[Vision2020] Widespread Exploitation: How the teachers' unions take adv antage of their own members -- but it's "for the child ren"

Wed, 28 May 2003 10:03:07 -0700

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0249_01C32500.562D6870
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_001_024A_01C32500.562D6870"

------=_NextPart_001_024A_01C32500.562D6870
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

February 10, 2003, 10:25 a.m.
Widespread Exploitation
How the teachers' unions take advantage of their own members.

By Jay P. Greene and Greg Forster =
(http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-greene-forster021003.asp)

 hen it was recently revealed that the Washington, D.C., teachers' union =
had been stealing money from its own members, some may have seen it as =
just an isolated incident. But financial exploitation of teachers by =
their own unions is built into the very structure of U.S. education. Not =
content with exploiting children by keeping them locked in failing =
schools, the unions also exploit their own members, most of whom are =
dedicated and hardworking professionals. While it isn't as flagrant as =
stealing union dues - in fact, it isn't even illegal - this form of =
exploitation involves far larger sums of money and far greater =
ramifications for society at large.=20

To see how the unions take advantage of their membership, we need to =
look at a major structural change in education over the past 30 years. =
According to the U.S. Department of Education, average spending per =
public-school student in 2000-01 was $8,830, almost double the $4,626 =
spent in 1970-71, adjusting for inflation. Given that national =
12th-grade standardized-test scores have been flat over this period and =
the high-school dropout rate has gone up, it's fair to ask just what the =
U.S. public has been getting in return for all this extra spending.=20

The single greatest factor driving the doubling of education spending in =
the last 30 years has been the hiring of a huge new army of teachers. =
Turning again to the U.S. Department of Education, we find that the =
number of students for every teacher in public school has shrunk from =
22.3 in 1971 to 15.1 in 2001. This means that there has been a =
48-percent increase in the public-school teaching workforce relative to =
the student population.

Since teachers' salaries represent the bulk of education spending, a =
48-percent increase in the teacher workforce probably accounts for close =
to half of the doubling in education spending. This is especially likely =
since teachers' salaries have grown a little faster than inflation, from =
$40,850 in 1970-71 to $42,898 in 2000-01 dollars. Furthermore, the =
salary number excludes benefits, especially health benefits that have =
been increasing in value much faster during the same time period, so =
total education labor costs have probably increased somewhat faster than =
these numbers indicate.

But here's the catch: Spending all that extra money to hire all those =
teachers hasn't had much effect on class sizes. According to survey data =
collected by the National Education Association, the average number of =
students in public-school classrooms was 27 in 1971. By 1996 the average =
class size dropped to 24 students in elementary school, but rose to 31 =
students in secondary school. While parents constantly clamor for =
smaller classes, the 48-percent growth in the teacher workforce hasn't =
made much of a dent in class sizes.

Why not? One major reason is that, while there are a lot more teachers =
per student than there used to be, each individual teacher is doing a =
lot less work. The same NEA survey shows that the average number of =
students taught per day by each secondary public school teacher dropped =
from 134 in 1971 to 97 in 1996. That's a 28-percent decrease in each =
teacher's classroom burden. As the number of students per teacher has =
dropped dramatically, teachers have taught fewer classes per day, rather =
than teaching smaller classes, as parents would prefer.

So the near-doubling in education spending per student has not largely =
been consumed by enriching individual teachers, whose salaries have =
grown only a little faster than inflation, nor by offering students the =
smaller classes that families have been demanding. Instead, as teachers' =
salaries continue to lose ground to salaries in other professions and =
students continue to sit in large classes, the bulk of the spending =
increase appears to have been consumed by hiring a whole lot more =
teachers at only modestly higher salaries, while requiring each of them =
to teach fewer students per day.

Whose interests does this serve? Perhaps some teachers prefer to work =
less and get very modest raises rather than work the same amount and get =
bigger raises. But it doesn't seem likely that most teachers feel that =
way, since we constantly hear teachers complain about the growing salary =
gap between teaching and other professions. Anyone who is well-educated =
enough to become a teacher is also well-educated enough to enter many =
other careers that pay better. A new college graduate makes a =
significant financial sacrifice if he decides to embark upon a teaching =
career.

The teachers' unions, by contrast, make out like bandits from this =
arrangement. First, they gain financially. If they wanted to rake in =
more money by raising union dues, they would face stiff opposition from =
their members. On the other hand, by jacking up their total number of =
members, they can take the same small amount of money out of a larger =
number of paychecks. Just imagine what the 48-percent growth in the =
teacher workforce has done for union budgets.

