JANUARY 3, 2012

Teachers' Union Dues at Leisure

A full-time teacher and member of the Pennsylvania State Education Association pays $654 a year in union dues to state, national and local affiliates of the union. While part-time teachers and other school workers such as janitors and secretaries pay less, nearly all must pay "fair share fees" to keep their jobs.

So how does the PSEA spend its members' hard-earned money?  By valiantly defending our teachers, right? 

Well, only if you count golf outings, ski trips and luxury getaways as fighting for the little guy.  The pie chart below on the PSEA's 2010-11 spending shows 18 percent went to "union administration"—including the aforementioned junkets, which frequently appear as "leadership conferences" in the union's annual report. A further 21 percent went to overhead costs.  A reported 6 percent went to lobbying and political activities. 

In other words, almost 45 percent of PSEA's expenditures simply went to running the union, lobbying and leadership meetings, while union bosses devoted a mere 14 percent  to "representational activities" that are meant to directly benefit rank-and-file members.

Here's a sampling of the luxury outings the PSEA took around the state (and beyond) last year, according to its annual report:

• $29,000 at Eden Resort Inn in Lancaster, for a "region house of delegates meeting."
• $31,000 at Liberty Mountain Resort in Carroll Valley, for a "region leadership conference."
• $8,000 at Pinecrest Golf Club in Lansdale, for another "region house of delegates meeting."
• $48,000 at Seaview Dolce Resort on the Jersey Shore (with golf club and spa), for a "regional continuing professional education conference."
• $30,000 at Seven Springs Mountain Resort in Champion, for another "regional continuing professional education conference."
• $26,000 at Bear Creek Mountain Resort in Macungie for a "region meeting."

posted by PRIYA ABRAHAM | 04:13 PM | 0 comment

DECEMBER 7, 2011

Educrats Fight for System Not Kids, Taxpayers

The Sharon Herald posted an article Sunday about anti-voucher signs popping up around the Sharon, Sharpsville and Greenville areas in Mercer County.  I've seen these signs in Western Pa. before, but I was surprised to learn where some of them are coming from.

Blue-and-white yard signs have popped up in the last month, signs distributed to school districts by the Pennsylvania School Board Association. And during at least two local school board meetings, superintendents displayed the signs and asked board members to take them and display them.

The signs read: "Support public education. Stop budget cuts. Say no to vouchers."

While all the superintendents assure the Herald that taxpayer money wasn't used to purchase the signs, it is taxpayer dollars that pay for salaries of these administrators.  Administrators—like Sharon Superintendent John Sarandrea, who e-mailed school employees, "inviting them to buy a sign for $5"—using their taxpayer-funded time to decry a program that would allow thousands of Pennsylvania school children to escape violent, failing schools. 

Instead of working against school choice, perhaps Sarandrea and other area administrators should be working to make their districts full of schools of choice.  Unfortunately, in 2010-2011, Sharon City Schools saw 34 violent incidents (almost four a month), while 35 percent of its students are below grade level in reading.

It's a shame that some school district administrators are using their positions, time and school's property to sway teachers and residents against a program that would use taxpayer dollars more efficiently, improve public schools through competition and expand EITC scholarships for students throughout the state, giving students a lifeline and parents true choice.

EDITORS NOTE: The PSBA denies having created, distributed, or otherwise been involved in the design of signs, as was attributed in the Sharon Herald article.

posted by DAWN MELING | 08:15 AM | 0 comment

NOVEMBER 11, 2011

Common Cause: Gas Political Money Can't Match Unions

The third or fourth report by Common Cause PA on political spending (campaign contributions and lobbying) by the natural gas industry reveals nothing new. According to Common Cause, the Political Action Committees, employees, and shareholders of natural gas companies—not the companies themselves, though the report fails to make that clear—spent $6 million in campaign contributions to Pennsylvania candidates from 2001 to 2011.

That sum is dwarfed by campaign spending by union PACs—more than $20 million each election cycle. Union PACS spent at least $23 million in 2009-10 and $27 million in 2007-08. Unions outspend the gas industry, and its supporters, by more than 10 to one.

Why hasn't Common Cause studied union political spending? Or for that matter, where is the study of political spending of "alternative energy" interests that advocate not only for freedom to operate in the state, but for taxpayer subsidies and mandates to buy their product?

