Disturbing threads weave through three policies

Published June 2010 Voice

Three major federal and state policy initiatives currently taking center stage parallel the theme of Bill Murray’s hit movie “Groundhog Day.” The same bad things occur over and over.

Unlike the hilarity in Murray’s film, however, there is nothing funny about the recurring themes threading through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the Race to the Top (RTTT) program, and—moving to the state level—the proposed reauthorization of Pennsylvania’s Education Empowerment Act.

“There is remarkable alignment between the three pieces of legislation,” said Stinson Stroup, PSEA’s Manager of Education Services. “Their singularity of purpose and method is anti-professional—and I think anti-student.’’

The three initiatives may be playing out in individual pieces, but it is important for PSEA members to view them collectively.

“Proposals under each reflect an unfair assault on the teaching profession,” PSEA President James P. Testerman said. “They each imply that teachers aren’t working long enough or hard enough, that merit pay is needed to properly motivate them, and that student test scores are an effective evaluation measurement.”

Testerman said this “silver bullet’’ thinking ignores such crucial factors as school and home environment, class sizes, and funding and resources that differ from school to school.

“These issues,” Testerman said, “cannot be addressed in a one-size-fits-all approach to public education.”

The polices also ignore research showing the ineffectiveness of merit pay in the private sector, something detailed in PSEA’s official response to RTTT regulations: Getting on the Right Track (www.psea.org/rttt).

As PSEA has noted, there are positive aspects to the Race to the Top program, and we have left the decision to participate with our locals. For those EAs that have signed the required RTTT Memorandums of Understanding with their school districts, PSEA is providing guidance on key issues.

PSEA also has been working with the Pennsylvania Department of Education to propose innovative, research-based strategies in the RTTT application, many of which are outlined in PSEA’s 20/20 Vision for the Future (www.psea.org/vision).

Similarly, while PSEA and NEA see some positives in the Obama Administration’s “blueprint’’ for ESEA reauthorization, there are still common threads with RTTT that are alarming.

For example, ESEA features the same four school turnaround models that RTTT advocates—measures that may include widespread staff adjustments, school closings, greater use of charter schools, and private education management firms. Teacher compensation is partially evaluation-based in these models, and a greater share of school district funding is subject to competitive grants than with the current ESEA, which funds schools primarily through formulas that reflect need levels.

The disturbing federal thread runs further, into state legislation.

Many RTTT and ESEA concepts emerge again in the state Education Empowerment Act reauthorization bill that has cleared the Senate Education Committee (see separate story, page 12).

PSEA and NEA will continue to fight for improvements to all three pieces of legislation. We will continue to fight for modifications that would focus far less on punishing and more on supporting public schools and public school teachers through targeted intervention, strategic curricula and proven, research-based measures.

As always, it’s critical for PSEA members to enhance these efforts by contacting elected officials, and by
voting for candidates who realize that the critical issues facing  today’s public education professionals are far too nuanced for one-size-fits-all solutions.