|
1) Kerry’s Education Laundry List
Puts NEA in Spin Cycle. The National Education
Association’s recent presidential recommendations have had a touch of comedy
for the organization – or tragedy – depending on how committed an education
labor activist you are.
NEA loved Bill Clinton, though the union
was periodically abashed by his forceful rhetorical support of charter
schools. They recommended Al Gore, who went out and selected as his running
mate U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman, the nation’s most prominent Democratic
supporter of school vouchers. This year, the union steadfastly refused to
take sides in the contentious Democratic presidential primary. NEA did not
jump on the Howard Dean bandwagon, and patiently waited for the field to
winnow itself out. When it became clear John Kerry would win the nomination,
the union still waited for its regularly scheduled executive meetings to
address the recommendation. As reported here last week, NEA’s executive
committee and board of directors at last anointed Kerry as the chosen
candidate, to be put to a formal vote of the representative assembly in
July.
And then, as if on cue, Senator Kerry
gave an education policy speech at a San Bernardino, California, public
school on May 6 that sent the union’s PR people spinning like tops.
Kerry pledged to spend more than $20
billion over 10 years to improve teacher pay, but with strings. The bulk of
the money would go to differential pay – to teachers who work in
hard-to-staff schools, or who teach math or science, or who meet performance
standards.
According to the Los Angeles Times,
“Kerry would require all states receiving the new federal money to toughen
the tests used to certify new teachers. Even more dramatically, he would
require those states to simplify the process for teacher dismissal.”
“No one can have a lock on the job
forever, no matter what,” Kerry said.
Kerry’s plan would provide federal funds
for performance pay programs, letting districts use multiple measures for
performance but, according to the Los Angeles Times, “he would
require that school officials base part of their assessments on how a
teacher’s students perform academically.”
Kerry also mentioned wanting to “break
down the walls of bureaucracy to attract either veterans or mid-career
professional from business” into teaching.
Reporter David M. Halbfinger of the
New York Times captured the union response to the speech perfectly:
“‘I believe we need to offer teachers
more pay,’ [Kerry] began, interrupted by applause.
“He continued: ‘More training, more
career choices, and more options for education. And we must ask more in
return. That’s the bargain.’ And there was silence.”
Officially, there wasn’t much enthusiasm
shown. The AFT statement simply ignored the bulk of Kerry’s proposals, and
commended him for being “committed to fully funding the No Child Left Behind
Act.”
The NEA statement took a similar tack,
announcing support for Kerry’s “fundamental premise” (which is the same
thing union officials say about NCLB) and stating, “We look forward to
discussing ways to help strengthen Senator Kerry’s proposals in ways that
will meet the needs of America’s public school students.” All that was
missing was ominous music. The Los Angeles Times also reported that
“union leaders already have complained about the proposal to key Democrats
on Capitol Hill, Democratic aides say.”
In addition, NEA issued talking points
emphasizing agreement that “schools should be able to provide incentives to
attract and keep teachers in hard-to-staff schools.” But the union disagrees
with providing bonuses for math and science teachers.
Kerry’s speech backed the union into a
corner on two tenets of new unionism that have not withstood the test of
time in NEA: performance pay and firing poor teachers. The quickly-generated
talking points skirt these issues, but still come down on the wrong end of
NEA resolutions. The union “would be willing to look at ways to develop
‘fast, fair procedures for improving or replacing teachers who do not
perform on the job,’” the points state, and also “to look at ways to reward
teachers for performance – so long as they are objective, open to all, and
use multiple, objective methods for judging success.” Unfortunately for NEA,
this latter formulation does not square with its own resolution F-10, which
baldly states the union’s opposition to “merit pay or performance pay
compensation systems.”
Kerry’s plan also undermined one of the
planks in NEA’s opposition to the No Child Left Behind Act – that it is a
one-size-fits-all approach that reduces local control and hands over too
much of education policy to the federal government. That’s a fine argument,
but how can you make it if your candidate wants federal bureaucrats to
approve and regulate teacher pay systems?
It’s only May, and NEA still has plenty
of time to “educate” Kerry on his policy proposals. But Kerry and the
Democratic Party may be less inclined to listen. The day before Kerry’s
speech, Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner, a Democrat, made a very similar
proposal on performance pay, bonuses to teachers to work in hard-to-staff
schools, and “master teacher” licensing. Where this all goes is anybody’s
guess, but it isn’t all cakes and ale at NEA headquarters.
