On the debut edition of The Moment, Editor RiShawn Biddle discusses the Thomas B. Fordham Institute’s new report on teacher dismissals and explains the underlying reasons why it is so hard for districts to get rid of laggard and criminally abusive teachers.
Watch The Moment here or download directly to your mobile or desktop device. Also, subscribe to the podcast series, and embed this podcast on your site. It is also available on iTunes, Blubrry, Stitcher, and PodBean.
Yesterday’s mistrial in the proceedings against former North Charleston Police Officer Michael Slager for murdering Walter Scott wasn’t shocking. After all, the jury had announced the Friday before that one juror declined to find Slager guilty. Just as importantly, even in cases such as that of Scott in which there is irrefutable videotaped evidence of rogue policing, jurors rarely find cops guilty for misconduct and wrongfully using deadly force. Considering that cases such as that of Scott and Eric Garner (whose murderer, New York City Police Officer Daniel Pantaleo, was allowed to go free by a grand jury) are rarely adjudicated, it is amazing that Slager was indicted at all. The good news, if that can be claimed, is that at least six people thought Slager should be convicted — and that the district attorney in the case will retry him again.
All that said, it is impossible to understate the pain Scott’s family is going through. They lost their loved one in what should be the enjoyable years of middle age all because Slager, who had already been cited in two complaints for abusive behavior with tasers, decided to stop him for a broken brake light, then murder him in broad daylight. Slager brutally slain a man for no reason other than for his own ego — and for that, he deserves nothing less than God’s judgement and prison time. And Scott’s family continues to need our prayers for them to find justice and peace beyond understanding.
For communities black and brown, the mistrial was just another reminder that their chances of gaining any measure of human justice, especially when they are victimized by rogue police officers, is slim to none. It is also a reminder that black men often take the brunt of harm in their interactions with law enforcement; numerous studies, including the controversial analysis from Harvard’s Roland Fryer, have shown consistently that cops are more-likely to be stop and subject black men to harsh force regardless of incident than they are against white peers. Which puts black men at higher risk of ending up in body bags.
What does the Slager mistrial have to do with school reformers? Plenty. As I wrote two years ago, you can’t proclaim to be a champion for all children if you are not championing them at all times. After all, you can only reach people when your care and consideration for the matters of their greatest concern. Just as importantly, the school reform movement cannot sustain its efforts without support from communities who are also dealing with the other issues that result from (and contribute to) low-quality education.
As you already know, there are many in the school reform movement who disagree with this assessment. Within this year alone, folks such as Robert Pondiscio of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute have complained that efforts by peers to support criminal justice reform — especially the Black Lives Matter movement that emerged in 2014 after the murder of Michael Brown — is essentially an effort to push conservative reformers out of school reform altogether. For folks like him, the emergence of civil rights-oriented reformers into the vanguard essentially crowds out the more-conservative thinking that has long-dominated the movement.
Other conservative reformers such as Jay P. Greene argue that even discussing Black Lives Matter and social justice issues causes division when the focus should only be on transforming education. As far as Greene and his colleagues are concerned, the last thing reformers need to do is engage in discussing matters on which there is no consensus and therefore, becomes harder to rally support for solutions to the nation’s education crisis.
As far as Pondiscio’s argument is concerned, there isn’t really more to say other than you can’t call for ideological diversity (as he has) and then complain when you get it. As Pondiscio’s former colleague at Fordham, Kathleen Porter-Magee, rightfully argues, embracing new voices and new ideas is critical to systemic reform. More importantly, we should be as morally concerned about stopping state-sanctioned racism civil rights against black and brown children and their families as we are about failure mills that also damage their lives and futures.
As for Greene’s point: It is pure nonsense. One of the most-interesting aspects of the criminal justice reform movement is that it has been as championed by many conservatives and libertarians (including Radley Balko of the Washington Post, Jonathan Blanks of the Cato Institute, Congressman Justin Amash, and Atlantic Monthly‘s Conor Friedensdorf) as it has been by progressives and Black Lives Matter activists. Cato, in particular, is holding a conference this week tackling such issues as mass incarceration and militarization of police departments (including those harming children in our schools).
If conservatives and libertarians who spend little time on education can find common cause with Black Lives Matter activists, why can’t those who are primarily concerned with building brighter futures for children?
Meanwhile there is another reason why reformers should work together with criminal justice reform advocates that has become more-important than ever: The threat to the movement’s very aims posed by the incoming administration of Donald Trump.
As Dropout Nation has argued repeatedly last month, the President-Elect’s appointment of longtime reformer Betsy DeVos as U.S. Secretary of Education (as well as the association of some conservative reformers with the transition) threatens to associate the laudable goal of helping poor and minority families gain access to high-quality educational opportunities with an incoming administration already associated with bigotry, nativism, and anti-Semitism. This isn’t just a threat to choice. The success of the movement itself continues to depend on a bipartisan and socioeconomically diverse coalition that includes progressives, Centrist Democrats, and black civil rights activists for whom bigotry against children black and brown is a major concern.
