While the AFSCME is stuck acting like all its members are police and firefighters, the Ohio Education Association (OEA) has the ultimate defense: Think of the children! Too often, this line is all it takes to deflect criticism, allowing the OEA to resume talking about the terrible things that would happen to teachers absent unionization.
See, for instance, the OEA press release opposing Senate Bill 5:
“The Ohio Education Association (OEA) is gravely concerned that the Ohio Senate is not making Ohio’s children a priority. In a tough economy and facing a major budget deficit, Ohio must focus on the essentials, and nothing is more essential than giving our children a quality education that prepares them for good jobs.”
It’s tough to track proficiency test scores due to gaps in Ohio Department of Education data, but graduation rates fluctuated from 80-87% during the past decade while spending persistently increased. Federal data hardly support the “more money means more learning” school of thought. But, “giving our children a quality education” is a better pitch than “continuing unreasonable pay to tenured union members.”
Who but a union would insist merit pay is the wrong way to encourage hard work and reward the best educators? That anyone capable of enduring several years as a teacher should have a job for life, with longevity raises on top? That charter schools and vouchers should never be tried? As with AFSCME Council 8 & Local 11, the OEA stands between Ohioans and the services our tax dollars fund.
Exciting OEA Facts, Fiscal 2009
- $22,771,159 paid to union officers and staff — equal to $176.71 per member
- 143 union employees paid more than $70,000
- 117 union employees paid more than $100,000
- 12 union employees paid more than $150,000
- Executive Director Larry Wicks paid $208,469
- Executive Director Dennis Reardon paid $202,997
- $8,151,341 spent on benefits — less than 36% of the amount disbursed to union officers and staff
- $25,000 given to Policy Matters Ohio, a far-left Cleveland think-tank (09/23/2008)
- $10,000 sent to Colorado education union (10/17/2008)
- $10,000 sent to Oregon education union (10/27/2008)
The OEA also found $1,614,690 in the couch cushions to donate to Democrat campaigns in the 2010 cycle, according to records from the Secretary of State.
It comes to this: should we buy the OEA’s sales pitch about outsized union influence being the route to effective education? Or should we resist demands to further increase taxes, disassemble the union machine, and allow teachers, parents, and school districts to make their own decisions? This is what an attorney might call a leading question.
If you need more convincing that public unions are no good for Ohio, see Matt Mayer’s 02/15/2011 testimony before the Insurance, Commerce, and Labor Committee of the Ohio Senate.
Cross-posted at that hero and Third Base Politics.
February 22nd, 2011 at 10:06 pm
I do not believe until this “party” sits down with OEA and has a reasonable conversation concerning what’s best for the hard-working citizens of Ohio that you should post this kind of self-serving judgement about the organization. It sickens me that you do not and seemingly will not listen to the voices of the majority – instead, following your narrow viewpoint up on your soapbox.
My one word that summarizes your attempts to silence 130,000 members plus the hardworking employees of the OEA: ridiculous.
February 23rd, 2011 at 10:49 am
Talk about rhetoric (insincere or pretentious language). If teaching is not the fundamental of a good education – I’m not sure what is. Let’s quit nickel and diming education and get to the bottom of the problem – fat cow government policies that benefit the upper class. The majority of citizens appose this legislation. Let the citizens be heard.
February 23rd, 2011 at 8:55 pm
I’m not sure where you got your erroneous information, or maybe you decided to just slant it yourselves . . . but you are wa-a-a-a-y off . . . on many points!
Let’s say we have 2 identical teachers, teaching same grades, both in public schools. Teacher #1 teaches in a middle class neighborhood where parents are involved with their children’s education and absenteeism is low. Teacher #2 teaches in an inner city school where the parents themselves did not finish their education and don’t particularly care if their kid shows up in class or not. Half the time they don’t even know where their kids are. Guess which teacher is going to get the merit pay!
The union does not stand up for bad teachers. However, they DO stand up for the teachers who are wrongly accused or are abused by their students. Yes, there are even ‘Abuse’ clauses in some of their contracts. Why? Because it happens. You people need a dose of reality!
Merit pay? Give it to the parents whose children have succeeded because they encouraged them to!!
Children reflect their parents, not their teachers.
February 24th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
@ Tiffany: My whole point is that the OEA is not and should not be arbiters of “what’s best for the hard-working citizens of Ohio.” And really, who’s trying to silence anyone?
I’m also interested in this direct line you have to the “voices of the majority.” If the majority knew what the OEA pays its staffers and spends on elections, I highly doubt the majority would agree with you over me.
February 24th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
@ Kathleen: “Let’s quit nickel and diming education and get to the bottom of the problem – fat cow government policies that benefit the upper class.”
Ahhh, good old class warfare. I don’t suppose $22,771,159 given to union employees has any impact on our cash-strapped educators?
Tell you what, Ohio can keep raising taxes and you say “when” when the upper class has given enough to the government.
February 24th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
@ Mary: My OEA salary numbers, which I’m sure are wa-a-a-a-y off, are from the OEA’s 2009 report to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. My erroneous OEA campaign contribution figure is from the Ohio Secretary of State.
Your merit pay example assumes a very badly designed merit pay system. I’m sure teachers and districts could work something out that would account for different buildings, districts, and student demographics.
Also, I’d imagine there are students throughout the state dealing with awful tenured teachers who would dispute your assertion that “the union does not stand up for bad teachers.”