NEA Public public-groups.nea.org

      I agree with you entirely, Ron, although the reason the NEA cravenly endorsed the interests of Obama and the Democrats, rather than the interests of the people like us who pay the NEA's bills with our dues, is because the NEA is nothing more than a lickspittle lackey of Obama and the Democrats.  They've already tacked on an extra 10 dollars to our dues to pay for political ads for the Democrats and Democrat positions this year after the shellacking they took in Wisconsin.  

      Even though all the NEA members and all the teachers I have met, and all NEA members who have expressed an opinion on this forum, oppose RaTT, the NEA spits in our faces as they snatch our money and run to support RaTT.  Obama appoints to the Dept of Education people that are anti-union, just to rub the NEA's nose in their own excrement, and even though the Republicans haven't come close to selecting a presidential  candidate yet, the NEA has run to endorse Obama for the next election.  The NEA leadership has no care or concern for the union members, or our concerns; they wish only to whore themselves out to the Democrats as early and often and as shamelessly as possible.  It is sickening to see so much of our money wasted and squandered for purely partisan goals.  But the one thing it is not is surprising.

Gentlemen,

I couldn't agree more. Your enthusiasm for the TRUTH is more refreshing than the dank glass of Kool-Aid that's repeatedly shoved in my face.

My own take and response (to another thread) as I process this betrayal in my mind and heart:
( http://public-groups.nea.org/m/discussion/topics/480312/messages )

Jane,

Just read through this thread and certainly appreciate your comments. I do sense your heart is in the right place. However, given the results of what just happened in Chicago, I am now inclined to agree with Tom.

You see, I cannot understand why 2 years have passed since Arne Duncan sat on the main stage at the San Diego RA as he informed us of his Vision and we simply ignored the coming mess we now find ourselves in. Heck, I'm no political expert, but I can read; let me summarize the writing on the wall that day: "My education policy will have you quickly longing for the salad days of NCLB, while simtaneously erasing decades of collective bargaining gains."

However, on that day and for the next week, NEA leadership was more interested in protecting Universal Health Care. Go figure: ignore the fact the house is engulfed in flames while you stay focused turning down the furnace.

I'm also more inclined to agree with Tom given the sheer lack of effort for pushing back the reformist entrepreneurs, the political ignoramouses, and the promotion of WHO we are, WHAT we do, and WHY we do it. I get more professional (and personal) validation from Ravitch, Strauss, and many unknowns on this board and in person than The Union. Hell, even Jon Stewart has my back more than our current representative leadership.

Please don't placate me with "WE are the NEA". I do not feel represented. No one asked me if I agreed with the Test Score Evaluation Sell-Out. No one asked my wife either. In fact, not one teacher I know was asked. How is this respresentative? How can such a monumental shift in philosophy be attributed to me? It cannot. It. Never. Will.

I do not feel respected. I feel disconnected. Disconnected from the very people who asked me to trust them to look out for my best interests and professional well being. And that's hard for me to admit given my Commitment, Involvement, and Passion for this Association.

At this point, I cannot tell if I am more disillusioned in the Sell-Out itself or fearful of the fact that I and my classroom colleagues now find ourselves in the precarious position of the Reformists' Bullseye. I am, however, quite confident this representative Entity feels neither. For you see, we are now on that slippery slope -- you know, the one that ends where we all know it will. Funny. I never suspected it would be my dues dollars which actually shoved me onto it from behind.

One more thing. I have about as much faith in Dennis actively listening to and carefully considering the concerns of this classroom teacher as I do that other President and his educational leadership.

Henry C Hale, M. Ed.
National Board Certified Teacher
Ohio Education Association

       Yes, when you think about it, it is almost insane.  We have tons of different teachers on here expressing opinions from all over the political spectrum, with many of us diametrically opposed on all sorts of issues.   Yet the one thing that every single NEA member here agrees on is the stupidity and harmful effect of RaTT/NCLB.  

    I've never met a student who supports those programs either, for that matter.  The only people who are in favor of that idiocy are politicians, from the NCLB originators such as Ted Kennedy and Bush, to Obama and Pelosi and their RaTT.  So the people actually affected by the idiocy hate it, while the people inflicting it on us gleefully take a bad program and make it worse, then rename it.