Tackling criminal justice reform — which will be opposed at every turn by the incoming Trump Administration — is an important way to signal bipartisanship as well as show poor and minority communities that we will stand up for them.
This isn’t to say that reformers shouldn’t focus most of their time on transforming American public education. That is paramount. But there are plenty of ways reformers can partner with criminal justice reform advocates on addressing the rogue policing and criminalization of lives black and brown that affect the lives of our children as much as laggard and criminally abusive teachers.
As your editor noted yesterday in the analysis of National Education Association’s political spending, the union has figured out that putting a little money toward something as simple as a ballot initiative can win allies among progressives for their cause of defending their influence over education policymaking. Reformers can do similar things. Write letters in support of legislation calling for abolishing the use of grand juries in use of deadly force cases. Back ballot measures on such criminal justice reform matters as the use of traffic tickets (which necessitate traffic stops) to generate revenue for municipal coffers. Even endorse criminal reform-minded candidates running for district attorney posts and state legislative seats.
Reformers can also work together with criminal justice reform advocates on addressing the prominent role American public education plays in putting kids on the path to prison.
Remember this: Schools account for three out of every 10 status cases referred to juvenile courts in 2011, the second-highest source of referrals after law enforcement, according to data from the U.S. Department of Justice. This is particularly problematic because juvenile court judges are ill-equipped to deal with matters that should be handled by schools, and juvenile jails are often beset by incidents of sexual assault and other abuse. Reformers can easily work with Black Lives Matter activists and others to reduce (if not end altogether) the number of children put on the path to courtrooms and jails.
One way to do this: End the overuse of harsh traditional school discipline. Decades of studies from researchers such as Russell Skiba of Indiana University have determined that overuse of suspensions are harmful to student achievement, especially for children from poor and minority households (including black students) who disproportionately suspended at higher rates (and often for minor offenses) than white peers. When districts over-suspend poor and minority children, they perpetuate perceptions among law enforcement and the wider community that black and Latino children are only criminals. Just as importantly, as Dropout Nation has noted time and time and time again, the overuse of harsh school discipline allows lets teachers and school leaders off the hook for their failures to address underlying issues such as illiteracy that lead to children acting out.
Supporting solutions on this front — from new concepts such as restorative justice, to existing efforts such as overhauling how we recruit, train, and evaluate teachers, even to recruiting and supporting talented collegians and mid-career professionals of minority backgrounds to work with kids who look like them — help children both in and out of school.
Reformers can even help criminal justice reform advocates by sharing the lessons they have learned about tackling teacher quality and contract issues. This is already happening. The police union contract database developed by Campaign Zero, the outfit formed by the cadre of Black Lives Matter activists that include Deray McKesson and Brittany Packnett, is modeled in part off National Council on Teacher Quality’s famed TR3 database. Reformers can use their experiences in developing alternative teacher training regimes to help their counterparts address how cops are recruited and trained — a key culprit behind the murders of Scott, Tamir Rice, and other black lives.
Now, more than ever, reformers have opportunities to work hand-in-hand with other advocates in building brighter futures for all of our children. It is our moral duty to ensure that our children grow up with the knowledge they need for success in adulthood — and can live safely in their communities without threat by police officers consumed by dark desires to engage in thuggery, bigotry, and venality.
Last week, Dropout Nation detailed how National Education Association spent big to score a major victory over reformers in the battle over the charter school expansion plan contained in Massachusetts’ Question 2. But further analysis of the Big Two teachers’ union’s 2015-2016 disclosure to the U.S. Department of Labor shows, the Bay State wasn’t the only place where NEA spent big — and scored success.
In Maine, for example, NEA poured $1 million into Citizens Who Support Maine’s Public Schools, a coalition including the union’s state affiliate. The group would go on to successfully push for the passage of Question 2, a ballot measure to levy a three percent tax on incomes of greater than $200,000 ostensibly to finance the state’s traditional public schools. [Opponents of the measure are pushing for a recount.] Thanks to NEA, Citizens and its allies outspent opponents of the measure (including Gov. Paul LePage) by $3.6 million ($3.9 million to 286,717.95, according to Ballotpedia), effectively winning the spending — and ultimately, the electoral — battle.
Another big score was in Georgia, where NEA’s state affiliate and traditional districts successfully beat back Amendment 1, Gov. Nathan Deal’s plan have allowed the Peach State to take over 127 failure mills and put them into a statewide district similar to Louisiana’s now-defunct Recovery School District. To help beat back that effort, NEA reported at the end of its fiscal year that it poured $500,000 into Committee to Keep Georgia Schools Local, a coalition featuring NEA’s Georgia Association of Educators and the state branch of AFL-CIO. [NEA also gave $100,000 to GAE in support of opposing the ballot measure.] These dollars, along with another $3.4 million NEA tossed into Keep Georgia’s coffers during the first months of its current fiscal year, and another $200,000 from American Federation of Teachers, helped opponents of Amendment 1 outspend supporters by a 2-to-1 margin ($5.1 million versus $2.6 million).