While Common Cause tries to claim this report shows the need for campaign finance restrictions, their proposed solution is to mirror federal limits. This is odd, since their national affiliate released a report decrying too much money in federal politics (and even at the federal level, unions dominate political spending). You won't get "money out of politics" as long as politicians determine who gets all the money.

Rather, Common Cause stood by with several other groups that advocate not for "good government" but for redistribution of wealth from gas drillers to other special interests.

By solely demonizing one industry, which is a small player in political money, and overlooking the failure of campaign finance laws to limit big government, Common Cause is simply embracing "Frack-a-phobia" to advance a redistributionist political agenda.

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 10:55 AM | 0 comment

JUNE 28, 2011

More Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying from School Districts

Public schools complain of underfunding, yet they are spending your tax dollars to lobby for more funding and against school choice, as property taxes skyrocket.

The latest salvo comes from Portage Area School District, which put out an alert urging people to contact their legislators to "oppose any voucher legislation." The district uses taxpayer funds to host the website and pays a teacher $2,000 a year to maintain it.

Another recent example is the Fox Chapel Area School District, which also attacked vouchers in its latest official newsletter (see below), sent to residents of the district. Aren't you glad school administrators have their priorities set straight?

More Taxpayer Funded Lobbying Against School Choice

We've noted before how public school districts around the state funnel $92 million in taxpayer dollars toward special interest lobbying groups, including the Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) and American Federation of Teachers (AFT). These groups in turn corral their dues toward fierce lobbying efforts against spending cuts, school choice and education reforms.

This is your tax dollars at work.

posted by PRIYA ABRAHAM | 04:07 PM | 0 comment

JUNE 8, 2011

Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying at Pitt

A reader shared the letter below from the University of Pittsburgh. It urges all parents and students to contact their state legislators and protest higher education cuts in the proposed state budget.

This is another example of taxpayer-funded lobbying, where special interests use tax dollars to lobby for more tax dollars. And if that wasn't bad enough, the urgent tone spattered with exclamation points attempts to scare parents and students into action by providing a wealth of misleading or irrelevant information. For instance, the letter states the cuts to Pitt in Corbett's original proposal would total over $104 million. While that sounds like a lot of money. it is only 5 percent of the university's operating budget. That's peanuts compared to what Pennsylvania families cut during the recession.

Another misnomer is the statement, "Ultimately, though, it becomes impossible for any university to charge like a public university if it is not funded like a public university."

Yet Pitt charges more than private schools like Grove City College and for-profit schools like University of Phoenix (Pittsburgh Campus). On average these schools receive more than $1,000 less per full-time equivalent student in tuition and fees than Pitt. Why should we be subsidizing public universities when private schools in the same region are educating students for less?

Perhaps the highlight of the letter is the Freudian slip contained in the fifth paragraph, "The University of Pittsburgh will continue, as has been its practice, to evaluate all areas of its expenditures to minimize savings."

The letter concludes, "Some substantial restoration of state funding, then, is essential to maintaining what we have come to know as the public university model in Pennsylvania." Now consider that the University of Pittsburgh received about $1.7 billion in direct taxpayer subsidies over the last ten years, while more than doubling tuition to $14,936. Penn State, also a public university, has one of highest in-state tuitions of any state school in the country. Perhaps deviating from the public university model wouldn't be such a bad thing after all.

Letter to Pitt Family

posted by ELIZABETH STELLE | 05:54 PM | 0 comment

MAY 11, 2011

The Governor is Right and the Union Bosses are Wrong

I'm in Pittsburgh today, but I can hear the shouting in Harrisburg from here:  Union bosses are hopping mad at Gov. Tom Corbett for calling them out in his recent speech to school choice advocates in our nation's capital.

Ignore the spin.  Here's the truth, in three points.

1.  Union bosses don't look out for poor kids—they favor policies that hurt them.  As everyone knows, the PSEA is adamantly opposed to Senate Bill 1, which would allow more poor students to get scholarships to escape failing schools.  Former D.C. schools chancellor Michelle Rhee explained pointedly on the Huffington Post that this view (which she formerly held) amounts to "allowing poor children to stay in chronically failing schools."