      Yet the organization we pay 600 dollars a year to (in MD, at least, I think it varies by state), the organization that is supposed to represent us, the organization we pay for and support, sides not with us, but with our enemies.  The NEA spits on us with utter contempt, ignoring our universal hatred of NCLB/RaTT and uses our OWN money to advocate in favor of something all of us despise.  It is unconscionable.

I am a teacher, and a school board member. I have nothing against unions, Big or small, and I applaud the free market entrepreneuralism that makes businesses successful and, eventually, Big.

But when Big Unions and Big Business climb in bed with Big Government....everyone outside the bed is screwed.

When we, the electorate, continue to elect 'representatives' who extend the tentacles of government far beyond any practical or efficacious reach, this is what we get: a government that DELIGHTS in micromanagement and whose focus is further enlarging the scope of their control. AFL-CIO, SEIU, and now NEA are at their beck and call, currying favor and power. GE, GM, Big Banks, establishment media, ...the same.

The only job sector that has grown is government, and we all know that government doesn't produce, it drains.  We need to elect representatives who will go to our state capitols and to Washington vowing to REPEAL, not to enact more laws and regulations. America needs local control, especially of its public schools.

I am so tired of having every single board decision referred back to countless codes, laws, regs, etc to see if we are "in compliance". Anyone who thinks education is Job 1 is wrong - our raison d'etre is COMPLIANCE.

I hope 2012 brings us some good old American change :-)

I am genuinely surprised there wasn't a floor fight to take out the language over standardized testing.  However, there is a bit of hope in the statement in that it describes "high quality standardized tests that provide meaningful information regarding student learning and growth."  To date, no such test exists.  The MCAS, the standardized testing out of Massachusetts, has one of the longest running tests and has been criticized left and right for its problems.  The ACTAAP, which is the series run in Arkansas, has elements of bias that were tackled with testing back in the 1960s and 1970s research.  The New York Regents Tests are also filled with bias.  Any state or local affiliate could gather enough empirical evidence to initiate and win a federal law suit that focuses on that phrase alone.  In all the years that I have been teaching--including at the college level in the area of Education--I have yet to find a set of standardized tests that were absent of issues, bias and outright problems with the test questions or the testing procedures. 

The recent bouts of cheating scandals, including the ones in Atlanta and Washington, DC, will bear that out.  I think we are seeing the beginning of a new approach to testing--God I hope so.  But we as members of local, state and NEA need to start voting with our wallets and our voices at RAs.  I have been to 4 out of the last 5 RAs in Arkansas (state level) and am sorry to say that participation has been poor at 3 of them... and most of the RA representatives eat what is essentially spoon fed to them by the state affiliate.  I have caused some ruckus when I have attended.  However, like most RAs across the nation, those locals with a larger population and a larger group of teachers and ESPs send more representatives to the assembly.  For instance, in Arkansas three of the biggest locals are Little Rock Education Association, North Little Rock Education Association and Pulaski County Teachers Association.  Little Rock is the biggest school district in Arkansas.  North Little Rock is probably second.  And Pulaski County is close to being third.  These locals send dozens to the RAs and out vote any opposition.  They are also closer to state HQ and get more information, faster as well.

NEA purports to be one of the most democratic organizations in America... yet it has not eliminated the political staging, backroom delas and politicking that leads to a form of subtle corruption.  But we are the members and we vote for the leaders and representatives that attend these major functions... and as the addage goes, you get what you vote for.

There is a group within the Democratic Party that is directing the policies of "reform" that are doing so much damage and bringing on the changes most in NEA believe are toxic to unionism and public education's survival.

In Colorado, in 2010 State Senator Mike Johnston's SB 10-191 passed. A shocking defeat for public education unions. Senator Johnston's aid claims that Senator Johnston was the architect of Race to the Top. That same aid provides an analysis of the reformist victory. The aid wrote of the central part that a little known reformist group within the Democratic Party played in that upset victory. The group calls itself Democrats for Educational Reform (DFER). I think of the group as Democrats for Educational Deformity (DFED). They act like a 5th column within the Democratic Party implementing the change they believe best but ever ready to work in coordination with Republicans that hold the same reformist agenda: merit pay, ending collective bargaining, support for charter schools, and tying student test scores to teacher evaluation and retention.