But not every measure NEA backed was passed at the ballot box. In Oregon, the union poured $350,000 into Yes on 97, which fought to pass a measure levying a 2.5 percent gross receipts tax on businesses generating more than $25 million in annual revenue; NEA gave another $2 million in cash and in-kind donations between September and November, months after the end of its 2015-2016 fiscal year, according to Oregon’s Secretary of State. [AFT, whose nursing and teaching affiliates are big political players in the state, gave $1 million to Yes on 97.] The union also gave $150,000 to one of its longtime vassals in the state, Defend Oregon, which worked with Yes on 97 to push the measure. But on Election Day, voters rejected the proposed tax by 59 percent to 41 percent.
But NEA ballot battles weren’t just about opposing school choice and raising tax revenues that would ultimately contribute to its bottom line. It also worked to support its allies, especially progressive groups and labor unions, in their efforts to increase minimum wages and defend gay rights. Certainly, neither NEA nor its rank-and-file directly benefit one bit from minimum wage increases and the union’s affiliates have proven willing to back anti-gay rights candidates when it suited their purposes. But by supporting those efforts, NEA bolsters its image as a champion for progressives, gay households, and low-income households, even as it fights for policies and practices that ultimately harm the latter two groups by denying their children high-quality education.
While reformers have been successful in building similar alliances with businesses, the movement has recently struggled to extend beyond those relationships to social justice activists and even organizations in rural communities such as Future Farmers of America. In fact, reformers remain split over the simple matter of working with Black Lives Matter and criminal justice reform advocates, whose work on issues affecting the families of poor and minority children should be a natural fit. This struggle is essentially helping NEA and AFT gain allies who should be supporting systemic reform.
Back in Maine, NEA gave $231,000 to Mainers for Fair Wages, a group that successfully fought to pass a minimum wage increase contained in Question 4. Thanks to NEA’s help, minimum wage advocates can now take credit for increasing hourly wages for low-skilled workers from $7.50 to $12 by 2020.
Another successful effort came in Colorado, where NEA gave $430,000 to Colorado Families for a Fair Wage, a group that successfully pushed for the minimum wage hike contained in Amendment 70. Thanks to the union’s backing, that group successfully convinced voters to support an increase from $8.31 an hour to $12 an hour within the next four years.
Meanwhile in Houston, NEA gave $50,000 to Houston United, which unsuccessfully fought last year for passage of the Texas metropolis’ anti-gay discrimination ordinance. The measure, which was voted down by 61 percent to 39 percent, according to Ballotpedia, generated national controversy after city officials filed subpoenas demanding copies of five sermons given against the ordinance by local clergy, raising fears of religious discrimination that ultimately led to the measure’s defeat.
None of NEA’s big ballot spends are surprising. As Dropout Nation has reported in the past, the union is a big player in supporting state and local ballot initiatives it favors. This includes donations to the progressive Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, to which NEA gave $380,000 in 2015-2016, and has financed to the tune of $1.1 million between 2010-2011 and 2015-2016. NEA also got help from consultancy TrueBallot, to which it paid $21,887 last fiscal year.
NEA took an even bolder step earlier this year when it voted to devote even more money from its Ballot Measure/Emergency Crisis Fund to fight off reform measures on the ballot in Massachusetts and Georgia, as well as support more-favorable initiatives elsewhere. This meant even more spending on political consultants at the state level. This included dropping $254,663 with Blue State Digital, $356,000 with AL Media (the former Adelstein Liston) on various media messaging, and $58,000 on Big Bowl of Ideas (which is known for its work with minimum wage advocates).
As for NEA’s other political spending? The union spent $60,122 with Mack Sumner Communications for political messaging services, $48,750 with Revolution Messaging for digital ads, $502,503 with Angle Mastagni Matthews for a variety of robocalls, $477,088 with Mission Control Inc., on direct mail, and $70,915 with political consultancy 50+1.
NEA’s biggest single spend was on public relations, dropping $6.8 million with ad giant Interpublic Group’s Weber Shandwick. On public relations, the union spent $585,887 with broadcast publicity outfit Lyons Public Relations, bought $245,450 in services from Dewey Square Group, spent $104,994 with Acadia Consulting, and handed over $24,163 to Camino Public Relations for its services. It also spent $11,351 with Agile Education Marketing, spent $127,013 with Elope on promotional gear, and bought $28,500 worth of media training services from Oratorio. For advertising, it spent $407,602 with Hedrush Agency, a firm ran by “cultural curator” Munch Joseph.
As part of its public relations costs, NEA also spent $25,000 with the National Education Writers Association, the group providing training and other services to journalists covering districts and education agencies. A very helpful way to get before reporters and pundits without having to craft a pitch — and another example of how NEA is truly a corporate entity.
