Talk:National Education Association

Overview of article

Recent edits and additions by "Neaeditor" and others threaten to turn this article into a house organ for the union. Some semblance of NPOV needs be maintained if this Wikipedia article is to remain credible! ChulaOne 20:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Before my additions, it was incredibly one-sided and biased against NEA. And I didn't delete any of it. I added facts about the organization; which of those facts are not credible? If and when you find them, make edits. (Neaeditor 12:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

• • confining controversy about the NEA to a section far, far down the page is unhelpful and departs rather too drastically from previous editions of this article. ChulaOne 00:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Your assertion that you didn't delete any criticism Neaeditor is bogus. The entire section has gone from well-sourced important criticsm to redundant, shallow claims which I can only assume will be used as evidence of "unsourced allegations" to whitewash even more of them. If you wish to add information or to post reactions to criticism, fine. Otherwise stop blanket deletions and edits of important material.HoundofBaskersville (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Mission

I added this entire section, hoping to provided a brief, concise and neutral account of what NEA's business is and has been, historically speaking. (Neaeditor 20:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

Structure and Governance

With this section I hope to provide a sense that NEA is a democratic organization that derives its policies and leadership from the members themselves, who elect their own representatives and leaders and vote on NEA's policies/positions. (Neaeditor 20:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

Criticism

As I mention elsewhere on this page, I moved all of the comments that were formerly under "politics" to this section. Those comments on NEA's politics seemed too one-sided and too critical for a section that ought to be more neutral. I tried not to remove or delete any of the criticisms -- I just moved them and grouped them under what seemed to be the logical categories based on what the various critical remarks throughout the page. However, I did make quite a few additions to the page and made a lot of edits. Something might have been inadvertently deleted, though I doubt it. (Neaeditor 20:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

NEA is prohibited by law to communicate its political positions on its public website. It is permitted to present its political views only on a password-protected area of its website. As a result, the only link I could provide as a reference for the political commentary is to a generic page where NEA asks for a log-in and password. I don't know if this is adequate, but it's the best that can be done (Neaeditor 20:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

References

The reference section on this article badly needs attention. Its largely worthless as it stands. - Freechild 00:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• The references which do exist would be better as inline citations to footnotes, with a references section added. Nearly all of these inline references at the moment (June 2007) are publications, not just Web links. They should be adjusted to be real footnotes, not links. Links go bad. - Tim1965 20:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I admit it: I'm a rookie Wikipedia editor, and I had a hard time deciding what are the best or most appropriate ways to provide the requisite additional information -- references, citations, in-line citations, etc. I reviewed some of the info in the Help section on this, but it's labor intensive to wade through everything. I took a stab at it, but I probably still need help in this area. (Neaeditor 19:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

Infobox Union

I added the {{Infobox Union}} template. It is still being finalised - and comments/contributions are welcome either at the template page, or at WikiProject Organized Labour.--Bookandcoffee 18:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the infobox but I am not sure if I like what it does to the layout of the page? Robbie dee 20:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If you like you can add <br style="clear: both"> just before the History section to force it to start after the infobox. Does that help?--Bookandcoffee 04:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Affiliation