Below is Scott Laband's analysis of DFER's Colorado victory.

Jim Mordecai

DFER
"Creating A Winning Legislative Campaign:
The Colorado Story
By Scott Laband

About the author
Scott Laband was the Legislative Director for Colorado State Senator Mike Johnston during the 2009-10 legislative session. Scott oversaw S.B. 191, as the point person for both internal strategy negotiations with other Colorado state legislators and external relations and coalition-building with advocates and interest groups. Currently, Scott is the Vice President of Colorado Succeeds, a non-profit, non-partisan coalition of business leaders committed to improving the state's education system for workforce development and economic growth.

In May of 2010, Colorado legislators passed an ambitious education reform bill for the purpose of ensuring that all of Colorado's students benefit from a great teacher in every classroom and a great leader in every school. The fact that Senate Bill 10-191 was introduced, let alone passed, in an election year, by a Democrat, in a legislature held by Democratic majorities in both chambers, and overseen by a Democratic Governor, defies conventional political wisdom.

As a result of its strong policy provisions and a successful political strategy, Senate Bill 10-191 is becoming a national model for education reform.  Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) led the coalition of advocacy organizations that made this work possible, including Stand for Children,
Colorado Succeeds, and many others.

Given their firsthand experience, DFER developed this case study and action guide to help provide reform-minded legislators and advocacy organizations around the country with a roadmap to pursue similar policies in their respective legislatures."

Thank you, Jim, for pointing out Scott LaBand's Case Study.  I found the full text at:

www.dfer.org/CO_Case_Study.pdf

The tactics describe how politics works in the U.S.  It reminded me of the book on the Prohibition movement that I was reading this summer.  The political maneuverings are very similar.  And their proposal, grants Principals far too much power to eliminate those who have different perspectives.  Too dictatorial and not democratic.

I also took a look at the NEA statement:

http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/statement-on-teacher-evaluation-and-accountability.pdf

Nothing is ever perfect.  A beautiful, sunny day can contribute to skin cancer.  While I don't like the idea of comparing teachers' performance with absolute test scores because those in challenging schools cannot compete with those that have more resources, I liked the idea that teacher evaluations include an objective measure of performance -- student test scores.  My outspoken, radical thoughts have threatened my job, but when my students have shown some of the highest gains in the school, it provides some measure of job security.  My evaluations are not dependent solely on the Principal's subjective opinions.

Just out of curiosity Tom, how do you get RaTT as an acronym, abreviation, or initial designation for Race to the Top?  Not saying you're wrong, I just don't understand it.

Before man went to the moon statements about the moon had no impact on the moon. Unlike the moon that before Neil Armstrong's journey, man had no impact, policy statements by NEA makes does impact the real world life of teachers. For the NEA to declare that it is for a test that measures teacher promotion of student learning when it is developed is unlike pre-Neil Armstrong moon travel: it impacts how teachers are evaluated.  But, the distinction about using an appropriate test will be buried nor long remembered.

Vanessa O can I interested you in booking a couple of hours on an imperfect tanning bed?

Jim Mordecai

RAce To the Top" is where "RATT" comes from.  I'm not sure if that is an official abbreviation or fortuitous coincidence.

Hi Jim,

I'll admit, it took a couple read-throughs for me to get the jist of your tanning bed analogy.  Are you saying that if there isn't a perfect test, we should have no test at all? 

If I've interpreted you correctly, then the issue is at a standstill rather than progressing toward more optimum conditions for teachers.  If you're waiting for a perfect test, or a perfect anything where humans are concerned, that benchmark is unattainable as much a 100% student proficiency is.  

I believe the idea of testing has merit, but the current methods need improvement.  This reminds me of U.S. history.  If I recall correctly, the topic of slavery was hotly debated at the Constitutional Convention.  Several framers of the Constitution were diametrically opposed on the issue.  However, there would have been no United States if those who were against slavery refused to compromise.  That imperfect Constitution, though, laid the mechanism for it's own improvement.  Eventually, slavery was abolished, Jim Crow laws eliminated, and over the decades we have carved out a better system (I hope).  If we learn from history, perhaps we can avoid a bloody war.  If we start somewhere, and move forward, improving that initial position, we're at least moving forward.

I agree that current methods of testing are imperfect, but I think teacher evaluations that include consideration of student performance is theoretically a good idea.  Do you agree?  If no, why not?

