Re: Repeal NCLB, Letter to Hollister Teachers

[George Sheridan <learn@jps.net>]

 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.