Dropout Nation will provide additional analysis of the NEA’s financial filing later this week. You can check out the data yourself by checking out the HTML and PDF versions of the NEA’s latest financial report, or by visiting the Department of Labor’s Web site. Also check out Dropout Nation‘s Teachers Union Money Report, for this and other reports on AFT and NEA spending.
The National Center for Education Statistics has now released graduation rates for US school districts, disaggregated for the usual racial and ethnic groups, but not by gender. For the purposes of this analysis, those rates will be used as given.
Much progress has been made in standardizing calculations for high school graduation rates and although there remain local oddities, such as a proliferation of types of high school diplomas, particularly in the South, the overall situation is such as to allow a sharper focus on individual districts. We can, then, look at three typical large urban districts—Chicago, New York and Philadelphia—with at least a first order degree of confidence that we are looking at similar data among them. (Chicago’s graduation rate calculations have been questioned—certain groups are said to be excluded—but that discussion can be put aside for another occasion.)
Asian students are reported to graduate at a rate of 91 percent in Chicago, 83 percent in New York City and 80 percent in Philadelphia. Black student graduation rates are reported as 71 percent in Chicago, 64 percent in New York City and 65 percent in Philadelphia. Latino students are reported as graduating at a rate of 80 percent in Chicago, 61 percent in New York and 53 percent in Philadelphia, while White students are reported as graduating at a rate of 87 percent in Chicago, 81 percent in New York City and 71 percent in Philadelphia.
The difference between Asian and White graduation rates, on the one hand, and Black and Latino rates, on the other, varies from 15 to 20 percentage points, with Chicago showing the least difference and New York City the greatest difference. The greatest differences between districts are those in nearly every case between the relatively better rates for Chicago and relatively worse rates for Philadelphia (but see proviso above).
Those graduation rates are indications of the success, or lack of it, for each of these districts in providing their students with diplomas. How, then, can we assess the degree to which those districts are successful in educating those students, providing them with the skills and knowledge necessary for college and career preparation?
The National Assessment of Educational Progress is of some help in this. The cliché description of NAEP’s data is that it is “the gold standard,” and there is little doubt that its assessments are accurate. Unfortunately, NAEP does not provide district data for its 12th grade assessments. Therefore, Dropout Nation uses the assessment at eighth grade, selecting among the many subject-area assessments that which is most fundamental, reading. At grade eight, 63 percent of Chicago’s White students read at or above grade level (“Proficient”), as compared to 24 percent of the district’s Latino students and just 13 percent of the district’s Black students. (There are too few Asian students in the Chicago schools for NAEP to assess.) 46 percent of New York City’s White students and 26 percent of Philadelphia’s White students test at or above grade level in grade eight, as do 15 percent of New York City’s and 9 percent of Philadelphia’s Black students. Twenty-two percent of New York’s Latino students and 11 percent of Philadelphia’s Latino students test at grade level, as do 41 percent of New York’s and 44 percent of Philadelphia’s Asian students.
Philadelphia is clearly failing to teach reading to most of its students — a remarkable three-quarters of its White students and over 90 percent of its Black students are below grade level in reading on NAEP’s grade 8 evaluation. And although Chicago’s success with White Students is impressive, it fails to teach over 85 percent of its Black students this fundamental skill.
We can, with this information, throw some light on the question of how well-educated are those students receiving diplomas from these three cities.
Comparing NAEP Grade 8 Reading Proficiency for the New York City groups, we found the following for the four largest racial/ethnic groups: NAEP eighth-grade reading percent at or above grade level: Forty-one percent of Asians, 15 percent of Black students; 22 percent of Latino students; and 46 percent of White students. By the way: the graduation rates are t83 percent for Asian students, 64 percent for Black students, 61 percent for Latino students, and 81 percent for White students. Dividing the high school graduation rates by the NAEP reading percentages, we find these ratios: Two-point-zero for Asian students; 4.3 for Black students; 2.8 percent for Latino students, and 1.8 percent for White students.
Twice the percentage of Asian and White students, three times the percentage of Latino students and more than four times the percentage of Black students graduate from the New York City schools as are reading at grade level in eighth grade.
For Philadelphia, we found the following for NAEP Grade 8 Reading percentages at or above grade level: Forty-four percent for Asians; nine percent for Black students; 11 percent for Latino students; and 26 percent for Whites. And this for high school graduation rates: Eighty percent for Asians; 65 percent for Black students; 53 percent for Latinos students; and 71 percent for Whites. Dividing these high school graduation rates by the NAEP reading percentages, we find these ratios: Two-point-eight for Asians; 6.9 for Black students; 4.6 for Latinos; and 2.8 for whites.
Nearly three times the percentage of Asian and White students, almost five times the percentage of Latino students and nearly seven times the percentage of Black students graduate from the Philadelphia schools as are reading at grade level in eighth grade.