If yes, then how would you structure a system to objectively evaluate student performance?  If not a test, then what would that student evaluation procedure look like?  If a test, what would make it a valid evaluation tool?

Richard Cottingham provided me with a link to Marion Brady's web site, Looking At Learning: http://www.marionbrady.com/

Brady has ome really well-reasoned arguments against standardized testing, the common core standards, and the wrong-headedness of our curriculum approaches.  There are also a ton of downloadable articles and powerpoint shows that are worth reading and viewing.

One of the points Brady makes is that if we are supposed to be teaching "higher order thinking skills," then there is no objective way of measuring student performance.  All standardized testing is about memorization (and he cites Albert Einstein's views on education) and that is all such testing really measures.  The argument is worth considering.

I have always advocated testing, but more in the way that traditional martial arts offers testing: as a diagnostic tool.  The test reveals areas where the student (test-taker) has not acquired knowledge.  It provides a road map for the student to address learning in the future.

I am against standardized testing as a means of determining the effectiveness of a teacher.  Richard also provided a link to a study that identifies out-of-school factors--over which teachers have little-to-no impact or influence--as having a dramatic effect upon student achievement, health and learning capacity.  The study was conducted by Arizona State University, Colorado University, and can be found at:

Berliner, David C. (2009). Poverty and Potential: Out-of-School Factors and School Success.  Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. http://epicpolicy.org/publication/poverty-and-potential

My thanks to Richard for both reference web sites.

Teachers cannot logically be held accountable for student learning...There is a giant flaw in Education hiding like Osama Bin Laden in plain sight. We need a transparent and systematic way to identify and vet Best Instructional Practices. This will release organic growth across all aspects of education, and from the bottom-up. There are over 2 1/2 million teachers in the USA alone. Some will be great, good and weak and yet others will be seriously misplaced. However none can be held seriously accountable for learning outcomes until a string of vested interests, from ideological professors to learned societies hoping to sell trendy journals and books, address the elephant in the room: lack of identification of our Best Instructional Practices. Every other profession from hair care to surgery has done so. The current problem is that no one has access to what constitutes quality teaching, nor do we seem to realize that we don't know.

 Below are some sites addressing this flaw and suggestions of two textbook that are very applicable to quick starting a serious step toward Pedagogical Science: http://bestmethodsofinstruction.com/ and

http://anthony-manzo.blogspot.com/2010/05/brief-writing-for-thoughtful-righting.html. The two books that were decades in the making try to honestly report what the research seems to be saying about teaching toward higher literacy at all levels, overcoming illiteracy is near meaningless without a sustainably educated indigenous population, see: Manzo/Manzo/Thomas (2009) Content Area Literacy (Wiley, Publisher) & Manzo/Manzo/Albee Reading Assessment: A Diagnostic-Teaching Approach (2004) (Cengage, Publisher). The entire globe awaits our efforts. Higher literacy, our primary goal, is more than a North African Spring, it is Liberation Education, all 4 seasons.

I must admit that I read the NEA position rather perfunctorily and may have missed something.  It seemed to me that the Association was saying that it is in favor of fair teacher evaluation  and sees no objection to the inclusion of student test scores as a factor in teacher evaouation WHEN tests are developed that truly show a corelation between student test score and teacher effectiveness.  At the risk of sounding as if I support what 2011 school reform proponents are advocating, I must say I see nothing wrong with that position.  The operative idea being the corelation between test score and teacher effectivenes.  I do not think that can ever be done.

Something that I think most posters here are missing is that the way the current testing is done stacks the deck against teachers in at least two ways. 1) every student at a certain grade level or in a specific class is expected to learn at exactly the same pace, to the same degree of proficiency, in the same way.  People simply are not like that.  The students in next year's fifth grade at J.E. B. Stuart Elementary School did not all learn to walk at the same age.  They did not learn to talk at the same age.  They were not toilet trained at the same age.  Some probably cannot tie their shoelaces yet.  Some cannot yet ride a bicycle. Some do not know how to swim. Some cannot yet swallow a pill.  To expect that teachers should have some magic formula that can make these inherent differences disappear is ludicrous.  It is unfair!  2) There are numerous out of school factors that will affect some children and impede their learning.  These children will compensate for these factors in many different ways (such as acting out, bullying, oppostional behavior, refusal to try) which will not only impact their learning but it will impact the learning of other children in their class.  The current reform movement ignores these factors completely.

