The National Education Association's Stagnant Finances

As Dropout Nation reported last week, National Education Association has had to deal with declining rank-and-file numbers as well as prop up affiliates struggling with pension woes and other issues. None of this, by the way, includes the nation’s largest teachers’ union’s own virtually-insolvent defined-benefit pension.

Yet as NEA has shown in its 2014-2015 financial disclosure to the U.S. Department of Labor, it hasn’t done much to reign in its costs even while revenue remains stagnant.

The union reported overall revenue of $389 million in 2014-2015, a one percent increase over the previous year. Dues and agency fee collections barely budged over the previous year, remaining at $363 million. If not for a 31 percent increase in “other receipts” (including vendor rebates and reimbursements by affiliates for using NEA’s software and technology services), the union’s revenue would have declined.

NEA Executive Director John Stocks. One of the 42 "NEA Leaders" to be compensated over $200,000

NEA Executive Director John Stocks. One of the 42 “NEA Leaders” to be compensated over $200,000

While NEA’s revenue didn’t increase, its expenses certainly did. The union spent $362 million in 2014-2015, a 2.8 percent increase over the previous years (or nearly $10 million more than last year). Much of that increase can be attributed to a 30 percent increase in direct lobbying spending, as well as a 4.5 percent increase in union administration costs. Adding 21 more employees earning six-figure sums also didn’t help the expense line. The union only slightly trimmed its benefits payouts, reducing those costs by a mere 2.3 percent.

Meanwhile NEA spent big on its annual convention at Walt Disney World in Orlando. This included $216,375 for meetings and hotel rooms at the resort’s Swan and Dolphin Hotel, $131,192 at Walt Disney World’s Buena Vista Palace Hotel. Among the other big hotel spends: NEA dropped $39,641 with Kimpton Hotel’s swanky Grand Solamar, spent $54,155 at the Loews Vanderbilt Hotel in Nashville, ran up $57,365 at the MGM Resorts, and put down $70,876 with Hilton’s Minneapolis hotel.

Yet for all the spending, NEA managed to come up with a surplus of $27 million. This is 18 percent lower than the surplus generated in 2013-2014. But a surplus (or profit, as it is known in Corporate America) is still a surplus. The big question is how long can the state of affairs last. As Dropout Nation noted last week, the union defined-benefit pension is virtually insolvent to the tune of $111 million, according to the plan’s 2013 announcement to retirees. This is a 37 percent increase in unfunded liabilities over the previous year, and 82 percent more than liability levels two years ago. The union has $364 million in assets that could be liquidated in order to cover those liabilities today. But with shortfalls increasing at a fast clip, the union may end up in dire straits itself.

These woes come just as the union and its affiliates must deal with the possible aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court abolishing compulsory dues laws nationally with a ruling next year in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. [Dropout Nation, Editor RiShawn Biddle, and Contributing Editors Gwen Samuel and Dmitri Mehlhorn, are parties to an amicus brief filed in the case.] If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, as it is likely based on Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in last year’s ruling in Harris v. Quinn, NEA could lose at least a quarter of rank-and-file, taking a $66 million hit to its coffers (based on 2014-2015 dues and agency fee collections). This would mean a dramatic reduction in dollars available to the union both to pay down its pension as well as dole out for influence-spending.

While NEA’s Golden State affiliate has developed plans to deal with the aftermath of an end to compulsory dues, other state units haven’t done so. NEA itself doesn’t seem to have a plan in place at all. Unlike rival American Federation of Teachers, NEA hasn’t taken the step of aggressively expanding into other union-dominated fields such as healthcare and hasn’t done the kind of talent-hiring from unions such as Service Employees International Union that would be helpful in organizing. Also, unlike AFT, NEA hasn’t offered an associate membership category that would allow teachers and others to join the union and pay dues into it. While NEA may hope that the status quo remains ante on this front, it isn’t likely. And refusing to tackle those issues head-on may leave it weaker in the long run.

You can check out the data yourself by checking out the NEA’s latest financial report, or by visiting the Department of Labor’s Web site. Also check out Dropout Nation‘s Teachers Union Money Report, for this and previous reports on NEA and AFT spending.

