Jaw-Dropping Spend – Proficiency Still Flat

Speaker addressing an audience in a conference hall — Photo: Matej Kastelic / Shutterstock

A new Senate report says the nation’s top teachers unions funneled nearly $670 million into politics since 2015 while student proficiency lags.

Story Highlights

Senate summary and watchdog data detail heavy political spending by the NEA and AFT since 2015.
Union disclosures show major outlays for political activities, lobbying, and grants in recent years.
Unions channeled funds largely to Democratic causes and liberal advocacy groups, according to reporting.
Research on achievement remains mixed, but national proficiency remains low, raising priorities questions.

Senate Findings Put Union Priorities Under a Microscope

Senate reporting in 2026 framed the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers as spending heavily on political and social advocacy, totaling nearly $670 million since 2015. The report’s theme is clear: union leadership directs vast resources toward politics over classroom representation. That claim builds on years of disclosures and watchdog tallies that track transfers to advocacy groups, campaigns, and political committees across the country. Supporters call this advocacy. Parents see mission drift.

Watchdog research echoes the Senate picture, citing a combined $669,324,912.33 in dues, fees, and Political Action Committee money from the two largest unions since 2015 to left-leaning entities, school board campaigns, and opponents of school choice. These tallies aggregate public filings and reported grants over multiple cycles. The core allegation is not subtle: political power-building has become a central union function, even as families struggle with basics like reading and math recovery.

Union Disclosures Show Large Political Outlays

Union filings and outside analyses record very large sums for political activities, lobbying, and grants in recent years. One summary of disclosure data reported hundreds of millions across these categories in 2023 and 2024 alone. In addition, a separate account highlighted that the National Education Association’s 2025 report showed political and grant spending far outpacing representational spending. These numbers place politics near the center of national union operations, not at the edge.

Reporters also traced money flows to partisan and ideological groups. Coverage described teachers unions directing more than $43.5 million to Democratic committees and liberal advocacy organizations in a recent cycle. That pattern reinforces a long-running alignment between national teachers unions and the Democratic Party’s policy network. Critics argue that this alignment sidelines parents who favor school choice, merit-based standards, and curriculum transparency.

Policy Resolutions and Mobilization Extend Beyond Spending

Union political activity is not just checks and transfers. Convention actions and official resolutions signal priorities on immigration, gender policy, parent notification, and election mobilization. A public summary linked to those decisions shows leaders urging civic action days and protest support while core academics still lag in many districts. That platform builds influence, but it also deepens the sense among families that culture war fights outrank phonics, algebra, and classroom safety.

Parents remember the legal backdrop. The Supreme Court’s Janus line drew a hard line on forced political subsidies by nonmembers. Yet even after Janus, unions can still raise and channel very large voluntary funds, and affiliates can coordinate with outside groups. That is lawful, but it sharpens the question: if politics thrives, why do national reading and math results remain stuck in the low thirties for proficiency?

Student Outcomes Stay Flat While Spending Politics Grows

National reporting pegs proficiency around 30 percent in key subjects, even after years of record education budgets. Research on unions and achievement is mixed, but several reviews find little evidence that stronger union presence leads to clear gains. Some studies find small negative effects on proficiency or dropout, while others find no effect. The safest takeaway is simple: more political spending has not delivered better learning for most students.

None of this proves unions caused weak scores. Many factors shape outcomes. But the scale and direction of union priorities are fair to question. Families want reading gains, safe schools, and teacher excellence. When leadership routes hundreds of millions into politics, and conventions push culture fights, taxpayers ask where the classroom fits. Sunshine on the filings, local accountability, and parent-aligned boards can rebalance power toward students.