Heritage Calls For More Transparency in Education Spending

Maybe I'm hyper-sensitive these days, but this post this morning from The Foundry set my teeth on edge.  The post highlights a new paper by Heritage expert Jason Richwine that uncovers the deep, dark secret that states are paying teachers too much in pensions:

That’s right—the real cost of education is far higher than we’ve been told, but it’s not because of extra classroom resources or newer facilities. It’s because of teachers’ pensions.

The beef seems to be, really, that states are "hiding" the true amount of that pension figure.  I understand Heritage wants accuracy in reporting the figures.  They aren't suggesting teachers shouldn't get pensions, but the tone of the piece was unsettling.

I'm all for transparency but I'm sure sick of people beating up on teachers.

When I retire after thirty years in the classroom my retirement take home pay will be well under $3,000 per month.

I realize each state is different in how pension plans are structured, but in my state I contribute to my pension monthly.  I don't pay into Social Security but I pay the same percentage into my pension plan.

What bothers me most, I think, about this Heritage post is the vicious comments about greedy, lazy teachers in the comments.  I know...NEVER read the comments.  I can't help myself.  It's like watching a train wreck.

One comment by someone named Thomas says:

"I'm so tired of you teachers comparing yourselves to people who in their jobs risk their lives.  You risk spilled coffee.  Look at the numbers, as a teacher this should be an easy task for you.  Standard test scores are in a free fall.  Children who are graduating today some of them can't even read.  You teachers have abandoned the kids for your Unions and the income you can get along with golden benefits..."

He goes on, but you get the idea.  Obviously Thomas has never taught school.

The unions are a problem, more so in some states than in others.  But not all teachers are part of the NEA.  Not all teachers are union.  I dropped my NEA membership when I found out that part of my dues were going to support Barack Obama's re-election whether I liked it or not.

The general idea that teachers follow like lemmings into some group-think liberal indoctrination of our children is just ridiculous.

I think if we are so concerned about what states are spending education dollars on, we need to really look at where that money goes.  Too often, nationwide,  it goes to systems top heavy in administrators and bloated central office staff, or to staffing positions that have nothing to do with educating children and are redundant to jobs already in place.

How many billions of dollars are going to implementing this new Common Core curriculum which is already replete with problems?  New training, new textbooks, new testing...there's a whole industry out there related to Common Core now.

If the federal government would get out of the education business we would all be better off.

And quit beating up on teachers, for crying out loud, and don't begrudge teachers their pension.  Trust me, it's not all that much.

Why I Dropped My NEA Membership

From my school inbox today, a nugget from the NEA:

NEA members:  Become an Educator for Obama.  Now more than ever, we need to elect a President who shares our vision for a stronger America.  Do your part and pledge to be an educator for Obama today on the NEA Fund for Children and Public Education website.  The website also features information on other NEA recommended candidates for federal office (Democrats and Republicans) as well as the profiles of NEA Fund members and the latest news on the election. 

I'm glad I dropped my membership.  I did this in July after the NEA decided at their convention to endorse Obama and to raise PAC dues from $10 to $20 to put toward their support of him. 

Out of curiosity, I looked at their list of "recommended candidates."  It includes Gabby Giffords; should I let them know she's not running?

In Massachusetts they're supporting Markey (D), Niki Tsongas (D), and William Keating (D), among others. It's quite a list, actually.

Nope, NEA.  You can keep your liberal candidates and I'll keep my money.

NEA Gives Obama an Early Endorsement and Loses One More Member

Years ago, when I first started teaching, I was told to join "a professional organization" (i.e. a union).  "You never know when you might need them!"  I was told.  "It's for your own protection!"

As a new teacher, you're so overwhelmed with things, which group to join didn't really seem to matter; I naively assumed they were all the same.  

It pains me greatly to say this, but I joined NEA.  And each year when we get that sheet to renew, drop, or change membership, I just sign off on it without much thought.

I'm such an idiot.

I'm changing now.

Now I'm paying attention.

This past weekend the NEA convention was held in (of all places) Chicago.  As you may have heard, they voted "by a good margin: 5,414 delegates, or 72.04 percent," to endorse Obama for 2012, reports Education Week.  This puts NEA PAC dollars in motion towards Obama's re-election campaign.

Even worse:

In conjunction with their Obama endorsement, the NEA approved a controversial measure that doubles individual member contributions to their political action funds from $10 to $20. The increase was made in effort to combat declining membership numbers and to ensure that the NEA remains the single largest contributor to partisan politics for the upcoming election cycle.

I've already put in motion cancellation of my membership to NEA.  It makes me want to just throw up that I've been so negligent in my attention all this time.

This is not the only issue that I have with NEA; there are plenty of others.  I only wish I'd joined the thousands of others and dropped my membership before now.  Mike Antonucci wrote about this at Hot Air back in February.

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

 I'm outta there.  Better late than never, I guess.

Update:  Linked at Don Surber - thanks!