About the Author:  RiShawn Biddle is Editor and Publisher of Dropout Nation — the leading commentary Web site on education reform — a columnist for Rare and The American Spectator, award-winning editorialist, speechwriter, communications consultant and education policy advisor. More importantly, he is a tireless advocate for improving the quality of K-12 education for every child. The co-author of A Byte at the Apple: Rethinking Education Data for the Post-NCLB Era, Biddle combines journalism, research and advocacy to bring insight on the nation’s education crisis and rally families and others to reform American public education. This article originally appeared in Dropout Nation and is republished here with permission from the author.

The National Education Association's $131 Million Influence Buying Spree

The National Education Association just filed its latest financial disclosure with the U.S. Department of Labor, and as you would expect, it spent big on its efforts to preserve its influence over education policymaking. The union spent $131 million on lobbying and contributions to what are supposed to be like-minded organizations in 2014-2015, just slightly less than the $132 million spent during the previous year. This doesn’t include the $40 million it spends on so-called representational activities, which are often just as political in nature.

One of the big recipients this year: The Center for Popular Democracy, the progressive outfit which has become a key player in efforts by both NEA and the American Federation of Teachers to oppose the expansion of public charter schools. The outfit and its political action fund collected $570,900 from NEA last fiscal year, double the $250,000 collected from the union in 2013-2014. This is certainly good news for AFT President Randi Weingarten, who sits on Popular Democracy’s board and whose own union poured $160,000 into the outfit and its political wing.

20151204-UW-GarciaNEA President Lily Eskelsen Garcia

Another top recipient of NEA largesse is Democracy Alliance, the secretive progressive outfit which has become a major player in national and Democratic Party politics. NEA Executive Director John Stocks chairs the organization’s board of directors. Democracy Alliance and its Committee on States collected $214,000 from the union last fiscal year. This is a 64 percent decline from the previous year. But given the stakes for next year’s presidential and congressional races, expect NEA to bolster its support for the outfit next year.

Meanwhile NEA is giving big to Democracy Alliance’s wider network, many of which are already longtime recipients of the union’s largesse. The union gave $225,000 to Progress Now, the outfit chaired by Stock’s predecessor as Democracy Alliance chairman, John McKay; poured $200,000 into David Brock’s Media Matters for America (which disgraced itself as a paragon of progressive politics over the last year with scandals such as its effort to oppose unionization of its own staff); $27,400 into Netroots Nation; and $13,300 into Progressive States Network. NEA also spent heavily with Catalist LLC, the data outfit for the Democratic National Committee that is a lynchpin in Democracy Alliance’s campaign efforts; the union paid $726,566 to Catalist last year, double its spend in 2013-2014.

The biggest single recipient of all? Patriot Majority USA, the outfit founded by political strategist Craig Varoga that has also become a key player in Democratic Party politics. NEA gave Patriot Majority $1.4 million to the outfit in 2014-2015, 27 times more than it gave in the previous year. Given that huge boost in contributions, expect Patriot Majority to be another lynchpin in the union’s efforts to beat back the influence of Centrist Democrat school reformers within the party. The second-biggest recipient was America Works USA, a super-PAC which has garnered attention for helping Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf pressure the state’s Republican-controlled legislature into approving his tax increases; NEA poured $1 million into the group last year.

NEA poured $355,000 into America Votes, another progressive group whose “partners” include AFT and Center for Popular Democracy’s action fund. The Sixteen Thirty Fund, a endowment developed by former Clinton Administration mandarin Eric Kessler’s Arabella Advisors, received $450,000 from NEA; that’s plenty of money that will be funneled to progressive groups on the union’s behalf. Another outfit with ties to Kessler, New Venture Fund, received $117,000 from the union. And Network, a social justice group with ties to the Catholic Church got $50,000 from NEA last year.

Meanwhile, NEA is adding new vassals. One of them is the Progressive Inc., the outfit that publishes the Progressive, a key outlet for traditionalists such as Jeff Bryant of Campaign for America’s Future (a longtime NEA dependent) and Julian Vasquez-Heilig. It picked up $100,000 from the union in 2014-2015. Campaign for America’s Future, by the way, got $55,000 from NEA last fiscal year. Another new dependent is Center for Media and Democracy, the parent of PR Watch and once a unit of Progressive Inc. before splitting apart over a variety of issues. NEA gave CMD $100,000 in 2014-2015.