Second, they gain politically. The unions owe their enormous influence =
on education policy, including their death lock on education policy in =
the Democratic party, as much to their army of political volunteers as =
they do to their bulging bank accounts. Every election year, the unions =
send out the shock troops to canvass, stuff envelopes, hand out =
literature at polling places, and do all the rest of the thankless =
drudgery that politics requires. A 48-percent increase in the teacher =
workforce means a 48-percent larger pool from which those shock troops =
can be drawn. And even the teachers who don't become volunteers will at =
least become voters whose livelihood depends on the public school =
system.

So the next time you hear the teachers' unions complain that teachers' =
salaries are abysmally low and class sizes are atrociously high, bear in =
mind that those facts don't exist in a vacuum. Teachers' salaries have =
stagnated and class sizes haven't significantly shrunk in large part =
because of policies that convey ever more money and power to the =
teachers' unions.

- Jay P. Greene is a senior fellow and Greg Forster is a senior research =
associate at the Manhattan Institute's Education Research Office.

------=_NextPart_001_024A_01C32500.562D6870
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1170" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>
February 10,=20
2003, 10:25 a.m. Widespread Exploitation <FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman, Times, serif" size=3D2>How the teachers=92 =
unions take=20
advantage of their own members.
By Jay P. =
Greene and Greg=20
Forster (<A=20
href=3D"http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-greene-forster02100=
3.asp">http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-greene-forster021003=
.asp</A>)
<IMG =
height=3D36=20
src=3D"http://www.nationalreview.com/images/dropcaps/w.gif" width=3D30 =
align=3Dleft>=20
hen it was recently revealed that the Washington, D.C., teachers' union =
had been=20
stealing money from its own members, some may have seen it as just an =
isolated=20
incident. But financial exploitation of teachers by their own unions is =
built=20
into the very structure of U.S. education. Not content with exploiting =
children=20
by keeping them locked in failing schools, the unions also exploit their =
own=20
members, most of whom are dedicated and hardworking professionals. While =
it=20
isn't as flagrant as stealing union dues =97 in fact, it isn't even =
illegal =97 this=20
form of exploitation involves far larger sums of money and far greater=20
ramifications for society at large. 
To see how the =
unions take=20
advantage of their membership, we need to look at a major structural =
change in=20
education over the past 30 years. According to the U.S. Department of =
Education,=20
average spending per public-school student in 2000-01 was $8,830, almost =
double=20
the $4,626 spent in 1970-71, adjusting for inflation. Given that =
national=20
12th-grade standardized-test scores have been flat over this period and =
the=20
high-school dropout rate has gone up, it's fair to ask just what the =
U.S. public=20
has been getting in return for all this extra spending. 
The single =
greatest factor=20
driving the doubling of education spending in the last 30 years has been =
the=20
hiring of a huge new army of teachers. Turning again to the U.S. =
Department of=20
Education, we find that the number of students for every teacher in =
public=20
school has shrunk from 22.3 in 1971 to 15.1 in 2001. This means that =
there has=20
been a 48-percent increase in the public-school teaching workforce =
relative to=20
the student population.
Since teachers' =
salaries=20
represent the bulk of education spending, a 48-percent increase in the =
teacher=20
workforce probably accounts for close to half of the doubling in =
education=20
spending. This is especially likely since teachers' salaries have grown =
a little=20
faster than inflation, from $40,850 in 1970-71 to $42,898 in 2000-01 =
dollars.=20
Furthermore, the salary number excludes benefits, especially health =
benefits=20
that have been increasing in value much faster during the same time =
period, so=20
total education labor costs have probably increased somewhat faster than =
these=20
numbers indicate.
But here's the =
catch:=20
Spending all that extra money to hire all those teachers hasn't had much =
effect=20
on class sizes. According to survey data collected by the National =
Education=20
Association, the average number of students in public-school classrooms =
was 27=20
in 1971. By 1996 the average class size dropped to 24 students in =
elementary=20
school, but rose to 31 students in secondary school. While parents =
constantly=20
clamor for smaller classes, the 48-percent growth in the teacher =
workforce=20
hasn't made much of a dent in class sizes.
Why not? One =
major reason=20
is that, while there are a lot more teachers per student than there used =
to be,=20
each individual teacher is doing a lot less work. The same NEA survey =
shows that=20
the average number of students taught per day by each secondary public =
school=20
teacher dropped from 134 in 1971 to 97 in 1996. That's a 28-percent =
decrease in=20
each teacher's classroom burden. As the number of students per teacher =
has=20
dropped dramatically, teachers have taught fewer classes per day, rather =
than=20
teaching smaller classes, as parents would prefer.
So the =
near-doubling in=20
education spending per student has not largely been consumed by =
enriching=20
individual teachers, whose salaries have grown only a little faster than =