For Chicago, we found the following for the three racial/ethnic groups for which we have NAEP Grade 8 Reading percentages at or above grade level: Thirteen percent for Black students; 24 percent for Latino students; and 62 percent for White students. And these for high school graduation rates: Seventy-one percent for Black students; 80 percent for Latino students; and 87 percent for White students. Dividing the high school graduation rates by the NAEP reading percentages, we get these ratios: Five-point-three for Black students; 3.3 for Latino students; and 1.4 for White students.
Nearly half again the percentage of White students, more than three times the percentage of Latino students and more than five times the percentage of Black students graduate from the Chicago schools as are reading at grade level in grade 8.
On average, then, these three districts graduate about twice the percentage of Asian and White students than are reading at grade level in middle school, while they graduate three-and-a-half times that of Latino students and five and-a-half that of Black students.
What happens to these recipients of high school diplomas from the Chicago, New York and Philadelphia schools? Do those diplomas mean that they were educated by their schools so as to be career and college-ready?
Nationally, according to the most recent data from the National Center for Education Statistics, 83 percent of recent Asian high school completers enrolled in a two or four year post-secondary institution, as did 71 percent of White, 69 percent of Latino and 56 percent of Black recent high school graduates. Given the NAEP data on reading proficiency, there is a reasonable assumption that most graduates from the Chicago, New York and Philadelphia systems, and, in particular, their Black and Latino students, initially enroll in community colleges. Again, according to the most recent NCES report, 34 percent of Asian, 29 percent of White, 30 percent of Latino and 20 percent of Black students graduated within 150 percent of normal time in two-year postsecondary institutions.
Or, in other words, 80 percent of Black, 70 percent of Latino and White and 66 percent of Asian students who attempted an Associates degree were not prepared to succeed. This accords with reports that in New York City, 80 percent of community college students require reading and math remediation.
There is another way of putting this. In Chicago, New York and Philadelphia—and likely in other large cities—the vast majority of Black and Latino are either not graduating or are being handed diplomas that mean little. Those that receive diplomas graduate without necessary basic skills. Of the half to two-thirds who receive diplomas, another half or two-thirds—a quarter or a third of those who began high school—enroll in college. Of those, one-fifth to one-third graduate in the time expected, that is, 5 percent to 11 percent of the entering high school classes.
These college numbers are from national statistics. It is probably worse than that for Black and Latino students in Chicago, New York and Philadelphia, as well as for peers in Cleveland, Detroit and Memphis.
The first step toward improving this situation is for districts to be honest about their data, in this case, honest when giving out diplomas. The following steps are well-known: providing resources for lower income and especially Black and Latino students at least as generously as they are provided by their schools and families for students from higher income families. If these things are not done, one can only conclude that those who could do them do not wish to do so.
Down that path is a society divided between a steadily shrinking, and aging, wealthy America and an increasing, and increasingly impoverished, other America: Black, Brown and, yes, White as well.
When it comes to influence-buying, the National Education Association has rarely been especially thoughtful or strategic. The nation’s largest teachers’ union assiduously allies itself with progressive groups, cajoles social justice groups into helping it dress up its agenda, and teams up the notoriously-secretive Democracy Alliance. But it has never been strategic in its spending, especially in focusing on specific cities or states in which locals and affiliates are at risk of losing influence. Nor has it recruited staffers from even-savvier outfits such as the Service Employees International Union. As a result, it has often been less-savvy and less-successful in its gamesmanship than the rival American Federation of Teachers.
But as NEA’s 2015-2016 disclosure to the U.S. Department of Labor, along with campaign finance documents, reveals, the union has stepped up its sophistication in its successful spend against a ballot measure in Massachusetts to expand charter schools.
As you know by now, one of the most-prominent efforts to advance systemic reform fell apart last month when 62 percent of Bay State voters voted down Question 2. Thanks to the defeat, children stuck in failure mills and schools that don’t fit their academic and social needs won’t be able to attend any of the 12 charters that state officials would have been allowed authorize every year.
None of this sat well with reformers who long took for granted that the role of the state’s capital, Boston, as an epicenter and example of successful systemic reform. Given the ideological divide within the movement that has emerged in the past five years, internal finger-pointing, especially from reformers outside the state, is bubbling up. Even before Election Day, Robert Pondiscio, the E.D. Hirsch acolyte who now serves as Thomas B. Fordham Institute President Michael Petrilli’s attack man, complained that centrist Democrat and civil rights-oriented reformers failed to speak the language or address the desires) of suburban voters who saw no point in expanding choice.
Yet no one within the movement paid attention to one of the key reasons behind Question 2’s defeat: The spending, co-opting, and politicking NEA and its Bay State affiliate (along with that of AFT and its locals) did to rally much-needed opposition.
NEA was in a bit of a disadvantage to start. It didn’t have much support for its effort to quash Question 2 from other players among Massachusetts’ labor unions. One possible reason: The expectation that Marty Walsh, the former union leader, charter school founder, and choice advocate who is now Boston’s mayor, would back it. That the measure had strong support from the Bay State’s Republican governor, Charlie Baker, also gave reformers much hope.
