ShareThis Page

Stop paying 'ghost teachers' to work for unions

| Tuesday, June 14, 2016, 9:00 p.m.

Public school teachers are paid to teach. Yet in Pennsylvania, millions of dollars in salaries and benefits are paid to “ghost teachers” who work not in classrooms but exclusively for their unions.

In Allentown, the public has paid more than $1.3 million since 2000 to the president of the Allentown Education Association, according to The Fairness Center, a nonprofit public interest law firm. That person isn't required to teach in a cash-strapped district that has laid off 272 teachers since 2011.

And while the union prez draws a public school paycheck, that person also is earning public employee pension credits along with seniority over teachers who do teach.

This is no anomaly: In Philadelphia, 16 teachers accrued $1.5 million this school year while working full-time for the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, according to Pennsylvania While the union says it reimburses the district for its ghost teachers, it hasn't provided any documentation, according to Watchdog.

In effect, public education dollars are being spent on teachers working not to educate children but to advance their union's agenda.

Pending legislation (HB 2125) would pull the sheet off ghost teachers and compel teacher unions to reimburse districts. Here's a better idea: Prohibit teachers from doing any union work on the public's dime and let unions find and employ their own workers.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.