|
4401-A
Connecticut Avenue, Box 294, Washington, DC
20008
Tel: (202) 244-7535, Fax: (202) 244-7584
|
Education Exchange
Volume 1, Issue 3 -- October
1997
|
Focusing on
Education Reforms at Your School, in Your State
Legislature, and in Congress
|
Learning
First Alliance Formalizes Old Ties
Political Potential for Even Stronger Public
Education Monopoly
Twelve organizational giants of the public education
establishment announced September 29, 1997 that they had
formed a new team, the "Learning First Alliance." Unlike its
predecessor, the Forum of Educational Organization Leaders
(FEOL), the Alliance is a formal organization incorporated
in the District of Columbia, with staff, constitution and
bylaws, and an action agenda. Its fact sheet makes clear
that this collaboration is to be a permanent framework.
Its stated goals are threefold: 1) to ensure that high
academic expectations are held for all students 2) to ensure
a positive and supportive place of learning for all students
3) to engage parents and community members in helping
students achieve high academic expectations. These are
generic and positive goals, something few would oppose;
however, in order to achieve the first goal, the Alliance
says, "To provide all students the opportunity to achieve
these standards, policies, curriculum, instruction,
materials, facilities, technologies, educator preparation,
continuing professional development, assessment, school
structures, and delivery systems must be in alignment."
When all twelve member organizations put their power,
their financial resources, and their membership base behind
a single agenda, the educational/political landscape will
become more monolithic, if that is possible. Individual
members of the Alliance have spoken out vociferously against
education tax credits, vouchers, certain aspects of the
charter school movement, outsourcing, and many other serious
reform initiatives. Will this new organization make it
twelve times harder to crack the status quo?
This brings into clearer focus what has been true behind
the scenes for many years. It says these twelve purported
"mainstream" education organizations will now consult with
each other and walk openly in lockstep on advocacy issues.
But who will they advocate for? The children, as they say?
Or their memberships, to the exclusion of the best interests
of children, as many would argue they have done in the past?
In an address to the Representative Assembly at the NEA's
annual gathering, Executive Director Don Cameron had this to
say about the Alliance, "...our job is to continue
advocating for our members, and the surest way to protect
their jobs is to protect public education. The surest way to
improve their jobs is to improve the profession."
The first action item on the Alliance's agenda is to hold
a summit for staff and boards of the member organizations on
reading and math in January 1998 in Washington, D.C.
According to a preparatory memorandum for its kickoff news
conference, the Alliance stated that a major goal of the
summit will be to strengthen ties among its members.
At the summit, the Learning First Alliance also hopes to
"refine and ratify an action agenda for reading and math."
It remains to be seen whether this group will promote a
national curriculum and national testing to follow national
standards. Is it purely coincidence that formation of the
Alliance should be announced just as the debate over
national testing moves into high gear?
Stay tuned.
Who¹s In The New
Alliance?
- American Association of Colleges for Teacher
Education (AACTE)
- American Association of School Administrators (AASA)
- American Federation of Teachers (AFT)
- Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development (ASCD)
- Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)
- Education Commission of the States (ECS)
- National Association of Elementary School Principals
(NAESP)
- National Association of Secondary School Principals
(NASSP)
- National Association of State Boards of Education
(NASBE)
- National Education Association (NEA)
- National Parent Teacher Association (PTA)
- National School Boards Association (NSBA)
NEA Spins Property
Tax Payment at News Conference
At a hastily called press conference on the afternoon of
September 23, NEA President Bob Chase told 16 assembled
participants, at least six of whom were NEA personnel, "I am
announcing today that the National Education Association is
ending its opposition to the repeal of our property tax
exemption. An amendment to legislation currently pending in
Congress would remove the tax exemption without affecting
other provisions of the NEA charter."
The NEA was originally chartered in 1906 as a
professional association. In 1978, its mission and IRS
status officially changed to that of a labor union. By
agreeing to pay its 1998 property tax, estimated to be over
$1 million, the NEA has removed another objection by the
American Federation of Teachers as NEA/AFT talks of a merger
of the two unions proceed.
This press conference, held at the National Press Club in
Washington, D.C., was neither well-publicized, nor
videotaped. NEA union doorwatchers rudely asked Charlene K.
