Obama sits down at the the table with Corporate America, gives them our public schools

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/08/21/nea_breaks_with_administration.html?hpid=topnews

NEA Attacks Administration's Education Reform Plan

By Nick Anderson
The nation's largest teachers union sharply attacked President Obama's most significant school improvement initiative on Friday evening, saying that it puts too much emphasis on a "narrow agenda" centered on charter schools and echoes the Bush administration's "top-down approach" to reform.

The National Education Association's criticism of http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/23/AR2009072303881.html">Obama's $4.35 billion "Race to the Top" initiative came nearly a month after the president http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNbDv0zPBV4">unveiled the competitive grant program, meant to spur states to move toward teacher performance pay; lift caps on independently operated, publicly funded charter schools; and take other steps to shake up school systems.

The NEA's statement to the Department of Education came a week before the end of the public-comment period on the administration's proposal, and it reflected deep divisions over the White House's education agenda within a constituency largely loyal to the Democratic Party.

The union, which boasts 3.2 million members, charged that Race to the Top contradicted administration pledges to give states more flexibility in how they improve schools. "We find this top-down approach disturbing; we have been down that road before with the failures of No Child Left Behind," http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/NEA_documents_082109.doc">the union wrote in its comments, "and we cannot support yet another layer of federal mandates that have little or no research base of success and that usurp state and local government's responsibilities for public education."

It added: "Despite growing evidence to the contrary, it appears that the administration has decided that charter schools are the only answer to what ails America's public schools -- urban, suburban, exurban and rural -- and all must comply with that silver bullet."

We urge the Administration to step outside of this narrow agenda and embrace the diversity of choices available to students, parents, school districts, and states across the country. Well-designed charters are not the only way to innovate, and we need to embrace and champion other models such as magnet schools.

August 21, 2009

VIA eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov


Secretary of Education Arne Duncan
c/o Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
Attn: Race to the Top Comments
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 3W329
Washington, DC 20202


Re: Race to the Top Fund

The National Education Association appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Proposed Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria published in the July 29, 2009 Federal Register regarding the Race to the Top Fund.

On Friday, July 24, 2009, the Department of Education unveiled a package of proposals and priorities designed to invite comment on ways to reform the public education system in this country—the Race to the Top proposal subsequently was published in the Federal Register. It is clear that this Administration cares about students and it is clear that NEA and this Administration share the same goal: to dramatically transform the public education system so that every public school is a center of excellence and all students gain the skills and education they need to become lifelong learners and healthy, productive citizens in this global society.

Admirable Goals
NEA appreciates that the Obama Administration is speaking out about a crucial truth: The current system is failing many students. If nothing changes, up to half of America’s school children who are poor and minority will not graduate from high school—a situation that is not only deplorable, but criminal as well.

NEA applauds the Obama Administration for keeping its commitment to deliver resources to support and improve the public education system. Earlier this year, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was enacted, and in July, the Administration unveiled $4.35 billion of those funds as part of the Race to the Top competitive grant program. With the other grant funds described that day, the federal investment will be close to $10 billion. NEA applauds the Obama Administration’s commitment to students at risk—the grant funds are targeted to schools in the highest poverty areas.

NEA applauds the fact that the RTTT grant applications require the support of teachers and other school staff—for far too long the voices of educators have been ignored.

NEA applauds the fact that the RTTT grant competition will require states to adopt internationally recognized high standards, as well as better tests and more comprehensive tracking of multiple lines of evidence of student achievement.

NEA applauds the fact that the Obama Administration continues to emphasize the importance of teacher quality in student success, and that schools that face the toughest challenges must have the most talented, qualified people available.

Proposal Misses the Mark
Up to this point, the NEA has been a vocal supporter of the Obama Administration’s plans to transform public education by being “tight” on goals, but “looser” in how you achieve them. We were in total agreement with the sentiments expressed by Secretary Duncan in a speech at the National Press Club on May 29, 2009 when he said: “You know, when I was in Chicago, I didn’t think all the good ideas came from Washington. Now that I’m in Washington, I know all the good ideas don’t come from Washington. The good ideas are always going to come from great educators in local communities. And we want to continue to empower them.”

Given the details of the July Race to the Top grant proposal, NEA must now ask: Where did that commitment to local communities go?

