The NEA has a large and frankly overrepresented lunatic fringe within it( California seems to be generating what I can only call a Bolshevik-Trotskyite state delegation)

There are also some not inconsiderable numbers within the NEA who share values that I think you would feel pretty comfortable with ( in 1984 40 % of NEA members cast GOP ballots so the rank and file differ from the activists). The moderates, pragmatists and conservatives are a lot quieter but they are always there doing parliamentary manuvers blocking motions of even greater stupidity than what eventually gets passed by the convention. I myself initiated a move on the floor in 2002 that forced the executive staff and the general-counsel of the NEA on public record to file briefs supporting the Constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegience.

There are a lot of things to be bitter about and the NEA takes many an asinine position in and out of education but things are not quite as bad as they might be if alternatives like charter scools and vouchers were not in political play. It was far, far worse ten years ago and I'm hopeful the wingnut contingent will continue to decline in influence.

First off - Caerdroia, thanks for the permalink! Second, I have quite a few teachers who comment on my site and jump all over me when I unthinkingly bash teachers' unions. But then, I have other commenters who then jump all over them, and the debate is fun to watch.

The defenders of teachers' unions are ultra-defensive these days, which I suppose is a good sign (they understand that they're under attack).