2) Pocketbook Concerns Dominate
State Union Assemblies. Most of NEA’s state
affiliates hold their representative assemblies in the spring, and their
activities often provide a glimpse of what to expect at the NEA convention
each July. This year, the major external issue will continue to be the
federal No Child Left Behind Act, and the major internal issue is certainly
money. The question is whether the union will directly address the latter in
an open public forum like the NEA convention.
In past years, delegates have chosen
sides on issues such as merger, performance pay, and social policies. But it
has been a very long time since NEA has had to confront such widespread
financial hurdles. Without having seen it happen before, EIA doesn’t know
how – or if – NEA delegates will discuss such sensitive matters. It is even
possible that most delegates are unaware of just how financially
interdependent their state affiliates are on NEA and each other.
For example, NEA pays the salaries of 23
state executive directors. These are mostly states in the bottom half of the
membership rankings, and some of them would have difficulty paying the
compensation out of their own dues. Here are the figures for 2002-03:
Alaska – Tom Harvey, $111,252
Colorado – Philip Moeckli, $130,079
Connecticut – John Yrchik, $145,345
Delaware – Howard Weinberg, $121,065
Federal – H.T. Nguyen, $131,176
Hawaii – Joan Husted, $100,499
Idaho – James Shackelford, $104,338
Minnesota – Larry Wicks, $128,548
Mississippi – Frank Yates, $92,762
Missouri – Peggy Cochran, $127,279
Montana – David Smith, $98,027
New Hampshire – Edward Shumaker,
$81,500, and Dennis Murphy, $51,738
New Mexico – Kay Brilliant, $125,354
North Carolina – Colleen Borst, $105,737
North Dakota – Joseph Westby, $92,501
Oklahoma – David Duvall, $95,377
Oregon – Joann Waller, $136,142
Rhode Island -- Robert Walsh, $118,276
South Carolina – Richard Miller,
$128,607
South Dakota – Lona Lewis, $121,973
Texas – E.C. Walker, $128,358
Vermont – Joel Cook, $114,519
Virginia – Jerry Caruthers, $121,832
Additionally, NEA financially supports
special organizing projects in the states, and provides grants for state
political and media programs through its ballot initiative/legislative
crisis/PR fund, which affiliates have been draining steadily this year.
The timely transmittal of national dues
makes this and other aspects of NEA’s affiliation system possible. So much
so, that deadlines for the transmission of national dues are established in
the union’s bylaws. At least 40 percent of NEA dues must be sent to national
headquarters by each March 15, and at least 70 percent by June 1, with the
remainder due before the start of the next fiscal year on September 1.
Recently NEA has allowed some state
affiliates to retain national dues past these deadlines for temporary relief
to financial difficulties. In the 2002-03 fiscal year, NEA allowed the
Florida Education Association ($406,925), the Washington Education
Association ($1.1 million) and the Michigan Education Association ($8.95
million) to hold onto national dues past deadline. Additionally, NEA had
provided the Texas State Teachers Association (TSTA) with a $3 million loan,
which TSTA repaid in full last year with money it received from a bank loan.
TSTA did so because it got a better interest rate from the bank than it did
from NEA. Finally, NEA made a $250,000 loan to the struggling Mississippi
Association of Educators in 2001-02, which still needs to make $210,547 in
payments.
Large, strong NEA affiliates in
collective bargaining states have long been subsidizing operations in small,
weak NEA affiliates in right-to-work states. But now, NEA’s “haves” are
running into money woes, and the number of NEA “have nots” is growing.
There have been various responses, but
most of them have been below the radar. The South Dakota Education
Association (SDEA) had NEA finance experts evaluate their budget and then
acted on their recommendations. “We have implemented sometimes harsh
decisions, but needed ones,” reported SDEA President Donna DeKraai. The
Delaware State Education Association went to a two-year budget cycle. The
New Jersey Education Association brought in actuaries to address delegates
before they approved a transfer of funds to cover staff pension shortfalls.
And the Michigan Education Association approved a dues hike of $13.40,
followed by a revolutionary plan to base dues on a percentage of each
individual member’s salary, as opposed to a flat rate, beginning in 2005-06.
