![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Read Across America was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 26 December 2020 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into National Education Association. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
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)
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)
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)
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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.205.77 ( talk) 07:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
This article appears to be written by a disgruntled NEA republican. "Bipartisan NCLB"? Can we see some sources and responses please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.28.41 ( talk) 14:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The reference section on this article badly needs attention. Its largely worthless as it stands. - Freechild 00:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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))
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))
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))
In the criticism section, it seems someone has inserted this bit that doesn't go with the rest of the paragraph:
“It has been countered that attacks on NEA and "teacher unions" may be a mask for those who wish to weaken public schools: "If my objective were to dismantle public schools, I would begin by trying to discredit them. I would probably refer to them as 'government' schools..I would never miss an opportunity to sneer at researchers and teacher educators as out-of-touch 'educationists.' Recognizing that it’s politically unwise to attack teachers, I would do so obliquely, bashing the unions to which most of them belong." notes Alfie Kohn.”
In a section on criticism, this seems to be an off-topic attempt to criticize the criticism and should be eliminated. 76.28.181.205 ( talk) 17:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I removed the above mentioned section due to the fact that it is an obvious attempt to soften criticism and an attempt to bias the reader. I also reverted an edit by the user (131.118.49.86) that switched "conservative" to the "right-wing", another attempt at adding bias. 76.28.181.205 ( talk) 17:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I have a proposal in the endless edit war between Sparrowhawk64 and HoundofBaskerville: What if we took the final clause of the introduction and moved it out of the introduction, into, say, the criticism section or the section on politics? Then, since the crux of the dispute seems to be over where the criticism comes from, let's attribute it directly - only one source is cited here, let's quote it directly. Should I just make the cange and you can see if you like it? -- Thelema12 ( talk) 19:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
What about adding a list to this page of state affiliates of NEA? Some of them, like the California Teachers Association and the Colorado Education Association, already have Wikipedia pages. They link to here in the affiliations box, but it's a one-way link. -- Thelema12 ( talk) 21:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I added the list. Also, I have started working on a stub for a Utah Education Association page at User:Thelema12/Utah Education Association and I welcome any feedback.-- Thelema12 ( talk) 19:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2232488/teacher-slams-linux —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.44.154.93 ( talk) 22:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Seems like there should be a section on The Gateway to Educational Materials (GEM). From their site: "The Gateway (formerly known as GEM) was developed with funds from the U.S. Department of Education to provide teachers with learning resources created by over 750 publicly funded organizations. Oversight of the development of both the underlying GEM technologies and the Gateway website was provided by the US Department of Education with the guidance from the contributing member population in the way of an advisory board. In 2005 the Gateway’s U.S. Dept. of Ed. funding ceased and the National Education Association stepped in to preserve this national education asset." http://www.thegateway.org/about/gemingeneral/about-gem
"GEM allows you to quickly and easily search for educational resources, such as lesson plans and curriculum units. GEM draws from some of the country's best museums, universities, and government programs, including NASA, the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC, the National Science Foundation, and the Exploratorium in San Francisco." http://www.learningcommons.org/educators/library/gem.php
I actually sort of think GEM/The Gateway should have its own page and then this page could summarize it more briefly and link to the main page. Thoughts? Brianwc ( talk) 20:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Wiki rules clearly allow use of NEA published items when dealing w NEA. Please do not defy the rules here. See WP:SPS "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources." Rjensen ( talk) 16:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
National Education Association. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
National Education Association. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on National Education Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
There's a section on the current page about a supposed subsidiary of NEA called "KEA"; the section claims it stands for "Kids Education Association" and has a $163 million budget. The section has no supporting documentation though, and it is riddled with grammatical and spelling mistakes. Finally, no mention of this organization can be found anywhere else online. Perhaps it's a prank of some kind? I'm new to Wikipedia or I'd have deleted it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.48.255.235 ( talk) 15:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
JordanChase06 (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
SRP1828.
— Assignment last updated by SRP1828 ( talk) 19:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
To Add Under the "Political Activities" Section:
(2010 - Donated against 4 candidates: Ken Buck (R-CO), Dino Rossi (R-WA), Pat Toomey (R-PA), and Rand Paul (R-KY).
