AFT for or against high stakes tests?

[Gabie Gedlaman - AZ Standards <gabieg@AZSTANDARDS.ORG>]

This past week at a state board of ed meeting in Arizona, the president of
Arizona's AFT blasted the board for using the AIMS test as a graduation
test.  They specifically supported using all forms of evaluation along side
each other on which to decide graduation (or promotion in some district's
cases).  Lisa Graham Keegan commented to this AFT representative something
to the effect, "Has AFT suddenly changed their stance on tests like these?"
I actually found this rather curious.

What makes me even curious about AFT locally is that (I never knew they were
here, for one--AFT is just not around publicly) the Arizona Education
Association (NEA) recently sent me this info on their stance on testing--a
total disappointment and reason to get AEA members to consider taking on
another union association somewhere else.

>From NEA:

> Ms. Gedlaman:
>
> We support SB 1431, which is the AIMS study committee.  We believe that
the
> issue of AIMS in one that merits a close look by both the legislature and
the
> State Board.  In fact, we think that the committee would function best if
it
> included both legislative and state board members or appointees.
>
> We think too, that the date for delayed implementation of AIMS as a
graduation
> requirement to 2005, which is the date recommended to the State Board
should
> be the date in the bill for the delayed implementation, to make things
> consistent.  I believe that the election to determine whether or not to
keep
> AIMS has been dropped from that bill, as that is legitimately a decision
for
> the State Board of Education to determine, and it should not go to a vote
of
> the public.  We should not have the public or the legislature
micro-managing
> such complex issues, based on 30-second sound bites.
>
> AIMS has flaws, obviously.  We think it is best however, to work to
correct
> those flaws, and make it a good test and to continue to address the needs
of
> students, rather than advocate for its elimination entirely.  We do not
> believe that AIMS should be eliminated, but that legitimate issues in AIMS
> must be addressed, and the study committee is an appropriate method of
doing
> so.
>
> The NEA has no position on this matter.  It is a state, not a national
> issue/test.  The AEA does have a policy and information developed and
voted on
> by our Board of Directors which I would be happy to send you, if you will
send
> me your mailing address.  It is not in a form that I can send it by email.
>
> Thank you for asking.
>
> Mary Kay Haviland
> Director of Government Relations
> mhaviland@nea.org

What tha?

Gabie Gedlaman
gabieg@azstandards.org
*******************************
WHAT'S WRONG WITH 'HIGH STAKES TESTS' AND THE 'AIMS' TEST IN PARTICULAR?
www.azstandards.org
azstandards-subscribe@egroups.com

BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:Gedlaman;Gabie
FN:Gabie Gedlaman
ORG:AZSTANDARDS
TITLE:State Coordinator
TEL;WORK;VOICE:480-539-1337
TEL;PAGER;VOICE:602-740-5444
TEL;WORK;FAX:480-539-1351
ADR;WORK:;;1739 E Silver Creek Rd;Gilbert;AZ;85296;USA
LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:1739 E Silver Creek Rd=0D=0AGilbert, AZ 85296=0D=0AUSA
URL:
URL:http://www.azstandards.org
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:gabieg@azstandards.org
REV:20010331T235134Z
END:VCARD