But NEA and its Massachusetts Teachers Association had some key advantages going into the political battle — and it started with cold, hard cash. In 2014 and 2015, the NEA affiliate itself spent poured $3 million into its Super-PAC, giving it plenty of money to mount a political onslaught against the measure. More importantly, the union’s strong ties to traditionalist activists on the ground, along with its role as a leading player in Bay State politics, all but ensured that it could rally support against the measure.
One of the groups: Citizens for Public Schools, a coalition of faith-based groups, old-school education associations, and unions that includes AFT Massachusetts and Boston Teachers Union, as well as longtime vassals of the national NEA’s largesse such as FairTest, the state branch of the NAACP, and the Bay State branch of People for the American Way. Together with Citizens for Public Schools and AFT’s units, MTA formed Save Our Public Schools, which would spearhead opposition from traditionalists and districts (known as school committees in Massachusetts) Question 2.
This is where NEA and its vast coffers came into play. By the end of its 2015-2016 fiscal year, the union plunked down $500,000 into Save Our Public Schools, according to its filing with the Department of Labor. This allowed Save Our Public Schools to put on a scare campaign that featured declarations that Question 2 would cause districts to lose their funding. [Of course, no one opposed to Question 2 considered the ridiculous thinking that districts, along with NEA and AFT affiliates, think they deserve to receive money for children they are no longer serving.]
Over the following months, NEA would leverage its coffers and its Ballot Measure/Emergency Crisis Fun to provide Save Our Public Schools with even more mother’s milk. This included a cash infusion of $3.5 million in October, a month before Election Day, according to the Bay State’s Office of Campaign and Political Finance. Altogether, NEA dumped $5.4 million into Save Our Public Schools, likely its biggest spend on a ballot measure this year. Along with MTA’s $8.4 million in donations, the union accounted for 80 percent of the $17.2 million (including in-kind donations) spent to defeat the measure.
NEA also made sure to provide additional subsidies to MTA. It gave $3.7 million to the Bay State affiliate in 2015-2016, a six percent increase over the previous year. Those dollars were well-deserved. Without MTA and its president, Barbara Madeloni, putting muscle into opposing Question 2, NEA wouldn’t have gained any victory.
As you would expect, AFT and its units also did its part, though it was NEA that did the heavy lifting. The union’s Bay State affiliate dropped $617,949.69 into Save Our Public Schools, while the Boston Teachers Union gave $349,550 to defeat the measure. AFT national dropped $1.7 million into the opposition, as well as contributed $36,115 to the Boston local’s political action committee and $196,506 to that of the state affiliate. More importantly, the union gave financial support to like-minded groups. This included $31,500 to the Boston Youth Organizing Project, $31,250 to Center for Labor Education and Research’s Boston Education Justice Alliance, and $31,250 to Massachusetts Jobs with Justice. All three groups, naturally, endorsed Save Our Public Schools’ fight against Question 2; Jobs with Justice took a step further by contributing $8,000 to Save Our Public Schools.
To tie the effort to expand charters with Wall Street — and win support from progressives who irrationally hate anything tied to capitalism — MTA and AFT Massachusetts filed a complaint with the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission accusing Baker of backing Question 2 in order to win support from private-equity players who have long been key philanthropists in the school reform movement. The complaint is the epitome of frivolity — the only evidence provided was a commercial the governor did on the referendum — but it was more than enough to give reasons to progressives in the state to turn their backs on children.
All the spending, co-opting and politicking done by NEA and AFT achieved results. By Election Day, reformers lost a potential supporter in Walsh, who took to the pages of the Boston Globe to oppose Question 2. Besides remembering that he runs the traditional district, Walsh also wants to keep his job and doesn’t want to get on the wrong side of the Boston AFT.
Baker’s presence in backing the measure backfired with Bay State Democrats, whose state committee voted to oppose the measure. In the process, the state party, along with U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren and the state’s congressional delegation, effectively went to war against centrist Democrat reformers including the state’s powerful house speaker, Robert DeLeo, as well as former U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and his successor, John King (who founded a charter school in Boston’s Roxbury section).
With all but a few key players within the Democratic machinery opposing Question 2, the measure all but doomed.
The defeat won’t likely stop reformers from working to expand charters. After all, they came close to doing so earlier this year when state senators approved a bill that would have allowed more of them to open in exchange for increased funding for districts. But the defeat at the ballot box, despite outspending NEA and its allies by $9.6 million ($26.8 million versus $17.2 million) hurts reformers to no end. They are now forced to think through how they can build stronger support for school choice, both on the ground and among policymakers who must remember that they depend on NEA and AFT money to keep their phony baloney offices.
As for NEA? The Big Two union’s success in Massachusetts gives it a possible blueprint for beating back reform efforts at the state level, which is especially important in the age of the Every Student Succeeds Act and an incoming Trump Administration and Republican-controlled Congress that will give it less consideration than ever. Whether or not NEA will embrace those lessons — or if they can even be applied in the Republican-dominated states in which most of its affiliates and locals are located — are different questions altogether.