2012 - Donated against 4 candidates: Richard Tisei (R-MA), George Allen (R-VA), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), and Tommy Thompson (R-WI). Donated to one candidate: Tammy Baldwin (D-WI).
2014 - Donated against 9 candidates: Thom Tillis (R-NC), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Dan Sullivan (R-AL), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Bruce Poliquin (R-ME), Cory Gardner (R-CO), Steve Southerland (R-FL), Lee Zeldin (R-NY), George Allen (R-VA).
2016 - Donated against 6 candidates: Todd Young (R-IN), Kelly Ayote (R-NH), Pat Toomey (R-PA), Bruce Poliquin (R-ME), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Dan Sullivan (R-AL). Donated to 4 candidates: Hillary Clinton (D-Presidential), Katie McGinty (D-PA), Denise Juneau (D-MT), Bruce Braley (D-IA).) (“NEA Advocacy Fund.” Ballotpedia. https://ballotpedia.org/NEA_Advocacy_Fund (September 24, 2023).)
2020 - Donated $1.83m to Democrat campaigns, while only donating $41k to Republican campaigns. ( A 501tax-exempt, charitable organization 1100 13th Street, NW, and Suite 800 Washington. “PAC Profile: National Education Assn.” OpenSecrets. https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/national-education-assn/C00003251/summary/2020 (September 14, 2023).) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanChase06 ( talk • contribs) 01:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
I was taken aback at how disorganized this article was. Information on the history was scattered throughout multiple sections. There were redundant sections talking about the same topic. Among other problems. The root of the chaos might well be the edit war referenced above, which took place back in 2007-2008. It's a little embarrassing that it hasn't been cleaned up in the intervening sixteen years... but hopefully this can at least be a start.
The section on political activities is currently a massive bulleted list in chronological order. It might be worth trying to convert that to prose and integrating it into the general History. The Criticism section's description of "the gay rights agenda" is what we in 2024 call cringe; I don't remember what we called it in 2007, but it's not worded well. And anyway the NEA is promotes LGBT rights very overtly now, and "promoting a gay rights agenda" doesn't seem like the kind of thing it can be "accused" of... it's simply what it does. I'll see what I can do to improve the article a little further. Fishal ( talk) 05:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Read Across America was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 26 December 2020 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into National Education Association. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
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)
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)
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)
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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.205.77 ( talk) 07:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
This article appears to be written by a disgruntled NEA republican. "Bipartisan NCLB"? Can we see some sources and responses please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.28.41 ( talk) 14:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The reference section on this article badly needs attention. Its largely worthless as it stands. - Freechild 00:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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))
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))
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))
In the criticism section, it seems someone has inserted this bit that doesn't go with the rest of the paragraph:
“It has been countered that attacks on NEA and "teacher unions" may be a mask for those who wish to weaken public schools: "If my objective were to dismantle public schools, I would begin by trying to discredit them. I would probably refer to them as 'government' schools..I would never miss an opportunity to sneer at researchers and teacher educators as out-of-touch 'educationists.' Recognizing that it’s politically unwise to attack teachers, I would do so obliquely, bashing the unions to which most of them belong." notes Alfie Kohn.”
