Commentary and Criticism about the National Education Association
We have absolutely no affiliation with the National Education Association and do not represent its views in any way, shape or form.
INTRODUCTION I wrote a blog post back in October of 2017 about the state of teacher pensions. Teachers unions need to stop demanding so much in their negotiations with states. My conclusion: “Teachers will need to be super flexible in negotiations if they want to save the [pension] system. Taking a hard line is selfish, and will simply destroy the retirement system sooner rather than later.” Unfortunately, the NEA is anything but “super flexible” when it comes to this issue: “NEA strongly supports protecting public defined benefit plans. Such plans provide a defined, predictable, guaranteed benefit, usually based on factors such as age, earnings, and years of service. In contrast, defined contribution plans offer no guaranteed, predictable retirement benefit and place retirement security at the risk of stock or bond markets.” Well, a recent article from Wirepoints.com (Overpromising has crippled public pensions. A 50-state survey) makes pretty clear that defined benefit plans are not sustainable in many states because the pension promises way outstrip the local GDP: “Wirepoints found that the growth in accrued [pension] liabilities has been extreme in many states, often growing two to three times faster than the pace of their economies.” “MAN-MADE” EDUCATION CRISIS - NEA President Garcia’s Naïveté I was inspired to write this blog post when I read that NEA President Lily Eskelsen Garcia referred to recent teacher activism as an “Education Spring.” “… enormous rallies, walkouts, or strikes were held this spring in Oklahoma, Colorado, Kentucky, and most recently North Carolina to demand state lawmakers fulfill their promises to children.” She was referencing, of course, the Arab Spring, which was a series uprisings starting in 2011 which attempted to democratize the Middle East region. Fighting for democracy and “the children” – noble causes, indeed… But back to Garcia, she claims that “Education Spring” was based on a “man-made” funding crisis, a situation … “… that lawmakers created and that they absolutely can fix—if they choose to.” How naïve of our union president. If it were only as simple as that … “MAN-MADE” PROBLEM – But not for the reason NEA claims … For the purpose of this blog post, I will only be considering one facet of education spending – the funding of public pensions. To solve this particular problem, it’s not as simple as demanding that “state lawmakers fulfill their promises to children,” because the money simply isn’t there (more on that later). In addition, when Garcia claims that the funding crisis is “man-made,” she is actually somewhat correct – but not in the way she thinks. She thinks that politicians created the problem by subsidizing corporations, cutting corporate taxes, refusing to tax the wealthy and supporting voucher schemes. How do I know that? Because the NEA proposes the following four solutions to “solving” the funding crisis:
But what the NEA either ignores or doesn’t realize is that union leaders and politicians, together, caused this “man-made” problem. For years they have gotten together and established unrealistic pension and benefits packages for union members. Therefore, both are responsible for the current state of affairs. When you promise the impossible, you are bound to be disappointed when reality strikes. GUARENTEED PENSIONS FOR TEACHERS (but not for other workers) As indicated above, the union “… strongly supports protecting public defined benefit plans.” The problem is that they are too expensive – most states can’t afford them. “But wait a minute,” protest Garcia and the NEA, “what about those four solutions we proposed? If we did all of that, there would be millions of extra dollars to shore up any underfunded pension.” I have already written a blog post analyzing these four “solutions’ to the education funding crisis. You can read the details about why they won’t work in the following post: Sorry, NEA, higher taxes will not solve the education funding gap in the states. But even if money is actually freed up by the “solutions,” this won’t necessarily solve the pension problem anyway. Why? Well, the NEA wants teachers to get a guaranteed payment in retirement no matter “the risk of stock or bond markets.” Unfortunately, stocks and bonds ARE risky. When markets crash again (like they did in 2000-2001 and 2008-2009), state tax payers will have to make up for all of the losses so that teachers get their guaranteed benefit. How do you think that will go over? In this probable scenario, every other worker in the private sector who saved under a defined contribution plan (not defined benefit) will have had their pensions wiped out. Teachers, on the other hand, will expect voters to accept jacked up tax rates so that they can still receive their full pensions. Does any honest reader expect that taxpayers will accept making teacher pensions whole when their own retirement has been destroyed? THE FUNDING SITUATION IN STATES TODAY – NOT GOOD I wrote earlier that solving the funding predicament faced by many states is not as simple as demanding that “state lawmakers fulfill their promises to children,” because the money simply isn’t there. I base this claim on an article which I referenced earlier that was published at Wirepoints.com: Overpromising has crippled public pensions. A 50-state survey Reproduced below is the first chart that appears in that