This means that teachers and support employees at the top of the scale and
in high-salary districts will pay more dues than new teachers or lower-paid
workers. More dramatically, each year delegates to the union’s spring
representative assembly will set the dues percentage after they “establish
the amount of revenue necessary to fund the annual MEA budget.”
These are all unusual events, dictated
by generally unhappy circumstances for NEA. But the convention is
traditionally the time to show the organization’s positive face. Will
sobering news and discussions intrude on the happy atmosphere? We’ll see.
3) Almost Half of NEA Employees Make
Six Figures. NEA may have had to institute some
last-minute budget cuts this year, but if the organization’s latest
financial disclosure report is any indication, no one is starving at NEA
headquarters.
The national union’s $59.4 million
payroll for the school year 2002-03 included salary for some 565 regular
employees plus payments to about 170 others who were either part-time or
temporary employees, or who either retired, were let go, or moved on during
that year. Of the regular employees, 260 received salaries of $100,000 or
more. That figure is for salaries alone; it does not include other taxable
allowances, benefits or expenses. Nor does it include payments to NEA’s
elected officers or state affiliate executive directors (see above).
The money list was led by NEA Executive
Director John Wilson, who made $244,423 last year. And though he retired in
November 2000, Wilson’s predecessor, Don Cameron, still received $101, 466
in deferred salary from NEA last year.
4) “America Learns” Gets a Name
Change. On March 29, EIA reported on NEA’s
establishment of a new 501(c)(4) group called “America Learns.” Last week,
Education Week revealed the organization will now be called
“Communities for Quality Education.” No reason for the change was given, but
EIA suspects these folks might have had something to say about it (http://www.americalearns.net/).
NEA has asked its state affiliates to
contribute $1 per member to the organization. Some have complied, others
have sent lesser amounts, but so far the Delaware State Education
Association is unique in that it raised its dues by $1 specifically to
donate to Communities for Quality Education. The increase was not without
opposition at the union’s representative assembly, but delegates succumbed
to the wishes of the union’s executive board, who stated the donation “is
necessary since the so-called No Child Left Behind Act does threaten what we
care most about – a strong public education system for every child.”
5) Initiative Is Dead, But CTA’s
Dishonesty About It Survives. Still stinging from
the collapse of their property tax initiative, California Teachers
Association President Barbara Kerr and film-maker Rob Reiner penned an
editorial for the San Jose Mercury News. The piece is more noteworthy
for what it omits than for what it says.
Kerr and Reiner stated their initiative
would have provided “money for class size reduction, updated textbooks and
new computers, teacher training and incentives, and the establishment of
pre-school for every 4-year-old. All are proven education reforms.” They
went on to extol the virtues of class size reduction, updated textbooks and
new computers, and preschool programs, and concluded with the admonition,
“It is morally unacceptable to write off an entire generation of children.”
Nowhere did Kerr and Reiner mention the
main purpose of the measure, stated clearly in its own text, to increase
teacher compensation. They coyly referred to “incentives,” though the
initiative provided no accompanying requirement or even request for anyone
to do anything to earn “incentives.” Nor did Kerr and Reiner care to explain
how requiring preschool teachers to join or pay fees to unions was going to
benefit four-year-olds.
In other states, teachers’ unions
utilize state salary rankings to buttress their demands for more money.
States ranked in the bottom half, or below the national average, are
constantly reminded of the fact. But the average California teacher salary
is the highest in the country, nearly $1,000 ahead of second-place
Connecticut, so CTA’s strategy is to pretend those rankings don’t exist.
6) Quote of
the Week.
“I support the teachers, but I don’t support what the teachers’ union is
doing. It is highlighting how little they have to do under the contract.” –
Susan Tsantes, a middle school parent in Framingham, Massachusetts,
commenting on the Framingham Teachers Association’s work-to-rule job action
during contract negotiations. For uttering the above remark to a reporter,
Ms. Tsantes received irate calls and e-mails, and saw her quote copied and
distributed in the school her children attend. The name of her employer, a
realtor, was added in the margin, and Ms. Tsantes’ supervisor received a
call from a Framingham teacher declaring that “no Framingham teacher will
ever buy a house listed by your company, ever.” Asked whether this last
reaction went over the line, a union official replied, “That’s a hard
question to answer.” (April 29 and May 6 Metrowest Daily News) |