Learning needs to be a continuum of skills.  Each child's place on the continuum could be identified.  A year's growth could be defined as a prescribed number of skills on the continuum.  Effective teaching could be defined as causing a year's growth for a specified percentage of the children taught.  I believe portfolio evaluation would be better than standardized testing for this purpose.

Dr. Manzo:

I agree with most of your statements, except that I cannot grasp the reference to "Obama hiding in plain sight."  I am not sure if this is a reference to the Obama administration not doing a good job in Education Policy, or if it is just a slam to Obama.  In either case, a little bit of historical research will show that Reagan, Bush #1 and Bush #2 have had their share of screwing around with education policy.  Reagan and Bush#1 had Bennett pushing his ideological hogwash upon education policy, even when he was not the Secretary of Education.  I don't think there has been a president, nor a congress, that has given education its fair and due considerations.  Michael Katz has done a lot of writing about the history of education in the US.  In his work we will find references to the trend of losing students interest in science, engineering, and other technological fields.  The same was present in the early 1970s.  If we look at the comparison of the US to other nations today, we still see that US students are failing in sciences, mathematics, engineering and computer sciences. 

Also, in 1964 there was a movie entitled "Up The Down Staircase," based on Bel Kaufman's semi-autobiographical novel.  The same problems that were present and depicted in Kaufman's book, and in the movie, continue today.  Here it is almost 50 years later and we have not conquered any of those issues, especially those related to the lives and "baggage" that affects students in the classroom. 

The point of these references is to demonstrate that we have done NOTHING in terms of policy that has changed education one iota.  We continue to throw money at the problem (i.e. RTTT and SIG grants), revert back to standardized testing despite evidence from 1950-1980 that testing of this type does not measure what we need to measure (c.f. Katz), and copious documentation that we are failing in schools (Illich, Sizer, Glasser, Kozol, Brady, Lukas, et al.).

What will it take to remove the ideologies from education and implement genuine policies that change the way we see, do and understand education?

Richard,

I think the problem with NEA making its statement in favor of testing is that it helps the politicians continue their ideological battles over testing with a claim that the teachers are for it.  While your point is well taken that NEA's statement speaks directly to the idea of the test being meaningful and a correlation between teaching and test scores, what bothers me is that NEA has given tacit approval to continued efforts to find such a test.  After reading the references you provided me (Brady and the OSFs paper), I can see how such a test will never be possible.  All we will be able to do is measure what has been studied, memorized and regurgitated, at least in terms of literacy, social studies, literature, language arts, writing, etc.  Perhaps that is why Illinois removed its writing part of the standardized tests issued there.

Jim,

You will get no argument from me on the idea that there will never be a test that cn be used to effectively evaluate teacher performance.  I knew when I wrote my earlier post that I risked sounding as if I heartily endorse the NEA position. I do not.

I am convinced the so called reformers have let the genie out of the bottle and now teachers are going to have to find some way to be evaluated that includes a component of student achievement.  God help teachers.  It is going to be awfully hard to do and politicions can be counted upon to over-simplify it just as they are already doing.

That is a big part of the reason I tacked on my earlier comment about portfolio evaluation.

Jim and Richard:

Well said on the possible unintended consequences of the NEA's testing and teacher evaluation statement.

And, Ms. Valerie Strauss in her Washington Post column, The Answer Sheet of 9/1/2010 asked the question: Should test scores be used AT ALL for teacher evaluation?

She provides evidence of research that shows standardized test scores are unreliable for purposes of teacher evaluation. And also presents Helen F. Ladd, President of the Association for Public Policy's counter-view that making student scores a part of teacher evaluation is appropriate under certain conditions.

I believe test scores should not be used AT ALL for teacher evaluation. I have no faith that policy that depends on "certain conditions" will be implemented with fidelity but in practice test scores will be treated as if they are "reliable" and "valid".  And teaching to the test will continue to grow as the singular purpose of public education.