article. It clearly shows that states are on an unsustainable path when it comes to funding pensions. Incidentally, one of those states pictured above, Kentucky, was mentioned by NEA President Lily Eskelsen Garcia in her “Education Spring” comment: “… enormous rallies, walkouts, or strikes were held this spring in Oklahoma, Colorado, Kentucky, and most recently North Carolina to demand state lawmakers fulfill their promises to children.” How on earth does she expect Kentucky to fulfill its “promises to children” when its pension liabilities are growing by 162% while its GDP is only growing by 53%? As for Colorado and North Carolina, consider the chart below. Clearly, these states are also in no shape to fulfill many promises. And even though Oklahoma is the best of the four, should a recession hit, even its accrued liabilities will start to outpace its GDP (red bar represents liabilities and blue bar GDP). AND ITS NOT ALL FOR “THE CHILDREN” The NEA Today article quotes two individuals to make a case about how much the union cares about “the children:”
Only at the end of the article can you find any mention of teacher pay, and, interestingly enough, it comes in the form of a denial. It’s as if the NEA is embarrassed to even bring it up: “In these states, pay is not the issue that has driven educators to the breaking point …” Yeah, right. The above quote continues as follows: “… but it is a fact that their pay is abysmal. In Oklahoma, there’s a teacher who sells his blood to help support his family. Everywhere, teachers work late into the night as Uber drivers or restaurant servers." Next comes mention of Arizona’s teacher pay problem: “In Arizona, the weeklong walkout ended in early May after Republican Gov. Doug Ducey signed a bill that he claimed would give teachers a 20 percent pay raise.” Guess it isn’t just for “the children” after all.
0 Comments
This blog post is written in response to a recent NEA Today article entitled:
The High Cost of Education Budget Cuts The article is, primarily, a complaint about the lack of school funding at the state level. NEA President Lily Eskelsen Garcia calls it a “man-made crisis” created by lawmakers who can fix the problem “if they choose to.” At the end of the article, four “solutions” are offered:
STOP SUBSIDIZING CORPORATIONS This one I actually agree with – stop subsidizing corporations and states will save a whole lot of money. How much? Consider the state that I teach in, New Jersey. In 2014, $2.1 billion in incentives were given to businesses. Wouldn’t that money have been better spent elsewhere, like education? Just think, $2.1 billion more dollars available for education in New Jersey. Raises for all teachers, new books for students, smaller class sizes, computers and WI-fi in every classroom … [/END DREAM] Time to wake up from your dream. In reality, unfortunately, it is not that simple. REALITY BREAK Consider: If every single state eliminated the corporate welfare subsidies/bribes which keep businesses within the state, this would mean that states would now compete on a level playing field. Actually, it is not the level, because there are a number of other factors which influence a company’s decision to operate in a given state. For example:
Therein lies the problem – do you see it? ASK COMPANIES TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE IN TAXES The problem is tied in with the next NEA “solution” – paying “fair share” taxes. Why on earth would a company stay within (or move to) a state with a high corporate tax rate? There is plenty of evidence of corporations moving out of the country to avoid the high federal corporate tax rate, so isn’t it logical to assume that they would employ the same practice on the state level? PBS NewsHour - Corporations Go Overseas to Avoid US Taxes “We counted 10,000 tax haven subsidiaries among Fortune 500 corporations. Deferral creates a clear incentive for companies to shift their activities offshore …” The Balance - Best and Worst States for Businesses “Whether you’re just starting a business, expanding, or thinking of relocating this is an important consideration." So, states might save money by getting rid of corporate subsidies, but they will lose that revenue if companies pack up and leave in response to jacked up state corporate tax rates. RAISE INCOME TAX RATES FOR TOP EARNERS (nice idea, but you forgot the “Tax Donkeys”) Which brings me to the next NEA “solution.” Not only are corporations going to leave a high tax state, but so are individuals. I wrote a blog post on this a couple of months ago called: Teacher’s Unions vs. “Tax Donkeys” Here is the relevant section from that post (based on an article by Charles Hugh Smith, Of Two Minds Blog which explains the result of high taxes: The way we see it, the term “Tax Donkeys” has two connotations. First, it refers to taxpayers who are forced to bear the costs of government programs – donkeys are beasts of burden, after all. But more importantly, it also refers to taxpayer mobility. “… in the war between public pensioners and the Tax Donkeys, the pensioners can't switch pension programs, but the Tax Donkeys can move to lower-tax states.” Smith suggests that there will be a “… Great Migration of the Tax Donkeys from failing cities, counties and states to more frugal, well-managed and small business-friendly locales.” The best example of a “Tax Donkey” picking up and leaving would be former New Jersey resident and billionaire David Tepper. One Taxpayer Moved and New Jersey Shuddered New Jersey ended up with a hole in its budget because this “top earner” had enough of New Jersey’s high taxes. Now he pays ZERO state taxes in Florida. ELIMINATE ALL VOUCHER SCHEMES (nice, except 86% of voters like them) First of all, the use of vouchers is not a “scheme” – it is a program. Second, vouchers do pull money out of public schools - but don’t forget that they also pull students out of public schools. So, the local public school loses money but it also doesn’t have to educate as many students. That means that its expenses are lower and the loss evens itself out. More importantly, parents like vouchers. I wrote a blog post on this a couple of weeks ago: Poor Choice for Students or Poor Choice for the NEA? Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh The article was about the recent Supreme Court nomination of Kavanaugh, but one section was on vouchers. Here is the relevant section: The most recent poll I could find indicates that parents overwhelmingly support vouchers and school choice in general: “Nearly all voters surveyed said they support private school choice in some form. Eighty-six percent of voters believe that publicly funded vouchers, tax-credit scholarships, and education savings accounts (ESAs) should be available to those who would like to use them.” In case you think that this poll is biased, the firm that was hired to conduct it, Beck Research, has been used by the National Education Association to conduct polls for our union. NEA FORGETS THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES The NEA’s list of simplistic solutions reminds me of recent comments made by the new darling of the Democrat party, democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. In a recent interview on the Daily Show, Trevor Noah asked her how she intended to pay for all of the new governmental programs she want to put into place. Two of the NEA’s “solutions” were covered in her answer: “One of the things that we saw is, if people pay their fair share, if corporations and the ultra-wealthy … raised our corporate tax rate to 28 percent … If we get people to pay their fair share, that’s $2 trillion in ten years." Sad, but she is as clueless as the NEA. Both forget the law of unintended consequences – often people and corporations simply vote with their feet. I have written about the teacher pay gap in several previous blog posts:
Well, the other day I found a new and interesting way to analyze and understand this pay gap – through the experience of a Motel 6 visitor. What does Motel 6 have to do with it? Motel 6 was founded in 1962 by a couple of building contractors … “The partners developed a plan to build motels with rooms at bargain rates. They decided on a $6.00 room rate per night … that would cover building costs, land leases, and janitorial supplies …” You can see why it was called Motel 6 – because it only cost $6.00 to stay there for the night. In this day and age, $6.00/night for a motel room sounds incredibly cheap – don’t you think? NOT SO FAST – $6.00 is not $6.00 But maybe not if you think of it in a different way. $6.00 is the same as 60 dimes, correct? Well, dimes in 1962 were not the same as the dimes that the U.S. Treasury mints today. Back then they were made of 90% silver. Do you know how much one of those 90% silver dimes is worth now? $1.12 If you do a little bit of math, this means that 60 dimes is worth $67.20 (60 x $1.12). MOTEL 6 PRICES IN NJ TODAY So, where am I going with all of this? I then did some research on how much it costs to stay at a Motel 6 in New Jersey, the state within which I teach, and here is what I found out:
When I calculated the average price of a room at Motel 6 in New Jersey today, it was $63.28. SURE WISH I HAD SAVED MORE 1962 DIMES … Think about it. Six dollars (60 dimes) could have paid for a room at Motel 6 in 1962. Today you need about $63.28 to pay for a room at Motel 6. What is my point? If you had saved 60 dimes from 1962 and cashed it in today ($67.20), not only could you pay for your Motel 6 room for the night, you would have more than $4.00 left over for dinner. THE REAL ISSUE – Inflation (the debasement of your money) In point of fact, the pay gap problem is not necessarily that teachers or any other workers are not making enough money. The problem is that money, itself, is not worth as much. To put it another way, the price of a room at Motel 6 is still about the same but the value of your dollar is not. Why is that? It’s a complicated issue which I dealt with in detail in my blog post called: Sorry, NEA. Unions Can't Fix the Teacher Pay Gap Problem. If you get the chance you should read it, but the quick answer is that the US government has issued so many dollars over the past half century that each dollar is now worth much less that it used to be. The NEA constantly blames the government for not spending enough money on education. While there may be some legitimacy to this claim, the situation is not as simple as that. This summer, when you pass a Motel 6 on the way to your ultimate vacation destination, don’t forget the other factor which many ignore or simply know nothing about. Inflation. I will leave you with one more interesting fact about the ravages of inflation that most people have no clue about. If the inflation rate is 2% a year, about 35 years later the value of a dollar will be 50% less. Think about that - money you keep in the bank will lose half of its value over the course of your teaching career. “Many schools continue to rely on exclusionary discipline, removing students from the classroom through suspension or expulsion for various infractions.”