In a section on criticism, this seems to be an off-topic attempt to criticize the criticism and should be eliminated. 76.28.181.205 ( talk) 17:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I removed the above mentioned section due to the fact that it is an obvious attempt to soften criticism and an attempt to bias the reader. I also reverted an edit by the user (131.118.49.86) that switched "conservative" to the "right-wing", another attempt at adding bias. 76.28.181.205 ( talk) 17:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I have a proposal in the endless edit war between Sparrowhawk64 and HoundofBaskerville: What if we took the final clause of the introduction and moved it out of the introduction, into, say, the criticism section or the section on politics? Then, since the crux of the dispute seems to be over where the criticism comes from, let's attribute it directly - only one source is cited here, let's quote it directly. Should I just make the cange and you can see if you like it? -- Thelema12 ( talk) 19:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
What about adding a list to this page of state affiliates of NEA? Some of them, like the California Teachers Association and the Colorado Education Association, already have Wikipedia pages. They link to here in the affiliations box, but it's a one-way link. -- Thelema12 ( talk) 21:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I added the list. Also, I have started working on a stub for a Utah Education Association page at User:Thelema12/Utah Education Association and I welcome any feedback.-- Thelema12 ( talk) 19:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2232488/teacher-slams-linux —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.44.154.93 ( talk) 22:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Seems like there should be a section on The Gateway to Educational Materials (GEM). From their site: "The Gateway (formerly known as GEM) was developed with funds from the U.S. Department of Education to provide teachers with learning resources created by over 750 publicly funded organizations. Oversight of the development of both the underlying GEM technologies and the Gateway website was provided by the US Department of Education with the guidance from the contributing member population in the way of an advisory board. In 2005 the Gateway’s U.S. Dept. of Ed. funding ceased and the National Education Association stepped in to preserve this national education asset." http://www.thegateway.org/about/gemingeneral/about-gem
"GEM allows you to quickly and easily search for educational resources, such as lesson plans and curriculum units. GEM draws from some of the country's best museums, universities, and government programs, including NASA, the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC, the National Science Foundation, and the Exploratorium in San Francisco." http://www.learningcommons.org/educators/library/gem.php
I actually sort of think GEM/The Gateway should have its own page and then this page could summarize it more briefly and link to the main page. Thoughts? Brianwc ( talk) 20:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Wiki rules clearly allow use of NEA published items when dealing w NEA. Please do not defy the rules here. See WP:SPS "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources." Rjensen ( talk) 16:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
National Education Association. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
National Education Association. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on National Education Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
There's a section on the current page about a supposed subsidiary of NEA called "KEA"; the section claims it stands for "Kids Education Association" and has a $163 million budget. The section has no supporting documentation though, and it is riddled with grammatical and spelling mistakes. Finally, no mention of this organization can be found anywhere else online. Perhaps it's a prank of some kind? I'm new to Wikipedia or I'd have deleted it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.48.255.235 ( talk) 15:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
JordanChase06 (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
SRP1828.
— Assignment last updated by SRP1828 ( talk) 19:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
To Add Under the "Political Activities" Section:
(2010 - Donated against 4 candidates: Ken Buck (R-CO), Dino Rossi (R-WA), Pat Toomey (R-PA), and Rand Paul (R-KY).
2012 - Donated against 4 candidates: Richard Tisei (R-MA), George Allen (R-VA), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), and Tommy Thompson (R-WI). Donated to one candidate: Tammy Baldwin (D-WI).
2014 - Donated against 9 candidates: Thom Tillis (R-NC), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Dan Sullivan (R-AL), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Bruce Poliquin (R-ME), Cory Gardner (R-CO), Steve Southerland (R-FL), Lee Zeldin (R-NY), George Allen (R-VA).
2016 - Donated against 6 candidates: Todd Young (R-IN), Kelly Ayote (R-NH), Pat Toomey (R-PA), Bruce Poliquin (R-ME), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Dan Sullivan (R-AL). Donated to 4 candidates: Hillary Clinton (D-Presidential), Katie McGinty (D-PA), Denise Juneau (D-MT), Bruce Braley (D-IA).) (“NEA Advocacy Fund.” Ballotpedia. https://ballotpedia.org/NEA_Advocacy_Fund (September 24, 2023).)
2020 - Donated $1.83m to Democrat campaigns, while only donating $41k to Republican campaigns. ( A 501tax-exempt, charitable organization 1100 13th Street, NW, and Suite 800 Washington. “PAC Profile: National Education Assn.” OpenSecrets. https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/national-education-assn/C00003251/summary/2020 (September 14, 2023).) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanChase06 ( talk • contribs) 01:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
I was taken aback at how disorganized this article was. Information on the history was scattered throughout multiple sections. There were redundant sections talking about the same topic. Among other problems. The root of the chaos might well be the edit war referenced above, which took place back in 2007-2008. It's a little embarrassing that it hasn't been cleaned up in the intervening sixteen years... but hopefully this can at least be a start.
The section on political activities is currently a massive bulleted list in chronological order. It might be worth trying to convert that to prose and integrating it into the general History. The Criticism section's description of "the gay rights agenda" is what we in 2024 call cringe; I don't remember what we called it in 2007, but it's not worded well. And anyway the NEA is promotes LGBT rights very overtly now, and "promoting a gay rights agenda" doesn't seem like the kind of thing it can be "accused" of... it's simply what it does. I'll see what I can do to improve the article a little further. Fishal ( talk) 05:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)