Haar, president of the Education Policy Institute, and Paul
Steidler, senior fellow with the Alexis de Tocqueville
Institution, to leave. When Haar and Steidler refused, they
were not permitted to ask questions of Chase.
Mr. Chase and the NEA union appear to have sought, by
holding this press conference behind closed doors among a
very sparse crowd, to beat a perceived losing battle to
maintain their tax exempt status and put the best "spin" on
it they possibly could. If they live up to their agreement
to begin paying property taxes in the District of Columbia,
this would be a victory for all who believe labor unions
should be treated the same as other businesses who must pay
taxes.
Critical
Analysis Determines National Commission Report on Teaching
and America's Future Flawed
In "Reforming Teacher Training and Recruitment: A
Critical Appraisal of the Recommendations of the National
Commission on Teaching and America's Future," authors Dale
Ballou and Michael Podgursky find little evidence that the
commission's recommendations will succeed and in fact are
likely to impede workable solutions.
They conclude that professional boards, mandatory
accreditation, or the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards do not and will not enhance student
achievement as claimed by the commission report. On the
contrary, they argue that "[T]he commission proposals
represent a major shift in decision-making power from local
school boards and state education agencies to private,
producer-dominated organizations." In fact, say Ballou and
Podgursky, "there is good reason to expect that teacher
recruitment would suffer" because of the hurdles for teacher
licensing and teacher training program accreditation favored
by the commission.
In its 1996 report, the National Commission on Teaching
and America's Future (NCTAF) criticized the current system
of teacher training and the number of public schools
employing "unqualified" teachers. To remedy these failings,
the 26-member NCTAF panel proposed four sweeping changes:
- accreditation of all teacher training programs by the
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
(NCATE),
- establishment of independent professional boards in
all states,
- certification of a large cadre of master teachers by
the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards
(NBPTS), and
- greater use of external assessments in personnel
policy matters such as tenure and recertification.
After a careful analysis however, economists Dale Ballou
and Michael Podgursky find that the commission has offered a
misleading and distorted picture of the "crisis" in teacher
education. Furthermore, the authors reveal and document ways
in which the commission misrepresented educational research
in an effort to support the commission's proposals. Two
organizations -- the National Council for Accreditation of
Teacher Education (NCATE) and the National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) &emdash; figure
prominently in the NCTAF recommendations. Their analysis
reveals that both NCATE and NBPTS have a direct financial
stake in the adoption of the commission's proposals.
The National Commission on Teaching and America's Future
was funded by the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations.
Commission members include major education organizations,
the presidents of the two major teacher unions, the NEA and
AFT, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher
Education, the National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards, and schools of education.
The NCTAF chairman was North Carolina Governor Jim Hunt,
who was honored with NEA's "Friend of Education" award in
July.
Fax requests for information to Michael Podgursky at
(573)882-2697.
Poll
Reveals Union Label is Liability
for National Education Association
Polling data by the National Institute for Labor
Relations Research indicates the public is often unaware
that the NEA is a labor union. In fact, the data reveal that
the "union" label is a tremendous liability, particularly in
political campaigns. Little wonder then that the NEA and its
state affiliates spend millions in public relations
campaigns to keep this fact from the public as well as its
members. As office-seekers oppose NEA/AFT endorsed
candidates, expect the aspirants to use this recipe for
success as they reinforce the union connection by referring
to the NEA as the "NEA Union."
|
According to the NEA's Strategic Focus Plan and
Budget for FY 1997-98, the world's largest labor
union has allocated $20,801,321 to build support
for public education. Budget items include public
relations and media strategies, legislative agenda
lobbying, candidate support, and state-specific
campaign plan development.
|
NCATE
Part of Teacher Union Cartel
The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher
Education (NCATE) is part of the teacher union cartel which
aims to control all aspects of education. Made up almost
exclusively of professional educators and establishment
figures, NCATE was developed and funded by the National
Education Association in the 1950s.