“The damaging long-lasting effects of … [exclusionary discipline has sparked] … a movement among many schools to move away from these practices and focus more on social-emotional learning, restorative practices, and positive behavioral interventions.” Sara Luster, "How Exclusionary Discipline Creates Disconnected Students" THE ISSUE – Restorative “Justice” Frowns on Punishment I have written several blog posts on “restorative practices” and “restorative justice” over the past couple of months. [NOTE: These links might not work using iPhone Safari - not sure why but you can find all articles on my website under the tab Blog Posts By Category. You can also find them using a Google Search]
For readers not familiar with this NEA-endorsed policy, restorative “justice” refers to discipline without a punitive component. When schools implement this type of program, the bad students are not punished in the traditional sense - suspension and expulsion are frowned upon. Instead, according to the New York Times, students are encouraged to:
THOSE POOR, UNFORTUNATE, DISRUPTIVE STUDENTS … My main issue with this NEA-endorsed policy is that the focus is on the bad kids rather than the good kids. Consider what Dr. Jonathan Zaff, executive director of the Center for Promise has to say on the matter (quoted from Sara Luster’s NEA Today article): “The reality is that exclusionary discipline practices do not make schools more conducive to learning, do not help improve student behavior, and do not make schools safer. But these practices do force youth off-track.” Ah, those poor, unfortunate, disruptive students. So wrong that they are forced “off-track” when they are removed from the classroom. What, no sympathy for the students who finally get a break when those bad students are suspended? Surely Dr. Zaff bases this statement on solid research, right? Not exactly. His comments are based on a research study by the Center for Promise which conducted group interviews of 38 students from one state – Minnesota. Yeah that sounds like a definitive study – group interviews of a whopping 38 kids. Sounds like a complete joke to me. SAFER SCHOOLS? Exclusionary discipline doesn’t make schools safer, Dr. Zaff? Tell that to teachers in Baltimore. I wrote a blog post back in June about the deterioration of Baltimore schools as a result of the implementation of restorative “justice.” NEA-Endorsed Policy Leads to Violence in Baltimore Schools Here is a quote from an article written by Chris Papst from Fox 5 News in his article Baltimore County Teachers: Culture of Leniency Leading to Violence “Fifteen years ago, these teachers say public schools were very different. There were consequences. If a child acted out, let’s say they punched a teacher, that child was disciplined; suspended and possibly arrested or expelled. But a few years ago, they began to see a change in how bad behavior was addressed.” In case you are wondering, the “change in how bad behavior was addressed” was the implementation of restorative “justice,” RESTORATIVE “JUSTICE” – UNPROVEN & DANGEROUS POLICY INITIATIVE Let me conclude with a reference to another previous blog post that I made back in December of 2017. Has the NEA engaged in “Educational Negligence?” Promoting unproven liberal policy initiatives Here is what NEA President Lily Eskelsen Garcia said in her Lily’s Blackboard column on October 24, 2017: “We’ve been working to … [highlight] … the philosophy of restorative justice while focusing on ‘restorative practices,’ including peace circles, peer juries and mediation and community service ...” And here is what a recent research study (Conclusion - Restorative Justice in U.S. Schools: A Research Review (2016)) had to say about the effectiveness of restorative “justice:” “In general, the research evidence to support RJ [restorative justice] in schools is still in a nascent state. Despite the exponential growth of RJ in U.S. schools … evidence to date is limited and the research that has been published lacks the internal validity necessary to exclusively attribute outcomes to RJ.” So, think about it. The NEA continues to promote restorative “justice” instead of standard discipline despite recent research which concludes that evidence to support its legitimacy is “limited” and that the research behind it “lacks the internal validity necessary.” Is it reasonable, therefore, to say that the NEA is and has been engaged in a type of educational negligence with regard to the promotion of an unproved policy initiative like restorative “justice?” You know where I stand, but I will leave it for you to decide that one on your own. Poor Choice for Students or Poor Choice for the NEA? Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh7/19/2018 “We oppose this [Supreme Court] nomination and urge all senators to do the same.”
