 |
| Richard O. Rowland |
Shoots (News, Views and Quotes)
- Overlooked Details from NEA Teacher Status Survey. NEA Research
released "Status of the American Public School Teacher," a report it
produces every five years. The 384-page study surveyed a representative
sample of public school teachers and highlights statistics about them
for the 2000-2001 school year.
The length of the report made it inevitable that press stories and
commentary would focus on the executive summary and the press release.
But the study itself has a wealth of information, virtually devoid of
the spin the union usually includes in its research papers. The media
has adequately covered a major finding of the report - that the nation's
public schools have a dearth of male and minority teachers. Here are a
few conclusions that didn't get as much attention. Many of these topics
have been the subject of controversy over the past five years:
Comprehensive statistical studies, such as those
done by the National Center for Education Statistics, compile only
pupil-teacher ratios, which are inadequate measures of class size. Since
the NEA study is a survey, it simply asks teachers how many students
they have in their classrooms. The average for elementary school
teachers was 21; for secondary school teachers it was 28. About 73
percent of elementary school teachers have fewer than 25 students in
their classrooms.
NEA found that 94 percent of teachers in
2000-01 were teachers the previous year and expected to teach the
following year, implying a 6 percent turnover rate. That number is
supported by other studies of teacher turnover. About 2 percent of
teachers were lost to retirement. What's interesting about the NEA
survey is the percentage of the teaching force who are brand new
teachers - only 3 percent, a statistic that has barely changed in the
last 20 years. Put the two sets of statistics together, and they tell us
that half of the new recruits - replacements for those who have left the
profession -- have taught before, while the other half are new to the
field of teaching.
NEA states that 68 percent of teachers are
NEA members, while 17 percent are AFT members. These numbers are
reasonable, though they are probably slightly inflated for two reasons:
1) state and local union mergers mean that some of these teachers are
being double-counted; and 2) union members would be more likely to
respond to a union-sponsored survey, skewing the sample (slightly more
than half of the 2,826 teachers contacted returned usable questionnaires). Nevertheless, the NEA numbers were down, from 73 percent in 1996. The 1996 survey fell smack in the middle of California's statewide class-size reduction, and probably produced an anomalous spike in market share. NEA membership in the West was 61 percent in 1991, jumped sharply to 80 percent in 1996, and settled back to 72 percent in 2001. NEA's numbers also corroborate the divide between younger teachers and older ones. Only 61 percent of teachers under the age of 30 are NEA members. AFT's numbers are even worse, with only an 8 percent share of the under-30 teacher work force.
These questions produced some curious results. NEA found that 45 percent of teachers are Democrats, 28 percent
are Republicans, and 27 percent have no party affiliation. NEA's own
political surveys, taken after each election cycle, show similar
results. But when asked about political philosophy, 56 percent of
teachers described themselves as conservative or "tend to be
conservative" while only 44 percent said they were liberal or "tend to
be liberal."
- Teachers' kids in private schools.
All sorts of numbers have
been thrown out there on this topic, but the NEA study corroborates the
conclusions of the more scientific studies. NEA found that 12 percent of
teachers with school age children have enrolled them in private schools.
The national average for 2000-01 was 9.9 percent.
- NEA Flushes Nadeau Down Memory Hole
The Lamoille Union High School District in Vermont placed teacher Wayne
Nadeau on paid administrative leave, pending a final decision on his
employment by the school board. Nadeau had his license suspended earlier
this year, and was pressured into resigning his position as a member of
the NEA Executive Committee, after admitting to having sex in his
classroom with a teacher's aide. The story received a lot of press
coverage in Vermont, and Vermont NEA reluctantly addressed the
controversy on several occasions. But the "response" at the national
level has been edifying.
Other than a July 24 internal memo from NEA President Reg Weaver to
state affiliate officers announcing Nadeau's resignation, there has been
no public mention of Nadeau from NEA headquarters. Nor has there been
any public announcement or NEA publication of the appointment of Mark
Cebulski of Wisconsin to replace Nadeau. But the September issue of NEA
Today takes the union's reticence to discuss Nadeau to extremes.
In a story about the July NEA convention headlined "NEA Annual Meeting
Delegates Elect New Leaders, Make Policy," the union announced the
unopposed election of Lily Eskelsen as secretary-treasurer, and the
election of Carolyn Crowder of Oklahoma to the NEA Executive Committee.
There is not a word about Nadeau's election, never mind his subsequent
resignation and appointment of a successor. NEA Today's masthead lists
the members of the executive committee, but the September issue lists
only five, including Crowder. No Nadeau.
