2 OCT 2018 · So much has already been written about the Brett Kavanaugh subject, that I hesitate to add my own observations. But NEA President Lily Eskelsen Garcia’s latest Blackboard commentary provided the impetus for what you will read here. You won’t find any argument in opposition/support of Kavenaugh’s confirmation for Supreme Court Justice. My concern is that Garcia has mistakenly portrayed the ACTUAL message that students are deriving from what can legitimately be called a nomination circus. The title of her Blackboard post is in the form of a question: As the Kavanaugh nomination proceeds, what messages are our students getting? I invite you to contrast that message according to Garcia vs. the message according to me. THE MOST DANGEROUS MESSAGE OF ALL? Boys should repress their natural sexual tendencies during their late teens and early twenties so they are not accused of inappropriate sexual behavior. Silly? That is why I think that the #MeToo Movement has gone amok.

2 OCT 2018 · The NEA President, Lily Eskelsen Garcia, claimed that unions and teachers in West Virginia “stood in solidarity,” while a teacher defiantly stated “Hell no” when instructed by her union to return to work. Solidarity? Sound more like strife if you ask me. I’ll tell you this. If "solidarity" means that union members actually defy their leaders, do you want to be around when unions and their members REALLY disagree on something? That would probably be a really ugly scene ... But, back to the topic at hand, how can this be possible? How is it possible that the perspectives of individuals who should be in complete agreement be so diametrically opposed when their benefits are on the line? Hint: There is a hidden conflict of Interest.

2 OCT 2018 · “The overdue national attention on the erosion of teacher salaries across the nation couldn’t come at a more urgent time … the teacher pay penalty – the percent by which public school educators are paid less than comparable workers – has reached an all-time high.” Tim Walker, NEA Writer “Interesting. When you adjust the teacher ‘pay penalty’ to account for the fact that teachers only work 9 months a year while comparable workers put in a full 12 months, it vanishes completely.” Jonathan Smith, Anti-NEA Writer Listen to the podcast to hear how I adjusted the “pay penalty” to get a more accurate figure.

2 OCT 2018 · Here is what the teacher said: “… the goal of business is to make a larger profit and the easiest way to save money is to pay your workers less.” What is interesting when you first read this statement, is that it appears to be factually correct. After all, if you cut your payroll costs (assuming revenue remains the same), profits/income will obviously go up. This is simple math, right? Simple math it may be, but it is also a simplistic understanding of how successful businesses operate in the real world. While cutting costs in order to “make a larger profit” may be the “easiest way to save money,” a business will not remain solvent for the long term if this is its strategic plan. But businesses don’t make larger profits simply by “saving money.” They make larger profits by capital investment which leads to greater productivity of their workers.

2 OCT 2018 · I have gotten several questions from readers about what happens to their teacher contracts once they opt out of the union. “Will you have to appear before the Board of Education each year and negotiate on your own?” “Will you get paid less because you are one individual negotiating against the Big Bad Board?” These are legitimate questions, because if you look at your last contract, it is an agreement between your Board of Education and your District union. So, if you are no longer a member of that union, are you bound by it? The short answer is yes – you are still bound by that contract. It is all about monopoly or exclusive representation. Listen to the podcast for all of the details.

2 OCT 2018 · Teachers unions do not support vouchers for private schools. No surprise there, but what about the idea of vouchers for PUBLIC schools? “Vouchers for public schools,” you ask, “what the heck is that?” Its called Inter-District School Choice and it is currently being practiced in New Jersey and Massachusetts (and possibly other states). What exactly is it? Listen to find out! The popularity of the Interdistrict Public School Choice Program (IPSCP) is strong proof that parents want choice when it comes to the education of their children. They want options, and, at least in New Jersey and Massachusetts, they have some.

2 OCT 2018 · NEA writer Tim Walker is at it again. When it comes to school privatization, he can’t seem to help himself – he loves to stretch the truth (lie) when it comes to vouchers and charter schools. By the way, Mr. Walker is paid big bucks for writing this kind of garbage, and your union dues are paying for it if you are a member of the NEA. According to UnionFacts.com, his salary and benefits in 2017 totaled $116,449 while the average teacher salary was only $58.950. Just saying…. The point of his latest article, “Fewer and Fewer States Escaping School’s Privatization Reach,” is that privatization of education is bad because: “… charter schools … are unaccountable to the public …” “… voucher programs … have siphoned off public taxpayer money to pay for private school tuition.” The only problem is that he bases his entire argument on a biased report. Listen for the details.

2 OCT 2018 · If someone does a better job at something, shouldn’t she be compensated accordingly? This was the question that came to mind after I read that Mandy Manning had been chosen 2018 National Teacher of the Year. Here is what NEA President Lily Eskelsen Garcia had to say about this exceptional woman: “Mandy is a shining example of how teachers transform the lives of their students every day, engaging them and creating enthusiasm for learning … she takes the time to connect with all of them one-on-one to find out who they are and discover their passions. Mandy sees no barriers—only bridges. She believes in her students, and it shows in the growing confidence they have in themselves.” I think most would agree that people who work harder and accomplish more should be paid more than those who do and accomplish less. And yet, unions ignore this obvious fairness issue when they champion collective bargaining as the answer to teacher compensation in schools. Collective bargaining results in a salary guide where teachers are compensated, not by how well they do their jobs, but by how long they have been teaching in a school district. So, if you put in more time, you will get paid more – it doesn’t matter how well you teach your students. How is that fair?

2 OCT 2018 · I wrote a blog post back in October of 2017 about the state of teacher pensions. Teachers unions need to stop demanding so much in their negotiations with states. My conclusion: “Teachers will need to be super flexible in negotiations if they want to save the [pension] system. Taking a hard line is selfish, and will simply destroy the retirement system sooner rather than later.” Unfortunately, the NEA is anything but “super flexible” when it comes to this issue: “NEA strongly supports protecting public defined benefit plans. Such plans provide a defined, predictable, guaranteed benefit, usually based on factors such as age, earnings, and years of service. In contrast, defined contribution plans offer no guaranteed, predictable retirement benefit and place retirement security at the risk of stock or bond markets.” Well, a recent article from Wirepoints.com (Overpromising has crippled public pensions. A 50-state survey) makes pretty clear that defined benefit plans are not sustainable in many states because the pension promises way outstrip the local GDP: “Wirepoints found that the growth in accrued [pension] liabilities has been extreme in many states, often growing two to three times faster than the pace of their economies.”

2 OCT 2018 · The NEA’s list of simplistic solutions reminds me of recent comments made by the new darling of the Democrat party, democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. In a recent interview on the Daily Show, Trevor Noah asked her how she intended to pay for all of the new governmental programs she want to put into place. Two of the NEA’s “solutions” were covered in her answer: “One of the things that we saw is, if people pay their fair share, if corporations and the ultra-wealthy … raised our corporate tax rate to 28 percent … If we get people to pay their fair share, that’s $2 trillion in ten years.” Sad, but she is as clueless as the NEA. Both forget the law of unintended consequences – often people and corporations simply vote with their feet. Raising taxes will do just that.