NEA President Lily Eskelsen Garcia ARE VOUCHERS REALLY THAT BAD? Clearly, the NEA is no fan of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. The article upon which this blog post is based listed several reasons for this opposition, however, I am going to focus on the one highlighted in the title of that article, because it is the most relevant to the topic of education: NEA President: Kavanaugh is a Poor Choice for Students. “If confirmed, Kavanaugh could play the deciding role on Court decisions that include whether it’s constitutional to divert taxpayers’ money to pay for private schools … His record shows support for school vouchers …” Based on this quote, one of the reasons that Kavanaugh is a “poor choice for students” is that he supports school vouchers. The assumption made by the NEA here is that vouchers are bad for students. But are they? ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS I realize that arguments related to private schools can go both ways, but I found an interesting perspective at The Atlantic website from an individual who writes: “Why I’m a Public-School Teacher but a Private-School Parent” “Personally, I was struck by the degree of student buy-in at SLOCA—which serves just 32 high-school students—compared to a typical public school nearby. In 90 minutes of observing the private-school class, there were zero interruptions, zero yawns, and zero cell phones. All 15 students, ranging from sophomores to seniors, had their homework successfully reviewed within the first five minutes of class; they all had their pens and notepads in front of them without being asked … Each of them, moreover, answered a question from the teacher at least twice. Other than these moments, there was no noise, not a single distraction …” Anecdotal, for sure, but everything he says I can also personally attest to based on my own experience. I am currently a public-school teacher in New Jersey, but my entire education was at private schools. I went to a Catholic grade school and a private high school and college. When my children were young, I made the sacrifice of paying to have them attend a Catholic elementary school. Unfortunately, when it came time for high school, I couldn’t afford the tuition. Vouchers would have been very helpful in this regard. RESEARCH EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS Putting aside the anecdotal, is there more solid evidence to support the notion that private schools are superior? Consider this recent report: New NAIS-Gallup Report on Student Outcomes “These findings suggest that NAIS [National Association of Independent School] graduates enter their collegiate lives at a relative advantage over their peers from other types of schools and the benefits persist. Consistent progression through college is linked to financial advantages such as lower student debt and higher starting salaries.” But, to be fair, some research suggests otherwise if you control … “… for additional background factors, like socioeconomic status and parental education levels, that could skew the data.” POLLING DATA IN SUPPORT OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS The most recent poll I could find indicates that parents overwhelmingly support vouchers and school choice in general: “Nearly all voters surveyed said they support private school choice in some form. Eighty-six percent of voters believe that publicly funded vouchers, tax-credit scholarships, and education savings accounts (ESAs) should be available to those who would like to use them.” In case you think that this poll is biased, the firm that was hired to conduct it, Beck Research, has been used by the National Education Association to conduct polls for our union. GALLOP POLL – NOT LOOKING GOOD FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION If you can believe a recent Gallop poll, people in the United States are not very pleased with the state of public education. Question #1 – “Overall, how satisfied are you with the quality of education students receive in kindergarten through grade 12 in the U.S. today -- would you say you are completely satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or completely dissatisfied?”
Question #2 – “Now I am going to read you a list of institutions in American society. Please tell me how much confidence you, yourself, have in each one -- a great deal, quite a lot, some or very little? The public schools”
Question #3 – “How about -- the quality of public education in the nation?”
Question #4 – “Next I'm going to read a list of ways in which children are educated in the U.S. today. As I read each one, please indicate -- based on what you know or have read and heard -- how good an education each provides children -- excellent, good, only fair or poor.” Public Schools
Parochial/Church Schools
Independent Private Schools
WHY NOT LET THE FREE MARKET DECIDE? It is easy to understand why the NEA opposes vouchers. But can anyone honestly claim that the union has the welfare of the children in mind when it does so? If the NEA believes in the superiority of public schools for the education of students, then it has nothing to fear from vouchers. So, give parents the choice about where to send their children and let the free market decide. |
Looking to start a website or blog?
Consider our hosting company - Domain.com. Click below for information. Archives
October 2018
AuthorJonathan Smith - A New Jersey Public School Teacher who disagrees with the National Education Association. |