Then there’s State Voices, the Detroit-based progressive outfit which focuses on faux-grassroots voter outreach efforts. NEA gave $378,966 to the group last fiscal year. Another voter advocacy outfit, Voter Participation Center, collected $170,000 from the union. The Tides Foundation’s Advocacy Fund, which provides dollars to various grassroots and progressive groups, received $25,000 from NEA last year.

At the same time, NEA bolstered its giving to black and other minority-oriented groups. It gave $250,000 to Schott Foundation for Public Education’s Opportunity to Learn Action Fund; this is 16.7 percent less than what the outfit received in 2013-2014. Despite the decline, Schott has done plenty on behalf of the union and AFT to oppose systemic reform; this includes Schott President John Jackson, co-writing a letter with Pedro Noguera and Judith Browne Dianis of the Advancement Project (which received $150,000 from the union in 2014-2015) criticizing civil rights groups for supporting standardized testing and the accountability provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act. On the other hand, NEA gave just $20,000 to Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, 83 percent less than it gave to the affiliate of the federal legislative caucus in 2013-2014.

As for other groups? NEA gave$100,000 to National Urban League, $100,000 to NAACP, $51,000 to Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, $45,000 to League of United Latin American Citizens and its institute (which backed the false accountability effort pushed by the union and AFT), $20,000 to the Asian Pacific American Institute for Congressional Studies; $30,000 to Asian-Pacific American Labor Alliance, and $5,000 to National Black Caucus of State Legislators.

The union gave $200,000 to Al Sharpton’s National Action Network even though the civil rights leader is a strong supporter of charter schools. NEA also gave $255,000 to Center for American Progress, another strong reform-minded outfit, and handed out $54,625 to teacher quality reform outfit Teach Plus. Another reform outfit, Alliance for Excellent Education, received $200,000 from NEA last year.

As for the usual suspects? NEA gave $250,000 to Economic Policy Institute, while giving another $250,000 to the National Education Policy Center through the University of Colorado-Boulder’s foundation. Learning First Alliance collected $68,400 from NEA, while Education Law Center collected $75,000 from the union. FairTest, the traditionalist outfit which has been a key player in NEA’s efforts to roll back No Child’s accountability provisions and standardized testing, received $40,586 in 2014-2015, while National Board for Professional Teaching Standards collected $310,000 during the same period.

Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation, the group that represents the nation’s woeful university schools of education, received $388,363 from the union, while Barnett Berry’s Center for Teaching Quality got $438,837 from the union’s coffers. Voices for Education, the parent of Diane Ravitch’s Network for Public Education, collected $25,000 from NEA last year, while People for the American Way and its foundation collected $175,000 from the union during the same period. The Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice, which serves as a go-to institution for NEA and other traditionalists, received $250,000 from the union.

What about the top honchos? NEA President Lily Eskelsen Garcia collected $416,633 in 2014-2015, a 21 percent increase over the previous year, and more than enough money to buy herself some new guitars. The union’s number two, Becky Pringle, was paid $371,278, a 10 percent increase over 2013-2014; while Secretary-Treasurer Princess Moss was compensated to the tune of $429,851, a three-fold increase over her previous salary as a member of the union’s executive committee. Altogether, NEA’s big three collected $1.2 million in 2014-2015, barely budging over previous year’s levels. Not one thing wrong with NEA leaders drawing six-figure sums. But the high salaries (and the corporate ways the NEA and the AFT engage in their defense of traditionalist policies and thinking) should be kept in mind any time Eskelsen Garcia and AFT counterpart Weingarten use class warfare rhetoric to oppose systemic reform of American public education.

The corporate nature of NEA can be seen in the 395 staffers earning six-figure sums, a 21-person increase over levels in 2013-2014. Among the big check collectors is Stocks, who earned $407,264, a slight decline over the previous year; another is Alice O’Brien, NEA’s general counsel, who picked up $242,768, or 4.1 percent more than last year. The union’s membership czar, Bill Thompson, collected $271,024; that’s 17.9 percent more than in 2013-2014. Marcus Egan, one of the union’s top lobbyists, was compensated to the tune of $181,968, a 5.3 percent increase over the previous year. Once again, it is clear that being an NEA staffer is lucrative work. Whether the teachers who are often forced by compulsory dues laws to pay those salaries are benefiting is a different story.

