Kathy:
As president of a local teachers association, I can state categorically
that
neither Barbara Kerr nor any other CTA officer or official has told us to
"forbid" our members to sign the petition. The absurdity of such a report
should
be evident on the face of it, since local union presidents have no way to
enforce
such a prohibition if we were to decree it. Furthermore, Barbara has no
authority to order local presidents to take any such action. We are
elected by
the members of our associations and are answerable to them.
I attended a meeting with Barbara Kerr and several dozen other local union
presidents on Monday. As usual, Barbara spoke of the harms caused by the
so-called No Child Left Behind Act.
So how did this rumor begin? In February, Barbara Kerr wrote to chapter
presidents pointing out that NCLB, the so-called "No Child Left Behind
Act," is
now the official name for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
which since
1964 has been a major source of federal funding for public schools.
"Dismantling"
NCLB means dismantling ESEA. That is inconsistent with the policy we
adopted by a
sizable majority vote, after extensive debate, at the 2006 Representative
Assembly. She concluded by saying, "We ask CTA members not to sign this
petition.
Instead, members are encouraged to write or email their members of
Congress and
support our Positive Agenda for ESEA Reauthorization."
CTA is supporting NEA's legislative priorities for ESEA reauthorization,
including.
1. Inclusion of multiple measures in a revised AYP accountability
system so
that AYP is not based solely on standardized test scores.
2. Use of growth models to measure changes in student performance.
Allow every state to implement a transparent growth model methodology
that
recognizes continuous improvement for all students, grants schools
credit for
improving student achievement at all points on the achievement scale
(for
example, credit for schools that move students from below basic to
basic or
from proficient to advanced), and for improving student achievement
over time.
Such systems could track individual student performance or cohort
performance.
The Federal government should not designate the specifics of such a
system, but
should grant states flexibility to develop growth models, subject to
state peer
review and review by an independent expert body, such as the National
Council
on Measurement in Education, the American Psychological Association,
the
American Educational Research Association, or the Joint Committee on
Testing
Practice.
Data from growth models in an accountability system should be used
exclusively
to improve instructional and curriculum decisions and professional
development
for educators.
3. Shift AYP from a system that labels and penalizes schools to one that
rewards
success.
A school that falls short in just one or two criteria would be
required to
develop and implement a targeted improvement plan for the specific
subgroup
of students.
If a parent exercises his or her rights to have their children opt
out of
taking required tests under state law, then eliminate any
associated
penalties against schools and districts.
Provide supports and assistance for schools, including financial
support
and technical assistance, with assistance targeted to those schools
and
districts most in need of improvement.
Allow districts in need of improvement to be approved as
supplemental
service providers.
Target both Supplemental Educational Services and public school
choice to
students in the particular subgroups that do not make AYP.
Provide a separate funding stream for public school choice and
supplemental
educational services requirements so funding for these programs
does not
divert funds from classroom services.
Improve the quality of SES services by allowing school districts to
monitor
provider quality, ensure that SES providers serve both students
with
disabilities and ELL students, and require that they be fully
covered by
federal civil rights laws.
4. Provide additional common-sense flexibility for assessing and counting
test
scores from both students with disabilities and ELL students.
Allow the IEP teams to determine the appropriate assessment and
standards
(regular, alternate, or modified) that the assessment should be
based on
for each child; remove the current arbitrary 1 percent and 2
percent
limits.
For newly arrived immigrant ELL students, for whom native language
assessments in the required core content subjects are not
available, extend
to three years the period of time before their test scores are
included in
AYP.
5. Add a separately funded class size reduction program with class size
limits of
15 to improve student learning, with priority given to high poverty
schools and
which could be phased in over time.
6. Increase flexibility for meeting the "highly qualified" teacher
requirements, including teachers of multiple subjects, special education
and
rural educators.
Deem fully licensed/certified special education teachers as highly
qualified.
Recognize social studies as a core academic subject.
Expand current flexibility provided for rural education teachers.
7. Advance teacher quality at the highest poverty schools by
providing
funding to attract and retain quality teachers and improved teaching and
learning
conditions.
When Abraham Lincoln was urged to replace George McClellan as commanding
general
of the Army of the Potomac, he asked who his visitor would name instead.
"Anybody," was the reply. That, Lincoln said, was the crux of the problem.
"Anybody will do for you, but I must have somebody." The same thing is
true of
federal education law. "Dismantling" NCLB is not enough. We must propose
something. The debate now should be about what best to propose. Harold
Berlak's
suggestion of a Family and Student Testing Protection Act is a good start,
but in
my opinion federal policy on education must also include all the positive
elements that will enable ESEA once again to promote student achievement,
especially for disadvantaged students.
To view NEA's comprehensive Positive Agenda for ESEA Reauthorization, go
to:
http://www.nea.org/lac/esea/images/posagenda.pdf
At 12:58 PM 3/19/2007 -0700, Kathy Emery wrote:
The educatorroundtable petition is an excellent organizing tool.
organizing
teachers in your school to sign it will lead to direct confrontation
with the
state's union leadership. Barbara Kerr has apparently told CTA union
presidents to forbid their union members from signing the petition --
this is
the kind of position you want to unmask when organizing. such a
ridiculous
response reveals how the highest union leadership has been coopted --
making
the powers that be and their tools respond in this way is the beginning
of
radicalizing teachers to rethink their positions.
kathy
George Sheridan
**************************************************
Only the individual sender is responsible for the content of the
message, and the message does not necessarily reflect the position
or policy of the National Education Association or its affiliates.
---------------------------------------------------------