inflation, nor by offering students the smaller classes that families =
have been=20
demanding. Instead, as teachers' salaries continue to lose ground to =
salaries in=20
other professions and students continue to sit in large classes, the =
bulk of the=20
spending increase appears to have been consumed by hiring a whole lot =
more=20
teachers at only modestly higher salaries, while requiring each of them =
to teach=20
fewer students per day.
Whose interests =
does this=20
serve? Perhaps some teachers prefer to work less and get very modest =
raises=20
rather than work the same amount and get bigger raises. But it doesn't =
seem=20
likely that most teachers feel that way, since we constantly hear =
teachers=20
complain about the growing salary gap between teaching and other =
professions.=20
Anyone who is well-educated enough to become a teacher is also =
well-educated=20
enough to enter many other careers that pay better. A new college =
graduate makes=20
a significant financial sacrifice if he decides to embark upon a =
teaching=20
career.
The teachers' =
unions, by=20
contrast, make out like bandits from this arrangement. First, they gain=20
financially. If they wanted to rake in more money by raising union dues, =
they=20
would face stiff opposition from their members. On the other hand, by =
jacking up=20
their total number of members, they can take the same small amount of =
money out=20
of a larger number of paychecks. Just imagine what the 48-percent growth =
in the=20
teacher workforce has done for union budgets.
Second, they =
gain=20
politically. The unions owe their enormous influence on education =
policy,=20
including their death lock on education policy in the Democratic party, =
as much=20
to their army of political volunteers as they do to their bulging bank =
accounts.=20
Every election year, the unions send out the shock troops to canvass, =
stuff=20
envelopes, hand out literature at polling places, and do all the rest of =
the=20
thankless drudgery that politics requires. A 48-percent increase in the =
teacher=20
workforce means a 48-percent larger pool from which those shock troops =
can be=20
drawn. And even the teachers who don't become volunteers will at least =
become=20
voters whose livelihood depends on the public school system.
So the next =
time you hear=20
the teachers' unions complain that teachers' salaries are abysmally low =
and=20
class sizes are atrociously high, bear in mind that those facts don't =
exist in a=20
vacuum. Teachers' salaries have stagnated and class sizes haven't =
significantly=20
shrunk in large part because of policies that convey ever more money and =
power=20
to the teachers' unions. =97 Jay P. =
Greene is a=20
senior fellow and Greg Forster is a senior research associate at the <A=20
href=3D"http://www.miedresearchoffice.org" target=3D_blank>Manhattan =
Institute's=20
Education Research Office</A>.</DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_001_024A_01C32500.562D6870--

------=_NextPart_000_0249_01C32500.562D6870
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
	name="w.gif"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Location: http://www.nationalreview.com/images/dropcaps/w.gif

R0lGODlhHgAkAMQAAHx8fO/v74SEhL29vaWlpd7e3pmZmczMzP///7W1tff398XFxa2trdbW1oyM
jObm5v///wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAUU
ABAALAAAAAAeACQAAAX/ICKOZGmeaKqubOu+gSHPpTLLQ3ncBAL8QAWpAPwZSoni0VAEFEiLJqDE
BOaSxQOJIQ2QBMUGotHMjarhkaLpDTR7IynAjCACHSMw8Ch6yOEIUUCAaD8jB3J8CFxWIwNsIlhS
Z0VPInZAlmgOlSJNQiJrRQsienNZCG57JZxACalFfo2YAAwljEZjq0oIj0CkUEV4vgCvm4udQ00I
BEBakgA2RSdND61OCIiZvCaF2oZ1RbjFJ9BoikqoJt8AprYihUVeJqpSwMhSAimmyb2JKfHAXZJD
xwSxVWrkiEFBpsm7EdeCpBBVpCCzJnhURMRG4iAAQCiaFQE1omEjFQEKEqhUaULBSpUkX8icSbOm
zZkhAAA7

------=_NextPart_000_0249_01C32500.562D6870--