About the Author:  RiShawn Biddle is Editor and Publisher of Dropout Nation — the leading commentary Web site on education reform — a columnist for Rare and The American Spectator, award-winning editorialist, speechwriter, communications consultant and education policy advisor. More importantly, he is a tireless advocate for improving the quality of K-12 education for every child. The co-author of A Byte at the Apple: Rethinking Education Data for the Post-NCLB Era, Biddle combines journalism, research and advocacy to bring insight on the nation’s education crisis and rally families and others to reform American public education. This article originally appeared in Dropout Nation and is republished here with permission from the author.

Exposing Teachers Union Front Groups Against Minority Kids

Hope remains eternal — at least among those who want Congress to pass a reauthorized version of the No Child Left Behind Act being considered by the Senate this week. Even as the likelihood of passage remains as unlikely as it was back in March, when House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline’s plan was kiboshed amid opposition from movement conservatives within the Republican majority, there are still some who think that the version under consideration now could pass if Kline’s colleague, Lamar Alexander, can get his plan into conferencing. The fact that conservative Republicans are no more interested in supporting Alexander’s plan than that of Kline (and that there will be pressure on House Speaker John Boehner to reject the entire measure without a single thought) doesn’t seem to factor into their thinking.

But the low likelihood of No Child reauthorization hasn’t exactly stopped Beltway players from the usual gamesmanship that has been a feature of past efforts. This includes the American Federation of Teachers, with the help of another group of so-called social justice players to lobby against the accountability and standardized testing measures that have helped more children gain high-quality education.

Three minority children

Earlier today, a group calling itself Journey for Justice Alliance released a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Democrat leader Harry Reid demanding that they pass a version of No Child that eliminates “regime of oppressive, high stakes, standardized testing”. Echoing arguments made last month in the pages of the Hill by Schott Foundation President John Jackson, Judith Browne Dianis of the Advancement Project and wishy-washy education professor Pedro Noguera, Journey for Justice declares with no evidence that testing and accountability has somehow harmed poor and minority kids as well as supposedly “narrowed curriculum” (an argument that has been proven false by research from the likes of the U.S. Department of Education and Quadrant Arts Education Research’s Robert Morrison). As far as the group is concerned, the Senate should pass a version of No Child that eliminates any kind of accountability and spend even more money on a grab-bag of programs that includes “restorative justice coordinators” to reduce overuse of suspensions and expulsions.

Certainly Journey for Justice hasn’t paid much real attention to the Alexander plan for No Child. If they did, they would know that Alexander’s plan would all but solidify the Obama Administration’s move over the past few years to eviscerate No Child’s Adequate Yearly Progress provisions, which have exposed the failure of traditional districts to provide high-quality teaching, curricula, and school cultures to poor and minority children (as well as those condemned to the nation’s special ed ghettos). One can easily argue that the Alexander plan, like the one offered up by Kline, is a roll-back of strong federal education policy back to the bad old days when states and districts were allowed to educationally abuse children black and brown with impunity. For families, especially from poor and minority households, the Alexander plan’s evisceration of accountability makes it harder for them to gain high-quality data on how schools (and the adults who work in them) are serving the children they love.

But none of these points matter much to Journey for Justice’s signatories. Why? Because they are acting on behalf of AFT. This is because nearly all of them are dependent on the union’s financial largesse. And as you expect, this inconvenient fact goes all but unsaid by Journey for Justice in its letter.

As Dropout Nation noted last month, AFT, along with National Education Association, is struggling to gain support for its efforts against accountability (and, more-importantly, standardized testing) from civil rights groups such as Education Trust and NAACP. In order to buttress support for its goals, the union and other traditionalists have had to cobble together a motley crew of progressive groups and social justice outfits almost-totally dependent on its dollars.

The list of AFT vassals signing onto Journey for Justice’s letter such main members of the group as Alliance for Quality Education, which picked up $200,000 from the union and its New York State affiliate, NYSUT, in 2013-2014 alone. Other members include the Philadelphia Student Union (which collected $20,000 from AFT last fiscal year and whose board includes Anissa Weinraub, a flunky with the union’s City of Brotherly Love local), Youth United for Change (another Philadelphia-based outfit which picked up $60,000 from the union last year), and ACTION United, the beneficiary of $49,120 in AFT largesse for helping the union stall systemic reform of the traditional district there. The Annenberg Institute for School Reform, a recent beneficiary of AFT largesse (in exchange for opposing the expansion of charters) to the tune of $49,963), is one of Journey for Justice’s “allied organizations, as is AFT.