Dropout Nation will provide additional analysis of the NEA’s financial filing later this week. You can check out the data yourself by checking out the HTML and PDF versions of the NEA’s latest financial report, or by visiting the Department of Labor’s Web site. Also check out Dropout Nation‘s Teachers Union Money Report, for this and previous reports on NEA spending.
Yesterday, National Education Association filed its 2015-2016 financial disclosure with the U.S. Department of Labor — and once again, the nation’s largest teachers’ union spent big to preserve its influence over American public education.
NEA spent $138 million on lobbying and contributions to supposedly likeminded organizations during its last fiscal year. That’s a 5.3 percent increase over influence-buying levels in 2014-2015. This, by the way, doesn’t include another $46.5 million in spending on so-called representational activities, which almost always tend to be political in nature; that’s a 16 percent increase over levels in the previous year.
One of union’s key spends was on its own Super-PAC, NEA Advocacy, which was a key player in the Democratic National Committee’s effort to retain the White House and regain control of the U.S. Senate. It poured $12.2 million into NEA Advocacy in 2015-2016, a 40 percent increase over the $8.7 million given to it during the previous fiscal year. As OpenSecrets notes in its most-recent analysis of the Super-PAC’s finances, NEA funneled most of that money in it to other Super-PACs and 527 committees. This included $300,000 to American Bridge 21st Century (another recipient of NEA funding), and $774,670 to Kentucky Family Values, which unsuccessfully fought to stop Republicans from winning control of the Bluegrass State’s legislature.
As you would also expect, NEA also poured money into Democracy Alliance, the ever-the secretive progressive outfit which has become a major player in national and Democratic Party politics. NEA Executive Director John Stocks chairs the organization’s board of directors. The union gave $1.6 million to the outfit, its Committee on States, and its State Engagement Fund in 2015-2016, a seven-fold increase over the previous fiscal year. Given how poorly Democrats performed this election cycle, you can conclude this was money not well spent.
Meanwhile NEA spent plenty on other outfits within the wider Democracy Alliance network. It poured $200,000 into David Brock’s Media Matters for America, ladled out $225,000 to Progress Now, put $187,654 into the Advancement Project (which has been a partner with NEA and AFT in opposing systemic reform), and handed out $25,000 to longtime beneficiary Netroots Nation. NEA also spent $627,543 with Catalist, LLC, the data-mining outfit for the Democratic National Committee that is a lynchpin in Democracy Alliance’s campaign efforts. Again, in light of Democratic Presidential Nominee Hillary Clinton’s defeat at the hands of Donald Trump this month, NEA may need to reconsider where it spends its cash.
The biggest recipient within the Democracy Alliance network is Center for Popular Democracy, whose board includes American Federation of Teachers President Rhonda (Randi) Weingarten. NEA gave the outfit and its political action fund $591,350 in 2015-2016, a 3.7 percent increase over the previous fiscal year. [AFT itself gave the outfit $373,000 during its last fiscal year.] That’s more money to help NEA and AFT in their effort to oppose the expansion of public charter schools and other forms of choice.
Meanwhile NEA continued to co-opt progressive and social justice groups in its effort to defend the policies and practices that finance its operations. For NEA, the dollar amounts to each group can often be small compared to its annual revenue. But for the recipient groups, many of which are always cash-strapped and dependent on the kindness of bigger players, the dollars often influence the direction of their advocacy. Why? Because philanthropic groups and unions such as NEA prefer to finance programmatic activities such as advocacy rather than subsidize the organization’s administrative and other back-office operations; often, programmatic staff will keep their jobs even as nonprofits lay off other staff. As a result, NEA can ensure that its vassals do its bidding.
The union doled out $140,000 to Center for Media and Democracy, the outfit behind PR Watch and ALEC Watch, the latter of which is likely favored by the union since it focuses on the conservative state policymaking outfit. It also gave $100,000 to the Progressive Inc, the parent of the news outlet that counts Jeff Bryant of Campaign for America’s Future (a longtime NEA dependent) and Julian Vasquez-Heilig among its contributors. That’s plenty enough for freelance fees to put into the pockets of Bryant, Vasquez-Heilig and their fellow-travelers. The union also handed another $50,000 to Independent Media Institute, the parent of progressive media outlet Alternet.
The union gave $148,800 to Change Corps, which provides training to progressive activists, provided $65,000 to the Tides Foundation’s Advocacy Fund, and handed off $35,000 to the Opportunity Institute. NEA also gave $75,000 to Convergence Center for Policy Resolution, and $25,000 to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
NEA put $550,000 into Sixteen Thirty Fund, a endowment developed by former Clinton Administration mandarin Eric Kessler’s Arabella Advisors. NEA also gave $62,657 to New Venture Fund, another outfit with ties to Kessler. Working to stop efforts by reformers and pension reform advocates to address virtually-insolvent retirement plans, NEA also gave $160,000 to National Public Pension Coalition. The union put $397,500 into America Votes, the progressive group whose “partners” include AFT and Center for Popular Democracy’s action fund; handed $135,000 to Campaign for America’s Future; ladled $100,000 to Corporate Action Network; and gave $50,000 to New York Communities for Change, a longtime beneficiary of rival union AFT’s largesse.