Valerie Strauss's Washington Post Answer Sheet Column, 09/1/2010:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/teacher-assessment/should-test-scores-be-used-at.html?wprss=answer-sheet

Jim Mordecai

I feel the question of not using student test scores to evaluate teachers is made moot by the larger question of whether education in America continues to hold on to the 20th Century industrial model of education or moves forward into a 21st Century model.

Before he died Professor Gerald Bracey wrote of this issue of 21st Century model of American education succeeding the 20th Century model.

Bracey Report on the Condition of Public Education, November 9, 2009, page 20 provides context for why using standardized test scores are a backward idea in the 21^st Century of American Education. And, if you accept that the industrial model is not appropriate for 21^st Century, making student test scores a part of teacher's evaluation becomes anachronistic.

"David Marshak, Professor Emeritus at Seattle University, noticed that the "improvements" the President and Secretary Duncan are calling for won't make schools look much like Sidwell Friends School, the school that Obama's daughters attend. And he asked, why doesn't Obama try to make all schools more like Sidwell Friends?

Certainly Sidwell has high standards of a sort, mostly for admission, but a read of the Sidwell philosophy gives a strong impression that the standards are not the essence of the school. Marshak draws on Peter Senge to direct us away from Taylorism. He cites Senge as saying 'Today's problems come from yesterday's ‘solutions.'

Marshak comments:

"Factory model schools, though always flawed by racism and classism, worked reasonably well when America was primarily an industrial society. But given our evolution into a more postindustrial cultures, the industrial elements of schools-mass production, rigid time and curricular structures, simplistic age-grading, and Depersonalization and alienation-have become the problem, not the solution.

In my opinion, the Obama/Duncan approach would only exacerbate the problems created by our industrial model-national academic standards and a national test, merit pay for higher test scores, a longer school day, a longer school week, a longer school year and charter schools handed off to entrepreneurs. More math, more science. This is an industrial command-and-control model on steroids.

Sidwell, by contrast, encourages a rich interdisciplinary curriculum designed to stimulate inquiry; the expression of artistic abilities; reflection; "stewardship of the natural world"; service to others; scientific investigation; creative expression; group as well as individual learning; personalization of learning and education of the whole person.

It is worth noting that while President Obama provides us with articulate and detailed explanations of his plans for the economy, health-care, and foreign policy, he and Duncan both speak in glib generalizations and trivialities when they address education.

Higher standards as a curative for school ills have been actively promoted for over 100 years. It seems to have had no effect, at least from the perspective of the public school critics. Secretary Duncan spoke of the "education crisis" in virtually all of his early speeches, coupling it to the economic crisis. Thus, after 100 years of cries for higher standards, we are still in an education crisis. The push for higher standards has not worked. Perhaps it is time to try something else.

The Sidwell approach looks good to me. Can it work in schools such as the one Linda Perlstein describes in Tested?  She thinks so, but not while high-stakes testing displaces true education. This is the critical issue. As Yong Zhao pointed out in the Detroit Free Press, "President Barack Obama and national education officials appear to be moving the United States toward national K-12 standards-a mandate that would cause irreversible damage to an education system already suffering from No Child Left Behind."

http://epicpolicy.org/publication/Bracey-Report 20 of 24

Jim Mordecai

Teachers need to be united in some way whether it is a union, a professional association, or some other way, as yet undefined.  We need to be in agreement as to what the purpose of education is and have a reasonably unified definition of good teaching. Until this condition exists we will be at the mercy of those who have a stake in defining us.

I was teaching in an inner-city school when the testing mania began and I was apalled at the attitudes of my colleagues.  I am pretty sure their actions were representative of many teachers in similar and more affluent surroundings.

Many of the younger teachers actively embraced the testing program at first.  They saw it as an opportunity to show everyone that they were great teachers even if they were fresh out of college.  Many of the older teachers were near tears.  They had spent their lives believing that teaching the test was tantamount to fraud and now they were seeing the whole educational effort for the community focused on exactly that.

When any of us spoke out against the testing program we were accused of not wanting to be held accountable,  I was asked what it was I thought I needed to hide. In the absence of any real standards of teacher behvior there was no way to argue with this.

I do not believe that the new NEA position on teacher evaluation will do much good and it has the potential to do a great deal of harm.  Unless teachers ae willing to come together in some way to say "We are good teachers and here is the evidence!" there will continue to be demonizing of teachers by those who believe they will benefit from the destruction of public schools.