From Education Week --
After a protracted debate, delegates to the National Education Association approved a new business item today that takes a position of "no confidence" in the U.S. Department of Education's Race to the Top guidelines and in the use of competitive grants as a basis for the reauthorization of ESEA.
It was a symbolic slam on the Obama administration. But as with NEA President Dennis Van Roekel's keynote speech, it stopped short of actually calling out the U.S. president, a supporter of the program. And the debate over the item provided the clearest picture yet of both the internal and external difficulties the NEA faces pushing against an education agenda promoted by a Democratic administration, rather than a Republican one. . . .
The author of the NBI 2, Phil Rumore, president of the Buffalo, N.Y., affiliate, got applause when he was introducing the resolution: "Some people are going to be mad at us if we pass this. Well let the word get out," he said. The program, he added, would exacerbate policies that "brutalize our students with standardized tests, which in my opinion is like giving someone blood tests until they die."
From another supporter: "The Race to the Top is a gun with bullets in it to take out teachers, public education, and the union itself."
Camille Zombro, the head of the San Diego affiliate, seemed to have the last word. "Teachers would never have put together a program like Race to the Top," she said. "Even in states that are trying to make lemonade, ... you were still given a lemon."
===
url link to entire article:
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2010/07/neas_delegates_vote_no_confide_2.html
9 comments:
This does not look good for our president.
It will be rammed down the throats of the American Public, as people are tired of the teacher unions in many places across our country. I wonder if it's not a ploy to make sure that the standards go through.
what is NEA's alternative solution? I'm not excited about more testing but I can't respect an organization of professional educators if they are not offering a viable solution. And things were not going so well with our public schools before the funding crunch.
I just think they have great concerns about "competing" for education funding. I use the analogy - would the government make the army, air force, marines, etc. compete for funding? Say, your unit had to have a certain percentage of hitting targets in marksmanship to get funding for more supplies...
The teacher comments in the article are interesting. The link to the full article is accessible by clicking "From Education Week" or by copying and pasting this link -
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2010/07/neas_delegates_vote_no_confide_2.html
This vote was a safe way for teachers to voice their anger over NCLB. When parents complain about the CRCT and other required state testing, they are complaining about how NCLB is being implemented. There are problems with the current law and we need to fix them. I don't believe that offering competitive grants where some states receive money and others don't is going to do much to improve overall academic achievement in this country.
I believe that teachers want accountability and many will quietly tell you that there are people working in classrooms who should be doing something else. I disagree with the comment that teachers aren't offering viable solutions. They have been cut out of the debate. Governor Purdue did not want any teacher input when he filed this State's most recent "Race to the Top" grant proposal. If we are going to have real education reform, teachers need a place at the negotiation table.
Heck, our principals and superintendent and other administrators don't want to hear what teachers have to say. Until the people working with the children are heard and listened to, the quality of education that children receive will not improve. We have people with no clue making decisions.
I just think they have great concerns about "competing" for education funding. I use the analogy - would the government make the army, air force, marines, etc. compete for funding?
You can't avoid competition..it's what makes us try harder. My child is a runner. If she's not running against anyone who is close to her speed, she runs slowly. Put her in a race with someone who is as fast or faster than her, and she'll go a lot faster. Competition is not comfortable, but it's necessary to get the best results.
I work for the federal government, and you'd better believe there is competition among the agencies for money. If you want funding for your project/department, you'd better be able to convince your boss, his boss, and all the managers up to the department head who briefs congress that your project deserves money over somebody else's project. If there were no competition for the dollars, our country would be in even worse fiscal shape than we already are.
@ anonymous 4:05 pm
Ask CDC scientists how effective that has been or our National Health System. The Bush administration would fund bioterrorism and starve the funding of vaccines and other research for diseases. It's impossible to have true competition in the non business realm simply because most of what government does not turn a profit. In addition, the bottom line rarely drives governmental decisions; rather the political party in power dictates the decisions and then ensures the "data" reinforces thos decisions. I've worked in both arenas and absent seen this firsthand.
I feel it's a waste of resources and a horrible plan. It's turning education into some sort of American Idol contest. I'm on the far left but this is making me wish the the US Department of Ed be dismantled. This administration is no better than the last in regards to education reform.
Post a Comment