I changed the "affiliation" label back to "independent" (it had been set to "democratic" by Steve1240). NEA supports political candidates who share similar views on public education. Most often, they are Democrats, but they are not exclusively Democrats. NEA also support Republicans -- Mike Simpson, Richard Lugar, Olympia Snowe, Jim Gerlach, John M. McHugh and Bernard Sanders were all supported by NEA. Neaeditor 21:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Neaeditor, but for a different reason! The affiliation field is actually used for union affiliations. The NEA is independent, but it is independent as opposed to being an affiliated with the AFL-CIO, or Change to Win Federation. See Template talk:Infobox Union for details. Cheers, --Bookandcoffee 21:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the Nea has put much effort into distancing themselves as a Union. They're fundamentally a political institution with the hope of rallying and lobbying to get political change. Shouldn’t affiliation be a refection of their primary political purpose? The Nea overwhelmingly contributes to Democrats and lobbies for Democratic ideals... which makes them de facto Democratic party affiliates. And now in mist of the presidential election, they’re fully backing the Democratic Obama. It doesn’t lessen affiliation to occasionally cross partisan lines, just as Democratic presidents or congressman on occasion vote for a Republican bill, such small bipartisanship doesn’t make them any less of an Democrat affiliate. So even if a very small percentage of the Nea recommendations were for Republicans, it doesn’t change the fact that they’re primary ideals, choices, and actions are of a socialist nature and fundamentally Democratic. If you read where the Nea stands on political issues and understand the difference between the Democratic and Republican parties, there's no way the Nea could be considered anything other than far left Democratic. The reason why they don’t openly declare such is because it’s likely that about half their teachers are going to be Republican, which would threaten their dues. Jadon (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

NEA,AFT and the AFL-CIO

Reports of increased NEA-AFT cooperation as well as potential NEA affiliation with the AFL-CIO would represent significant developments in the US labor movement, and have been posted here with relevant sourcing to Wikipedia and to news reports. Please do not delete these without explanation. Robbie dee 20:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• I tried to add a bit more info around this subject and flesh it out a bit. I did not intentionally remove anything you wrote, but I did make quite a few substantial edits to this page. I may have inadvertently removed something, but I doubt it. If I did, please accept my apology. (Neaeditor 19:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

Landmark Legal Foundation

The link to the "NEA Accountability Project" does seem topical (although the other Wall St. Journal article linked by the anonymous user was not - it made no mention of the NEA at all). However it would help to have some background on the Landmark Legal Foundation as well - there is no wikipedia article about them currently. Robbie dee 21:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• The above referenced Wall Street Journal article discusses the AFL-CIO's politics. As NEA chapters will apparently be free to align themselves with the AFL-CIO this is indeed relevent.
  • Perhaps the WSJ article is relevant. But then this should be discussed in the article itself, and specific links to specific pages and/or articles on the NEA Accountability Project Web site linked to. A generic link to the NEA Accountability Project is not appropriate. (Also, don't forget to sign your comments with ~~~~.)- Tim1965 20:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

NEA Politics

I have searched high and low on the NEA website and I cannot find any reference where the NEA asserts that it is "nonpartisan" or that it "supports Democrats and Republicans equally." Rather, like most unions, the NEA appears to be pretty solidly aligned with the Democrats on most issues, or to the left of the Democrats.

As such, the criticism from sources such as the Wall St. Journal editorial page, the Landmark legal foundation and Human Events Online, which all clearly identify themselves as right-wing or "conservative" on their own websites, cannot be understood as criticizing the NEA for failing to fulfill any claim of nonpartisanship - because the NEA has never made any such claim.

It rather appears that the critics cited oppose the NEA because they don't like Democrats, and would prefer that the NEA endorse Republicans instead or not endorse any political agenda at all. That's also a valid position and I suppose it is noteworthy enough for some mention in an encyclopedic article, but the basis for the criticism as well as the political perspective of those cited as the source of that criticism should also be noted.

Also, to the extent the NEA is criticized for supporting certain nonpartisan advocacy groups, I think that wikilinks to articles about those groups is informative and topical, so I have provided them. Robbie dee 22:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

NEA Keeps Tilting to the Left, by Phyllis Schlafly, July 25, 2006 this link has popup ads (maybe delete it or warn)

[ I see a warning was added. Note, Firefox blocked the pop up. Frankly, I recommend everyone should use FireFox wherever possible. ] --SafeLibraries 03:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• The true issues here include the identification to the Internal Revenue Service of ALL monies spent for political purposes (treated differently for tax purposes), something Landmark and media sources contend the NEA has been negligent in doing in prior years (see the Landmark link).

