Posted on 09/04/2008 2:48:46 PM PDT by rhema
A pro-family advocate is questioning the National Education Association's endorsement of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.
The National Education Association (NEA) has endorsed Senator Barack Obama's presidential bid and plans to spend $50 million to target swing states. The NEA also says they will micro-manage members and send sophisticated electronic individualized messaging to members.
However, Bryan Fischer of the Idaho Values Alliance (IVA) thinks the money would be better spent on educating children.
"I think most parents would think if the NEA has $50 million to throw around, why don't they invest it in the classrooms where our children are being taught?" Fischer contends.
That $50 million will come from membership dues, but Fischer says if members do not support this effort, they can look for alternative teacher associations.
"I know here in Idaho, teachers have access to the Northwest Professional Educators Association, which is devoted to liability protection for teachers [and] academic improvement, and has made a deliberate decision that none of the association's fees or dues will be used for political causes or agendas," Fischer adds.
The NEA expects to reach 5.2 million voters in their campaign and deliver "80 percent of those votes for Senator Obama."
Your dues money at work.
The NEA should adopt a school district every year to apply those dues to improving infrastructure and curriculum. Maybe even some inner city schools, although they’d be more successful in improving schools around the failing inner city schools and focusing on successful inner city schools wherever they exist.
Although I’m not a fan, when Scwhartzenkennedy was campaigning for the recall slot in CA, he said he had met with the teachers unions several times. Not once in those meetings did they mention the kids. Only their salary increases, benefits and pensions.
What? Educators support Democrats? Why, oh why?
The Obamas DO NOT send THEIR children to a public school-why not? I want the media to ask why.
Many small towns are seeing their tax burdens rise because of years and years of successful featherbedding by the teachers’ unions. In these towns, the school budget is a huge part of the overall budget—more than half, and the history of signed contracts bloats that budget. That, coupled with the endless programs for the “special”, make the school budget essentially uncuttable. Oh, they can squeeze a little here and there by letting the school structure fall apart, or skimping on books and labs, but not much.
Its a lot like the way the Big Three auto companies became burdened by old agreements to the point where they could no longer compete.
Every year at this time we get the please give so that poor chillins can have new pencils routine.
The NEA hasn't learned its lesson yet, despite all the money they wasted trying to get Gore and Kerry elected.
commies do support their fellow commies.
LLS
I teach at a local community college. My “union”, I had no choice in joining, in 2004 sponsored a big bus trip to some Kerry event. I really wanted to write to the union rep and ask when we were going to a Bush event, but I really needed the job then.
But, luckily, my situation has improved, and if I get any union garbage about BO this time around, I’m going to make the biggest stink about equal time for McCain/Palin supporters!! Yes, I know it’s pointless. but I’ll feel better.
(I’m a part timer, union membership is mandatory, I tried to opt out. All they have ever done for me is take their dues & restrict the number of hour I’ve been allowed to teach - for the good of everyone - barf)
The NEA has always been the right arm of the Democrat party. They might not realize it, but there are many in the field of education that will NOT vote Democrat.....even though they know that their dues money goes to support Democrats.
Welfare mommas who don’t own property shouldn’t be allowed to vote on property tax issues. That will sink the NEA.
The NEA is a union. They don’t give two sh1ts about student education. That is not the reason why they exist.
Like any union, they exist to protect and defend their union members’ rights and interests.
Their past presidents have plainly said so. I don’t know if it was the NEA pres or the AFT pres who said, “I will start caring about students when they start paying dues.”
People need to wake up about teachers’ unions.
don't like merit pay / want to get paid just for showing-up
So has the AFT, I’m afraid.
Fifty years ago it was still considered a professional association, like the Bar Association and the Medical Societies. Of course they are trailing along in the same direction.
The Obama campaign is contacting school administrations to rent spaces to hold rallies. It does give the appearance of impropriety or endorsement; however, by some states’ law the schools are required to rent to anyone unless there is a previous school commitment.
Coming to a high school stadium near you......
The Association of American Educators, to which I've belonged for more than 10 years, is a truly professional teacher organization and a breath of fresh air compared to the tawdry NEA, which never met a liberal idea it couldn't enthusiastically espouse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.