2.  Union bosses don't look out for good teachers—they favor policies that hurt them.  As my colleague Elizabeth Stelle blogged earlier today, the PSEA just killed a provision that would have allowed public schools to make firing decisions based on performance, not seniority.  This means schools that are out of money will have to fire good teachers if bad ones have been around longer.

3.  Union bosses don't look out for taxpayers—they're soaking us.  CF recently exposed the fact that more than $59 million of taxpayer money is being funneled through public school districts directly to unions and other organizations frequently involved in lobbying against the interests of taxpayers and underserved children.

Thank you, Governor, for calling a spade a spade.

posted by CHARLES MITCHELL | 06:10 PM | 0 comment

APRIL 12, 2011

School Choice and Polling

Yesterday, a slew of acronym organizations who want more taxpayer funding for public schools released yet another survey they commissioned trying to undermine school choice.  (This survey contradicts previous polls conducted by Pulse Opinion Strategies and by Muhlenberg College, both of which find a majority of voters support school voucher programs, along with scholarship tax credits.)

Collectively, these organizations receive tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds from school districts (more than $59 million, with 20 percent of districts, including Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, not yet responding). 

It is clear the interests these groups are bringing to bear, and it isn't the interest of children.

Lawmakers shouldn't listen to special interest groups, nor blindly follow polls.  They should enact school choice because of the benefits to students, parents, and taxpayers.

School choice improves student test scores, graduation rates, and parental satisfaction.  School choice improves public schools through competition and it saves taxpayers money. Most importantly, it helps kids escape from some of Pennsylvania's worst performing and violent public schools. In schools like Philadelphia's Thomas Fitzsimons Academy, there are 12.3 violent attacks per 100 students, and 78 percent of students score below grade level. Students need the opportunity to escape from these underperforming and dangerous schools.

Here are some additional resources about school choice.

• School Choice: Why, What, and How
• SB 1: Analysis and Recommendations
• 15 Myths about School Choice
• Answering the Critics of School Choice
  

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 04:00 PM | 0 comment

FEBRUARY 11, 2011

PA School District Uses Tax Dollars to Fight School Choice

The West Shore School District—my district, as it happens—has issued a "newsletter" with the clear, but unstated, goal of opposing Senate Bill 1, which would provide vouchers for low-income students. The taxpayer-funded newsletter clearly implies that the district would be harmed by "losing money."

The loss of these students would not reduce necessary expenditures by nearly the amount of lost subsidy. This loss of funds would need to be made up by increased taxes or cuts to the educational program for those students who remain.

They could, I don't know, perhaps think about cutting taxpayer funded newsletters before they cut the "educational program."

But even so, lets do some quick math: The West Shore District spent $11,017 per pupil in 2008-09. State aid—which would be the amount of the voucher under SB 1—was $3,045. That is for each student who leaves, the district would keep about $8,000 in funding, which would go to the "fixed costs."

The Commonwealth Foundation has estimated that "fixed costs" (including building costs, debt payments, transportation) are about 30% of school spending, but school unions claim these cost approach 60% of total spending. Even using that inflated number, districts can still easily pay their fixed costs as students leave.

In this example, using the average class size of 22, the West Shore District spends over $240,000 per class, of which perhaps $145,000 is "fixed costs". If 5 students leave, the district would lose $15,000—but still have $227,000 to spend per class, or $82,000 above the fixed costs. In fact, as funds are freed up for the students who remain, the per-pupil spending would rise to $13,000.

Of course, this is a well-known fact that the defenders of the status quo somehow fail to acknowledge. In 18 out of 19 academically rigorous studies, vouchers had a positive impact on public school districts. There has never been a single study demonstrating that scholarships have a negative impact on district school performance or their ability to raise funds.

West Shore District Newsletter

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 06:00 PM | 4 comments

FEBRUARY 1, 2011

Union Dues for More Lobbyists

Last month, the Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) announced it was raising mandatory dues on teachers and school employees by 11%.

Where is that money going? You'd better believe it's to hire more lobbyists. Monday, the PSEA posted a job description for an Assistant Director of Government Relations. With a mere five years of experience, you can get a job lobbying against school choice, pension reform, or merit pay, for a salary of $93,197 to $129,271.

To put that in perspective, it's $39,000 to $75,000 more than the median teacher salary in Pennsylvania.

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 10:30 AM | 0 comment