• • If there are specific, widely held criticisms of the NEA you wish to include, find a source for those criticisms and cite them directly, do not use weasel words like "some people" or unnamed "NEA members and others." Also, please include NEA responses to those criticisms, where available and appropriate, as per Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

• • • Agreed. Cite criticisms, or responses to criticisms, from notable sources. Fagstein 05:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Insisting on labeling resources as "conservative" or "right-wing" (or "liberal" or "left-wing"?) is both impractical and in itself non-NPOV. Contributers are always free to add contrarian links, if they feel this necessary.

• • • This article appears to be written by a disgruntled NEA republican. "Bipartisan NCLB"? Can we see some sources and responses please?

• • The particular sources you have linked self-identify as "conservative" or "right-wing" and their political perspective forms the very basis of their criticism. As such, I think it is important to identify their political perspective in this case.

• I moved all of these remarks to the "Criticism" section and added a broader, more comprehensive and neutral accounting of NEA's political activities (Neaeditor 19:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

One sided links

Why are there several critical sites linked? This article reads as if there is nothing good about the NEA. protohiro 03:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'll hazard a guess: The article was written by an anti-NEA author. It clearly needs work (like many labor-related articles). - Tim1965 20:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have added a substantial amount of information about NEA's business activities and history in an attempt to add some much needed balance. (Neaeditor 19:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

External links

Some of the links in the External Links section are now gone. According to [[Wikipedia:External links|Wiki's external links policy], links which contain "factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" should not be included. Additionally, article which "are only indirectly related to the article's subject" or "on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject." For example, the link to the Schlafly article might have been appropriate if it contained factual information form a reliable or verifiable source and was used to footnote something in the article. In such a case, it should be fully cited in the references section and used as an inline citation to footnote a claim. Otherwise, it should not be included in external links. "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified." "[But] it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic..." "If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it." There are a hundred thousand articles about the NEA online; why was this particular one included? I see no justification for that. (Instead, I see plenty of reason to challenge the inclusion of the link, given that Schlafly is NPOV and her articles almost never include factual statements but rather statements of opinion.) Similar arguments could be made against all the links I removed. The NEA Accountability Project site remains, because it arguably contains "other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability..." I think the Project site is unreliable, and is an "aggregated results" page (a Wiki no-no). But it remains, because this is still arguable, I think. - Tim1965 20:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• The Antonucci website is a longstanding and widely-read information source regarding the NEA, and quite properly belongs in any article on it. 66.166.183.7 12:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Antonucci is kind of like a watch dog for teachers' unions. He's critical of NEA, AFT and many others; he's very knowledgeable about NEA and sheds a lot of light on the organization's activities. He absolutely belongs in this list. (Neaeditor 12:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

Homeschooling / other edits

Deleted the hopelessly biased comment about the NEA's opposition to homeschooling. Homeschooling is not something that has necessarily been proven to be 'better' than public or other institutional education, it is simply different. I hope no one minds this. Lequis (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Also edited the first section to include "or other union federations"-- the AFL-CIO is not the only federation the NEA could be associated with. Perhaps I am nitpicking. Lequis (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

AFT and NEA, colleges

Do university professors have to join unions? I know that elementary and secondary teaching is virtually a closed shop, but is that so with those who teach at colleges, even private ones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.207 (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question. Most professors belong to the AAUP or equivalent. The money all ends up in the same hands.HoundofBaskersville (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It depends upon what state you work in -- both for university professors and for elementary and secondary teachers. In right-to-work states, state law prohibits compulsory membership. In other states, there is "agency fee" -- which stipulates that when union membership among elementary and secondary teachers in a given school district hits a certain threshold (say 85%), then the law allows the union to garnish wages from the remaining 15%. The rationale is that since the union is negotiating pay and benefits that apply to all teachers, regardless of whether or not they are members, the 10% shouldn't be allowed to free-load off the others. At the university level, this concept of agency fee also applies in some states, but it may work slightly different than in elementary and secondary schools.