The details of the RTTT proposal do not seem to square with the Administration’s earlier philosophy. The Administration’s theory of success now seems to be tight on the goals and tight on the means, with prescriptions that are not well-grounded in knowledge from practice and are unlikely to meet the goals. We find this top-down approach disturbing; we have been down that road before with the failures of No Child Left Behind, and we cannot support yet another layer of federal mandates that have little or no research base of success and that usurp state and local government’s responsibilities for public education.

Instead of focusing on strengthening enforcement of civil rights laws to promote access and opportunity for students, the Administration has chosen the path of a series of top-down directives that may discourage rather than encourage productive innovation in classrooms and schools across the country. Despite growing evidence to the contrary, it appears that the Administration has decided that charter schools are the only answer to what ails America’s public schools—urban, suburban, exurban, and rural—and all must comply with that silver bullet, despite the fact that charters have often produced lower achievement gains than district-run public schools.

We urge the Administration to step outside of this narrow agenda and embrace the diversity of choices available to students, parents, school districts, and states across the country. Well-designed charters are not the only way to innovate, and we need to embrace and champion other models such as magnet schools.

Assessing student learning is another area where we need more and better options. What is being proposed is simply tweaking the current top-down, federally mandated insistence on hewing to standardized test scores. We know that model is not working, so basing even more educational decisions on these same test scores is counterproductive and counterintuitive. Enough is enough.

<...>

In addition to these overall comments, we have provided detailed comments below on several priority issues.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of NEA’s comments and we look forward to discussing this matter with the appropriate staff. I can be reached via telephone at (202) 822-7946 or via email at kbrilliant@nea.org.

Sincerely,

/Kay Brilliant/

Kay Brilliant, Director
Education Policy and Practice Department

• We should not continue to narrowly focus on charter schools as the only model of reform for schools worthy of serious attention.

There are good charter schools and there are very bad charter schools. It all depends on how well they are designed and how they are held accountable. Charter schools were originally started as places where educators, communities, and parents who wanted to try something out of the box—such as scheduling or curriculum or parental involvement or ways to motivate students and could experiment—in the hopes that if we found something that worked well, we could scale it up to other public schools.

Putting a cap on the number of charters in a state makes sense so that states can put good systems in place to approve, monitor, evaluate, and hold these charter schools accountable. Among the states that have had the most egregious examples of corruption, mismanagement, and incompetence in charter schools is Arizona, a state that has very lax rules on design and accountability and, not surprisingly, no limit on the number of charter schools that can be established in that state.

Where charters are working well, they are highly accountable, non-selective public schools where public school employees are given unprecedented freedom to experiment with success models that can be scaled up. Taking the caps off charter schools means LESS accountability as monitoring agencies would not have the time and resources to ensure that every charter school would be held to high standards.

Furthermore, the RTTT proposal insists on states adopting a charter school law that “does not…effectively inhibit increasing the number of charter schools in the state…” The “effectively inhibit” language is overbroad and vague, providing ample opportunity for federal interference with state authority to determine how and under what standards charters are authorized and monitored.

Additionally, there are 11 states that do not have charter school laws for varying reasons. For example, Washington State’s citizens have had votes at least three times, and overwhelming majorities voted charters down. When the people of a state speak in this democratic union, the government should listen. Creating a proposal that focuses its efforts for innovation primarily on charters violates that principle and ignores the other kinds of innovation and creativity happening in the public school system—such as magnet schools, academies and any number of innovative programs from which parents can choose.

In some states, like Montana, the administration’s proposal on charter schools is unconstitutional. It isn’t just unworkable—it is unconstitutional. Under Montana’s standard of accreditation, which was recommended by the State Superintendent and adopted by the Board of Public Education, charter schools are permissible—but none have been chartered. Requiring the opening of charter schools in one of the most rural states in the nation does not make sense.

The proposal also would usurp Montana collective bargaining rights, statutory rights, and local school board governance. The Montana state legislature would be involved in school governance, something MEA-MFT has successfully fought for decades.

If education reform is to be done with teachers and their representatives, instead of to us, it is important that the administration understand what is working already. Montana has a strong public education system. It can be improved, and it is committed to improving education, especially for Native American students, but not at the expense of its state constitution, and not at the expense of members’ statutory and collective bargaining and rights.

Lastly, we urge the Administration to start highlighting models in addition to charters. For example, magnets promote racial and socioeconomic integration more effectively than charters, while offering the same advanced academics and unique courses that make both models popular among parents, according to a 2008 report from the Civil Rights Project at University of California, Los Angeles. The report found that magnets embody a key advantage over charter schools, namely, integration: Magnets promote it, while charter schools can exacerbate racial isolation.

link (doc)