Gluttons for Punishment:
The NEA’s Early
Endorsement of Obama
By Jane Weinkrantz
7/18/2011
Given
what a colossal disappointment the Obama administration’s education policies
have been and how disrespectful of teachers Secretary of Education Duncan has
been, it should come as no surprise that the NEA delegates meeting in Chicago
this summer voted to communicate to President Obama “aggressively, forcefully
and immediately” their utter dissatisfaction with Arne Duncan. Their thirteen
criticisms of
Duncan
are spot-on and I recommend you read them. (http://www.nea.org/grants/33354.htm)
However, the NEA’s subsequent early endorsement of Barack Obama for
re-election made criticism of
Duncan
window-dressing. Could we not have postponed endorsing President Obama until he
had compelled his Secretary of Education to re-think some of his policies and
attitudes towards teachers and unions or, failing that, replaced him?
President Obama’s Secretary of Education, Arne
Duncan is a man whose background includes six years as a professional basketball
player in
Australia
followed by some half-dozen years working for the Ariel Education Initiative in
Illinois
which funded college educations for one class of inner-city children. He was
then appointed Chief Executive Officer of the
Chicago
school system by Mayor Daly and then Secretary of Education by President Obama.
Duncan
has no time in the classroom, other than working for his own mother as a tutor after school during high school and for
one summer after that. His biography frequently stresses his credentials as
“coming from a family of educators” as though education is in his blood.
Trust me, I come from a family of technology and science wizards, but you
don’t want me programming government databases.
Duncan
’s lack of hands-on experience hasn’t stopped him from applying his
basketball values to education and turning American education into the
ridiculous competition, Race to the Top. Fundamentally, the problem with any
race is that there are winners and losers. Why should the children living in
certain states automatically be losers? Would a more cooperative and less
competitive Secretary of Education been able to devise a system that helps all
American students, not just Georgians or New Yorkers? Now, states have to jump
through or dunk
Duncan
’s hoops of merit pay, tying teacher evaluation to test scores and increases
in charter schools to get federal funds. Not surprisingly, states that won RTTT
are having trouble implementing the changes they promised. Education
Week reported this week that ten of the winners have already submitted 25
changes that were approved by the Department of Education. (
New York
submitted a 32 page amendment that wipes out $10 million in funds for charter
schools, a smart move when one considers that though increased charter schools
were a requirement for RTTT, there is no evidence to support their results being
any better than public schools. Not only that, but The
New York Times recently reported allegations that charter schools are
weeding out special needs students in order to keep their passing rates higher.)
Were these changes fair to the states that lost RTTT? Will the amendments
encourage states to submit cynical proposals they know can’t be implemented in
order to “take the money and run?” Is that ethical if we agree that RTTT is
unfair in principle and that every state has to do what is best for its
children?
I imagine Arne Duncan with his hands over his ears, singing “La La La,
I’m in my happy place,” as problems with RTTT are brought to his attention.
Obviously,
Duncan
still has faith in the program because he is expanding it to pre-schoolers.
States will compete for $5 billion in resources for early childhood education
with an emphasis on helping high-needs children. Here is a description from the
Department of Education: “The
competition will focus on key reforms, including aligning early childhood
resources and systems and improving early learning and development standards and
assessment, program standards, tiered rating and improvement systems, and early
childhood educators. We will be looking to fund applications that demonstrate
courage, commitment, capacity, and creativity.” (http:www.ed.gov/early-learning/elc-draft-summary)
While the last sentence is charmingly alliterative, it is more than a
little vague and did I mention how I cringe whenever I see the phrase “looking
to?” Follow the links and you find that the first priority of RTT-ELC is
“Using Early Learning and Development Standards and Kindergarten Entry
Assessments to Promote School Readiness.” So,
Duncan
plans more standardized tests for 4 and 5 year-olds! What kind of pre-school
experiences end with assessments? Pre-school is time for creative play and
socialization. Pre-schoolers learn
to separate from their parents, listen attentively, keep their hands to
themselves, play interactively, dress up, sing songs, draw and color, practice
taking turns and taking care of class pets. They don’t take tests. About 64%
of American kids attend pre-school. Only
Oklahoma
funds early education for all of its kids. Otherwise, the likelihood of a child
attending pre-school diminishes as family income decreases. While funding
pre-school for all children in a worthy goal, why must we force our youngest
students into the assessment experience to obtain it? Yet,
Duncan
’s out of touch, one-size-fits-all solution continues: Compete and test.
Repeat. Why did we endorse a president who has shown no dissatisfaction with
this strategy?
Kenneth
Bernstein, A.K.A. Teacherken and a blogger at the Daily Kos, had this to say about the NEA’s early endorsement, “I
am a building rep for the NEA. I actually spoke personally with about 2/3
of my unionized teachers when the early endorsement - the first such in NEA
history - was proposed. Out of the more than 80 teachers with whom I spoke
only one supported the early endorsement. Many did not like giving up what
little leverage the union had with the administration.
Of
greater importance - the endorsement implies that the NEA believes there is a
difference between Duncan and Obama on educational policy. I am sorry to
say that I do not believe there to be any substantial difference between the two
men. Obama explicitly agreed with
Duncan
's
support of the firing of all the teachers at
Central
Falls
,
to cite just one example.
Unfortunately,
the administration is likely to ignore the strong criticism of its policies
contained in the resolution on
Duncan
and the press will go along with portraying the endorsement as
"overwhelming" or "strong" support when in fact the
historical record shows it to be very weak.”
The
NEA’s early endorsement of this administration and its very questionable
reform record and very poor treatment of educators reminds me of the 1978 comedy
about fraternities, “Animal House.” Those who have seen “Animal House”
may remember the scene in which the Omega fraternity begins its hazing. The
fraternity president says, “We now consecrate the bond of obedience,” as an
Omega pledge, played by Kevin Bacon, kneels before him and is whacked on the
bottom with a wooden paddle. He
says, “Thank you sir. May I have another?” and is whacked again.
I fear the NEA may have just said the same thing.
return
to pct homepage