Look further down the list of signatories and you see AFT dependents all over the place. One of them is Center for Popular Democracy, which not only received $60,000 in 2013-2014 from the union, it even has union president Randi Weingarten serving on its board. As Dropout Nation readers already know, Popular Democracy has helped AFT in its effort to weaken efforts to expand public charter schools (as well as conceal the fact that the union’s opposition to them is spurred in part by the failures of its Big Apple affiliate to run one properly). Other AFT dependents include the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists (which picked up $5,000 from the teachers’ union last fiscal year), Pride at Work ($5,000 in 2013-2014), New York Communities for Change ($10,000 in AFT funding within the last year alone), and Pride at Work.

Remember: Many of these groups do little when it comes to education policy, advocacy, and institution building — other than feast upon the dues AFT often-forcibly collects from teachers regardless of their desire for membership.

As you would suspect, Schott Foundation, which has become the favored ally of AFT (as well as NEA) in its efforts to condemn poor and minority kids to low expectations, is also a signatory on the letter. Befitting its eagerness to earn every one of the $480,000 it has collected from the Big Two in 2013-2014, Schott’s Opportunity to Learn campaign is also heavily promoting the letter through social media, calling the signatories civil rights groups even though just three such outfits — all affiliates of NAACP (which is supporting accountability and testing) — have signed onto the document. But hey, why let some inconvenient facts get in the way of spin?

Also signing the letter: Ten of AFT’s affiliates and locals — including the United Federation of Teachers and United Teachers Los Angeles. As you probably guessed, they also corralled their vassals to sign onto the claptrap. Chicago Teachers Union, for example, managed to convince its cadre of dependents — including the Kenwood Oakland Community Organization and Pilsen Alliance — to back the anti-accountability letter. UFT brought along the A. Phillip Randolph Institute (to which the union gave $6,550 in 2013-2014), Citizen Action of New York ($5,500), and Make the Road ($5,000 from UFT to the outfit’s political action wing).

The closer you look at the list of signatories, the more you realize that Journey for Justice is just another AFT front group for the union’s other villeins, giving the union (and other traditionalists) cover. All of this for the union on the cheap. Sadly, this isn’t surprising. Given that many of these nonprofits lack the financial wherewithal (even such resources as printers, copying machines, and conference space) to hold meetings and conduct business — and that reformers often fail to extend their considerable resources to help them — it is easy for them to go to AFT and its affiliates for help and even easier to support the union’s agenda in return. That some of these groups are led by middle-class black political and social leaders, who are often more-concerned about defending their pockets and their allies within teachers’ unions (while often refusing to send their kids to the failure mills they are protecting) also factors into their willingness to do work for AFT and other traditionalists.

Yet by supporting AFT’s efforts to eviscerate accountability and standardized testing, these groups are essentially declaring that they care not one bit about the futures of the very black, brown, and poor children for whom they proclaim concern. By siding with AFT, these groups are perpetuating the educational genocide that has wrecked havoc on our children and communities, and have hobbled efforts to end the racialist policies such as overuse of suspensions and expulsions (which many AFT locals, along with those of NEA, vigorously defend).

Your editor would say that Journey for Justice and AFT should be ashamed of themselves. But that would be a waste of breathe. After all, shame requires having a conscience and being willing to turn down money for advocating against poor and minority children.

About the Author:  RiShawn Biddle is Editor and Publisher of Dropout Nation — the leading commentary Web site on education reform — a columnist for Rare and The American Spectator, award-winning editorialist, speechwriter, communications consultant and education policy advisor. More importantly, he is a tireless advocate for improving the quality of K-12 education for every child. The co-author of A Byte at the Apple: Rethinking Education Data for the Post-NCLB Era, Biddle combines journalism, research and advocacy to bring insight on the nation’s education crisis and rally families and others to reform American public education. This article originally appeared in Dropout Nation and is republished here with permission from the author.

