Perhaps the most impressive dialogue of my week in Washington came from the former Commissioner of CT Higher Education, Michael Usdan, former Bush Dept. of Education appointee Michal Peterilli and Former Clinton Dept. Education appointee, Michal Cohen. The three engaged in a spirited debate on the driving forces behind education policy.
Michael Usdan stated that “NCLB has been the largest and most intrusive form of legislation under a Republican.” Usdan went on the state that our nation, “struggles with the tensions of federalism” from people who have a “mindless anti-government attitude.” As luck would have it, Usdan made these remarks on April 15th while the “Tea Party” protests were occurring about a block from the conference center. As a school administrator and Conservative, I find Mr. Usdan’s comments objectionable and insulting, especially in light of a recent poll that found that 89% of “Tea-Party” protesters have a college degree. Unfortunately, I was part of a very small group of conference attendee’s that did not break out in thunderous applause when Mr. Usdan made his remarks. To that end, Micahel Usdan does not see any significant change in education throughout our nation because of the, “complex and decentralized system of American public education.” Mr. Usdan’s tone of voice when commenting on the “tensions of federalism” led me to believe that he’s hardly an advocate of states rights under the 10th Amendment.
On the other hand, former Bush appointee Michael Petrilli and current Vice President of the “Thomas B. Fordham Institute” praised the President and Secretary Duncan for the blueprint on reauthorization on ESEA. Having read the report, it is purposely vague and only points to the President’s overall education goals and does not indicate the specifics that the federal legislation will include. Petrilli pointed out that under the blueprint, “Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) will be eliminated for 95% of American schools”, which is in line with Assistant Secretary of Education, Dr. Melendez when she reviewed the blueprint by stating, “Major reforms under ESEA will target the nation’s bottom five percent of schools.” Mr. Petrilli also discussed the amount of power the two major teacher unions have in politics. “The NEA was the single largest financial donor in the 2008 election.” This statement drew jeers from the audience. Petrilli also countered Usdan’s comments regarding NCLB by suggesting that Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) is an even greater degree of federal intrusion and much more expensive than NCLB. As one could imagine, the crowd had a noticeable shift in it posture. It is interesting to point out that our own state legislature has underfunded Bethel to the tune of about $500K for costs associated with IDEA.
Petrilli, also a certified public school teacher commented that too often, “The union protects ineffective teachers from removal.” Much to my disappointment, there were “boo’s” and “hisses” from around the audience. My guess is that these folks have never heard of the “Temporary Reassignment Centers” where approximately 600 New York City teachers sit everyday collecting a paycheck while they await charges of criminal behavior and incompetence. Even the “New Yorker” magazine wrote a great piece of these so called “Rubber Rooms.”
As a former Clinton Dept. of Education appointee, Michael Cohen stated that despite having bipartisan support, “NCLB has been the ultimate screw tightening that grew out of federal frustration with previous measures of education accountability.” Bipartisan support is an understatement. NCLB passed in the Senate 87 for to 10 against, with three Senators not voting. The House was a similar result with 371 for and 41 against, with 12 rep’s not voting. Cohen pointed out to all present that the late Senator Ted Kennedy authored a significant portion of the legislation and was also the legislations most prominent sponsor. Apparently just about everyone in the room chose not to recall these facts, as there were no cheers for the late Senator. Although Cohen did point out the shortcomings of NCLB, he was steadfast in his belief that without national education standards, our schools will not improve. Cohen stated that “Both Bush 41 and Clinton tried to adopt national standards, and both failed.” As a former U.S. History and Government teacher and current school administrator, I can attest to the need for some a common rigorous curriculum that crosses state lines. The problem will always be on whose standards will be imbedded in the curriculum and what the true definition of “rigor” is. One fine example is the recent debacle in Texas regarding U.S. History textbooks for high school students.
No doubt, there are flaws with NCLB, as there is just about every piece of legislation that comes out of Washington. In my view, it is unfair to declare a school “in need of improvement” if only a small portion or “sub-group” of students in a school do not meet goal on a standardized test, especially if these tests vary from state to state. One thing is certain, more laws on the books are not likely to dramatically improve education unless as a society we address some major social issues, which neither the legislative, nor judicial process can fix. Basically, learning can not be legislated from Hartford or D.C.
Teenage drug and alcohol abuse, drop out rates, uncontrolled illegal immigration, and the growing fact that more and more American college freshman need remedial academic support in college are just a few examples of how education and the enduring legacy of our Republic are suffering.
During most of the panel discussions, members of the audience had a chance to comment and ask questions. One such exchange took place when a high school principal from New England disagreed with Michael Petrilli. The principal disagreed with Petrilli’s comments regarding teachers unions. Unfortunately, too many people present cheered. Petrilli countered with specific examples of facts. The principal then stated that he has fired tenured teacher for incompetence. Petrilli’s final remark which drew silence in the room was on how much time, money and legal loopholes the current system requires in order to remove ineffective staff. At the end of the presentation Petrilli made a “B-line” for the door. I followed him into that hallway, introduced myself, shook his hand and thanked him for “saying what had to be said.” Mike and I spoke for a few moments about the small group of other Republicans in the crowd that also approached him. We’ve managed to exchange a few emails since the conference.
This particular discussion made me think about CT legislation that awaits Governor Rell’s signature. According the to The News Times, “The changes will increase the minimum number of credits students need to graduate from 20 to 25, increase the number of math and science courses and for the first time, require students to take world languages, though the requirement can be satisfied in middle school.” The estimated costs of this plan are about $21 million and will add 380 teachers statewide. Guess what? This money will NOT come from the state. And if it comes from the Fed’s via “Race To The Top,” it will be in the form of a one time competitive grant that we already lost out on once.
Comments on this entry are closed.