As it operates today, school administrators and boards
are encouraged to recruit and accept only teachers from
college and university teacher education programs approved
by NCATE. Of 1,300 schools of education, about 500 are NCATE
accredited. In their research, labor economists Dale Ballou
and Michael Podgursky find no evidence that NCATE-accredited
institutions produce better trained teachers. On the
contrary, their findings reveal that NCATE control may
actually impede teacher candidates.
NEA's 1997-98 budgeted contribution to NCATE is $366,600,
almost one fifth of NCATE's annual budget of $2,000,000.
Seemingly, in accordance with their financial support, both
teacher unions -- the NEA and the American Federation of
Teachers -- supply NCATE board members. NEA and AFT officers
serve on NCATE's board. As further evidence of the union's
influence, NCATE executive director Arthur Wise also serves
on the NEA's foundation board.
As a political force, NCATE strives to enter into
agreements with state boards of education to impose NCATE
standards statewide. NCATE's goal is to control the
continuum of teacher preparation including recruitment,
entry, licensing, and continuing teacher training.
Election
Looms for Dallas Teachers
For over a year, a committee of independent teacher
organizations and representatives from the two teacher
unions has been meeting in Dallas, Texas to discuss
education and labor issues. Currently, educators and
education support staff have three options: 1) affiliate
with the professional organizations -- the Dallas
Association of Texas Professional Educators or the Texas
Classroom Teachers Affiliate, 2) affiliate with the teacher
unions -- the Classroom Teachers of Dallas (an affiliate of
the Texas State Teachers Association and the NEA) or The
Alliance (an affiliate of the Texas Federation of Teachers
and the AFT, AFL-CIO), or 3) remain independent.
Recently, without the committee's backing, the Dallas AFT
affiliate convinced the staff and members of the Dallas
Independent School District board to call for an "exclusive
consultation" election October 30. Qualified voters will
vote for one of the two professional groups, one of the two
unions, or to maintain the current choices, including
remaining unaffiliated. If no single group receives a
majority of the votes cast, there will be a runoff. The move
to require representation with one group is deemed by
critics as a "stranglehold on the board and on the 15,000
teachers in the DISD, not to mention a way to bypass the
state's right to work laws!"
The election and a runoff will cost the taxpayers an
estimated $14,000. It appears that the clash will be between
the well-financed local affiliates of the teacher unions,
since the professional organizations have no full time
employees in the district.
With approximately 1,500 members each, the NEA and AFT
affiliates are each mobilizing to win the election. The
potential prize of 15,000 educators who may be required to
pay union dues of approximately $500 each could mean a
$7,500,000 windfall to the winning treasury.
In recent years, the urban school districts of San
Antonio, Houston, Corpus Christi, and El Paso have all
adopted "exclusive consultation." In each of those
districts, the teacher unions -- the NEA and AFT -- defeated
the independent, professional organizations.
EPI's
Education Quick Facts
- From 1985 to 1996, federal funding for elementary and
secondary education increased by 47 percent.
- Funds for student financial assistance increased to
$30 billion in 1996, a rise of 127 percent since 1990.
- According to FY 1996 estimates, $30.4 billion or
about 43 percent of the $70.9 billion spent by the
federal government on education came from the U.S.
Department of Education.
- Only 68 percent of 1994-95 dropouts were in the labor
force (employed or looking for work), and 30 percent of
them were unemployed. Of the 1995 high school graduates
who were not in college, 80 percent were in the labor
force, and 21 percent of those in the labor force were
unemployed.
- Between 1984 and 1994, the number of male full-time
graduate students increased by 25 percent compared to 62
percent for full-time women. Among part-time graduate
students, the number of men increased by 8 percent
compared to a 30 percent increase for women.
- Among college and university faculty, 71 percent of
men, compared with 50 percent of women held tenure in
1994-95.
- Research expenditures rose by 43 percent per student
at public universities, and by 53 percent at other public
four-year colleges between 1983-34 and 1993-94. (Source:
Digest of Education Statistics 1996)
- The NEA UniServ Program...for ethnic minorities and
women is seeking candidates for the next training program
starting July 12, 1998. Interested in applying? (Source:
October 1997 NEA NOW!)
Copyright 1997
Education Policy Institute, PMB 294, 4401-A Connecticut
Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20008-2322 202/244-7535, Fax
202/244-7584 http://www.educationpolicy.org
|