NEA even gave $125,000 to Center for American Progress — even though it is one of the foremost players in the school reform movement. It helps that the latter is key to the Democracy Alliance network of nonprofits and political action outfits.
For the first time in two years, NEA didn’t give any money to Schott Foundation for Public Education and its political action fund. Given how little mileage the union got from working with the once-respectable advocate for transforming education for young black men, it’s probably for the best. Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, and old-school civil rights group NAACP (which managed to garner publicity favorable to union with its resolution calling for a moratorium on the expansion of charters) also didn’t collect a check from NEA for the first time in quite a while.
Meanwhile NEA worked on co-opting other minority advocacy groups. It gave $65,000 to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, the philanthropic arm of the coalition of African-American members of Congress; put $94,000 into the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, which serves the same role for Latino members; and gave $15,000 to MALDEF. The union also gave $20,000 to Institute for Asian Pacific American Leadership and Advancement, and put $5,000 into National Council on Educating Black Children. Building ties with gay, lesbian and transgender activist groups, NEA gave $50,000 to Human Rights Campaign, and $50,000 to Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network.
It even managed to give $50,000 to Smithsonian Institution for the newly-opened National Museum of African-American History and Culture. That was a very smart thing to do, one that some reformers should have also done.
Meanwhile NEA is looking to build support among teachers and families for its agenda. It gave$12,460 to the National Network of State Teachers of the Year, allowing the union to take advantage of the popularity of teachers (and avoid the general disdain toward it and AFT). Another $36,700 was given to the National Teacher Hall of Fame, while $86,242 went to Institute for Education Leadership. Meanwhile NEA gave $150,000 to Parents Together Action, an outfit that is attempting to co-opt the Parent Power movement; while it put down $61,031 to Parent Teacher Home Visit Project.
As for the usual suspects: NEA gave $50,000 to FairTest (also known as National Center for Fair and Open Testing), the leading outfit in opposing the use of standardized tests, the data from which can be used in evaluating the teachers in NEA’s rank-and-file. It also gave $250,000 to the National Education Policy Center through the University of Colorado-Boulder’s foundation. It provided $398,000 to National Board for Professional Teaching Standards; poured $397,036 into Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation, the group that represents the nation’s woeful university schools of education; put $395,120 into Barnett Berry’s Center for Teaching Quality; and handed off $275,000 to the Republican Main Street Partnership and its Main Street Advocacy Fund.
NEA gave $250,000 to Economic Policy Institute, while handing $100,000 to its other go-to research ally, Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The union also gave $114,000 to Learning First Alliance, and put $150,227 into Education Law Center.
What about NEA’s top brass? The union’s president, Lily Eskelsen Garcia, collected $512,504 in 2015-2016, a 23 percent increase over the previous year; she can get herself some new Gretsch Chet Atkins. Her number two, Becky Pringle, was paid $434,738, a 17 percent increase; while Secretary-Treasurer Princess Moss pulled in $436,423, a 1.5 percent gain. Altogether, NEA’s top three leaders collected $1.4 million in 2015-2016, a 17 percent increase over the previous fiscal year.
As we say at Dropout Nation, there is nothing wrong with NEA leaders drawing six-figure sums. But the high salaries (and the corporate ways the NEA and the AFT engage in their defense of traditionalist policies and thinking) should be kept in mind any time Eskelsen Garcia and AFT counterpart Weingarten use class warfare rhetoric to oppose systemic reform of American public education.
As for the union’s staff? Some 403 staffers (out of 556 on the payroll) were paid six-figure sums in 2015-2016; that’s eight more than in the previous fiscal year. One person collecting big checks is Stocks, whose being an NEA staffer is lucrative work. Whether the teachers who are often forced by compulsory dues laws to pay those salaries are benefiting is a different story. $469,501 in compensation is 15.3 percent higher than in 2014-2015. The union’s general counsel, Alice O’Brien, picked up $255,603, a 5.3 percent increase over the previous year; while top lobbyist Marcus Egan collected $193,407, a 6.3 percent increase. As always, being an NEA staffer is lucrative. Whether the teachers, often forced by compulsory dues laws to pay those salaries, are benefiting is an open question.
Dropout Nation will provide additional analysis of the NEA’s financial filing later this week. You can check out the data yourself by checking out the HTML and PDF versions of the NEA’s latest financial report, or by visiting the Department of Labor’s Web site. Also check out Dropout Nation‘s Teachers Union Money Report, for this and previous reports on AFT and NEA spending.