What we are left with, then, is an election by the "world's largest
democratic body" in which over 4,700 delegates, ostensibly representing
approximately 1.4 million public education employees, voted for a
candidate to hold one of their highest national offices - a candidate
who then vanished into thin air!
As the thousands of delegates file into the Washington, DC Convention
Center in July 2004, how many will bother to ask, "Where's Nadeau?"
Above article is quoted from The Independence Institute Newsletter
07/10/03 http://www.i2i.org
- Union Supports School Choice. for Teachers.
In an effort to reduce turnover in the worst schools, the Clark County
School District in Nevada negotiated a provision in the collective
bargaining agreement that requires new teachers to remain in those
schools for three years. The Clark County Education Association wants
the regulation removed. Union President Mary Ella Holloway told the Las
Vegas Sun that forcing teachers to stay where they are unhappy won't
improve a school.
EIA applauds Holloway's sound reasoning, and eagerly awaits her
explanation as to why it wouldn't also apply to parents and students.
Above articles are quoted from The Education Intelligence Agency, EIA
Communique 09/02/03 www.eiaonline.com
Roots (Food for Thought)
- State Home Runs?
By Barry Fagin
I love the Colorado Springs Sky Sox. A day with my family at Sky Sox
stadium is a real treat: great seats, beautiful scenery and a wonderful
atmosphere. It's a terrific way to spend a summer afternoon.
So when I heard that the Colorado Rockies might look for another
affiliate, I got upset. I understand they don't like our stadium. Fair
enough. But now I hear talk about using public money to build one.
That's going too far. When it comes to using taxes to build a ballpark,
all true baseball fans should just say no.
Let me take off my baseball cap for a moment and put on my think tank
hat. Public finances are supposed to finance public goods: things for
which equal access is efficient and necessary. This might include law
enforcement, national defense, and clean air, but it doesn't include
baseball. Taxing people is essential to build armed forces, but you
don't have to make people pay for a ball game. People can either buy a
ticket or stay home. What's the problem?
All right, so maybe fielding a team isn't like fielding an army. What
about jobs and growth? Maybe baseball subsidies create jobs: some people
say so. But look who's shouting the loudest: team owners who want a
subsidy, politicians who want to get re-elected, and people who really
like baseball. If you look at the scientific studies, the conclusions
are very different. The impact of public subsidies for sports is either
too small to measure, or in some cases even negative.
But good works are done with both the head and the heart, so let's put
our Sky Sox caps back on for a moment. Maybe we're missing something.
Regardless of the policy issues, does taxing people for baseball feel
right? Not to this baseball fan.
What makes baseball so terrific is its uniquely American emphasis on the
individual. Sure, it's a team sport, but it's individuals who matter.
Unlike football, you can see every player's face clearly: that's how
fans connect with players.. And there is no other sport where individual
performance is tracked so carefully. When a batter comes to the plate,
his numbers are displayed on the scoreboard for thousands to see. When a
pitcher takes the mound, the whole world knows his numbers.
Can you imagine having a job with that kind of accountability? What
would work be like if everyone knew how many deals you'd closed last
month? How many successful surgeries you'd performed? How many houses
you'd built? It boggles the mind.
That's what I like about baseball: it reminds us that individual
performance and accountability matter. Want to make it to the big
leagues? Give it your best shot. Put up the numbers, get some key hits,
and make the clutch saves. It's up to you. What great lessons for my
kids to learn on a Saturday afternoon!
All that goes out the window when you mix public money with baseball.
Why should investors risk their own capital, when they can soak
taxpayers for it? Who cares about individual players and fans, if
baseball now belongs to "society"? What kind of freedom-loving
conservative could possibly support such blatant corporate welfare, the
kind liberals so rightly criticize us for?
Maybe I'm fighting a losing battle. After all, sports stadiums are built
with public funds all the time. Clearly America has far more pressing
issues to worry about. And yet, I can't shake the feeling that these
things matter.
Standing up and saying no to public funding, as my community has done,
sends a message. It says my town is not afraid to make hard choices. It
says my town will not take little from many and give much to a few. Just
like baseball, my town values individual achievement and accountability.
It values them so much that it lets people make their own decisions
about supporting the greatest game there is.
Great lessons for a Saturday afternoon. Or any time.
Evergreen (Today's Quote)
"All the things Democrats care about, I care about. I want to be in the
party that is eager to help people who are disadvantaged, I'm interested
in their constituents, but not necessarily in their solutions." --
Jay Greene, Ph.D., Education Researcher
Edited by Richard O. Rowland, president of Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, 1314 S. King Street, Suite 1163, Honolulu, HI 96814. Phone/fax is 808-591-9193, cell phone is 808-864-1776. Send him an email at: mailto:grassroot@hawaii.rr.com See the Web site at: http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/
