creating competition for our public schools. We may just wind up agreeing to disagree on this point but here is where I am coming from: Our current public school system has arguably been getting worse and worse under the present structure lacking vouchers and charters. Something MUST change if we are to do a better job giving ALL of our children a better opportunity. Since the structure BEFORE charters/vouchers has not worked, some innovation/change seems appropriate. Ironically, the traditional opposition to both alternatives has come from "the poor will get left out" side of the fence. However, in inner-city situations, and low-performing schools in other areas in California with which I am familiar, low-income parents jumped at the chance to send their kids to alternative schools as opposed to current public schools that had been failing their children. The suggestion that at some point charters and/or schools supported through voucher credits will somehow fail does not find much credibility with me. I just do not find that "crystal ball" criticism to have foundation. Rather what I see is the union being concerned that charters, and other schools accepting vouchers, might not require teachers be union members, hence the union loses dues $$$$. As a result of this, so many of the ads the union has run attacking some of these ideas are just plain lies, but, they spend enough money, and tell the story enough times, that people begin to believe it. As snobby as that may sound, I don't believe it. For the record, I am not opposed to unions per se. However, the behaviour of CTA in this state is just indefensible. A very large percentage of their actions are only tangentially related to education, yet there is so much that local chapters can, and should be doing, for the classroom teacher yet they do virtually nothing. I firmly believe, based on what I have heard from meetings our little action group has had with teachers, that there will be a large revolt against the union in the next few years if major changes are not made. Summarily, I will go back to what I said before; if you keep doing something the same old way and it doesn't work, continuing on that same path but expecting different results IS insanity. It is time for significant changes.
let me take this from a non union standpoint, but supporting the origional position that ITN rejects. Many, if not most of the soldiers in Iraq have little more than a simple high school degree. Additionally, many, if not most of those soldiers, come from poor school districts and poor communities. The options for many of those students are either working for very little wage (if they are able to find a job), move to a new area/community they are unfamiliar with to gain employment, or go into the military. Even with the sparadic deployment of troops, from the first Gulf conflict, to the former Yugoslavia, to Somalia, many of those poor students choose to "join" the military. Some even went on to college on the GI Bill. Now all of them have the opportunity to die in Iraq. And many of those who came from poor communities are likely to return home, but not as valuable members of the community. Some could be dead, others physically injured, most will have some sort of psychologically trama, and there are always the questions of long term health problems. Additionally, as enrollment in the miltary has fallen, recruiters are working harder and harder to make their quota. One of the ways is to target high school students. Some will hang around outside high schools. Others are actually invited into high schools. Advertisements on TV tell of how young men and women can get their valuable education without having to go to college - just go into the military. But it doesn't end there. There are now students who are not taking the military option. They are going to college on their own. But they still come from poor communities. Obviously, if they want to be successful, they will have to attend college, but that is expensive. So they start out with students loans. Sure, they work a job or two, but at or near minimum wage, those jobs won't cover the expenses of college. So these students, who were poor from the start, are now in debt. (Yes, I simplified that point). Now, imagine if the money from one year in Iraq was put to public education. How many billions of dollars? $80? $100? $150? More? I really don't know the ammount, but think of how many books, or desks, or air conditioners that could buy. How many building could be fixed? How many new buildings could be build? How many new schools could be built? How about technology upgrades in schools? How about funding for new programs such as distance learning or alternatives to ESL? Or, geeze, how about more teachers, or better paid teachers. Na, that is too complicated. But Jacen is right, unions are political. Some just look at bigger stages. Oh, and dj and wjones, thanks for that info. I will soon become a teacher, and may end up in California...
soccernutter, don't let any of my rambling discourage you from coming to California. We need teachers out here who are willing to stand up and do their own fighting rather than relying on the union to do it for them. On your litany of the Citizen Soldier: The makeup of the volunteer section of the military really hasn't changed all that much over the last 60 years. The typical volunteer is either someone who has a strong sense of duty to country and joins to fulfil that duty, or the young person who really doesn't have any specific goal in life and hopes that a few years in the military will allow him/her to travel the world and gain a better handle on life. I flat out reject the idea that this young people are being preyed upon by recruiters but are not smart enough to recognize what is happening. They do. Especially in today's saturated media world where the daily death toll is the lead line, no one can logically suggest that any kid with half a brain is not going to recognize that the military is an organization designed and developed to break things and kill people. Yet, these kids are willing to put their life on the line for the sense of duty, or the discipline ("it will make a man out of you") or the chance to a free college education, etc. And it has been that way since the '40s. It is not the role of teachers' unions to try to change this. For one thing, when we are being totally honest, unions are basically supporters of the Democrat party and their opposition to the Iraq war is just another way to oppose Bush. But even if that were no the case, there are many, far more important things with which to involve themselves than posing opposition to a war that they have no influence to control in the first place. But I think I have said all this before on these boards so I will let it go for now...