Leonie Haimson: Teacher Union Advocate

Is it okay for a “parent advocate” to send her kids to a private school while maintaining that your kids remain in a failing government run school?

Last week, via the blogosphere, we learned that education reform leader Michelle Rhee sends one of her two kids to a private school. One post asks the question, “Should we care?”

The answer is, “Of course not.”

Through StudentsFirst, Rhee champions the best education opportunities for all kids whether they be traditional public, charter or private schools. Additionally, she is in favor of vouchers or opportunity scholarships. As chancellor of Washington D.C. schools from 2007-2010, she sent her kids to a public school. But now one of her two daughters (both of whom live in Tennessee with her first husband) goes to a private school. Hence, she is not doing anything for her own kids that she wouldn’t advocate for any other parent.

Then we have “parent advocate” Leonie Haimson. As reported by the GothamSchools blog last week,

Leonie Haimson’s career as a New York City education activist started when her older child was assigned to a first-grade class with 28 other students. That was in 1996, and since then, Haimson has advocated for public school parents — through her organization, Class Size Matters; the blog and online mailing lists she runs; and the national parent group she helped launch.

But her personal stake changed last summer, when Haimson ceased to be a public school parent. Her younger child started at a private high school in September, following a trajectory from public to private school that her older child, now an adult, also took.

If it’s okay for activist Rhee to send one of her kids to a private school, why not activist Haimson? The answer is that Haimson, founder of Class Size Matters, who also fronts a faux parent advocacy group called Parents Across America, doesn’t want your kids to have the same opportunity that hers do. She is anti-charter, anti-voucher, anti-any choice and wants to force your kids to stay in public schools no matter how awful they may be. In other words, she is a hypocrite. As an editorial in the New York Post states,

Guess who sends her kids to private school when they reach high school age? That’s right: longtime public school parent-activist Leonie Haimson.

Fine by us. Like any parent, she’s entitled to do what’s best for her children — and private schools by and large provide more, and often better, choices for city kids.

But what about parents who want similar choices yet don’t have the resources? Increasingly, they turn to charter schools — public schools with more rigorous standards and non-union staffs.

… Haimson specifically cites her pet issue: smaller class sizes in private schools. (She runs the group Class Size Matters.) Yet, even though charters often have smaller classes, she continues to fight them.

Haimson is also against colocating charters in traditional public school space, despite the fact that charters don’t receive public funds to build or lease facilities.

What the Post editorial doesn’t mention is that Haimson is a member in good standing of the National Education Association Church, which is hardly surprising since she is in part bankrolled by the union. She consistently mouths teacher union dogma – bashing school choice, defending tenure and seniority, insisting that smaller classes are the sine qua non of reform – and even has gone so far as to defend the Chicago Teachers Union and its outrageous strike last September.

As Democrats for Education Reform president Joe Williams said,

She keeps choosing to defend the same awful schools she would never allow her kids to attend.

Not surprisingly, Diane Ravitch, who is on the Class Size Matters board and has been paid handsomely as an NEA spokesperson, rushed to defend Haimson with some incoherent comments:

You can see why powerful people would want to discredit her. She is a force, she has a large following, and she threatens them.

Consider the premise of the article: only public school parents may advocate for public schools.

This is classic corporate reform ideology. Corporate reformers use this specious ideology to argue for the parent trigger, claiming that the school belongs to the parents and they should be “empowered” to seize control and give it to a charter corporation.

Classic corporate reform ideology? Huh?!

Perhaps Dropout Nation’s RiShawn Biddle sums it up best,

… it is nice to see GothamSchools’ Geoff Decker do stellar work in breaking news yesterday on this contradiction between Haimson’s public criticism of expanding school choice and her very private decision to embrace it. And even nicer to see how her fellow traditionalists (including Ravitch) are attempting to justify her … instead of arguing for providing poor and minority families with the range of options to which Haimson (along with many of them) avails herself. This matter speaks louder than words to their amorality and intellectual charlatanism.

One other thing. Wondering about the name of Haimson’s organization Class Size Matters? In most cases it doesn’t.  But gross hypocrisy always does.

Larry Sand, a former classroom teacher, is the president of the non-profit California Teachers Empowerment Network – a non-partisan, non-political group dedicated to providing teachers with reliable and balanced information about professional affiliations and positions on educational issues.