We have learned to watch what the AFT/UFT leaders do, not what they say. Just as the AFT was on the NCLB committee (remember the “it could have been worse if we didn’t have a seat at the table” argument) we can see in NYC how the UFT agreed to various form of using data to measure teachers (oh, but a principal can’t make you bring the results with you for an interview – wink, wink) and various forms of merit pay -er – bonuses for results based 90% on high stakes tests – which the AFT/UFT says in press releases are we too overemphasized – but why not take the money anyway – wink, wink.

The Education Department has listed 19 criteria on which to judge grant proposals. “We are going to use our own four criteria when reviewing the department’s plan,” Weingarten says. “They are: Does it help kids? Is it fair and helpful to educators? Is it transparent? And does it require shared responsibility? If the answer is ‘yes’ for each, then we have a real chance of improving the quality of teaching and learning and raising student achievement.”

Weingarten says the AFT will withhold final judgment until the final regulations are issued, following the 30-day comment period, of which AFT leaders will take full advantage.

“Will we agree with everything? I doubt it. But hopefully we will agree that teacher evaluations must be improved the right way. We need meaningful, fair and multiple measures for supporting and evaluating teachers so that evaluations aren’t based on one observation by a principal or one standardized test score,” Weingarten says. “But both the president and Secretary Duncan understand that teachers are essential to education reform and that their voices need to be heard as we launch this major offensive to improve public education.” [AFT press release]

July 24, 2009

Obama calls Randi Weingarten: …we really, really need your help in persuading the following guys to support my Health Care bill … can u get your members to make phone calls, visit their offices …?

Randi responds, not a problem, but … maybe Arne can back off and we can take another approach to the Charter School cap and performance pay issues … what do you say?

As Bismarck was reputed to have said: “The two things u don’t want to see made in person are sausage and laws.”

Having read NLB from start to end, it was pretty clear that the DOE acted within the letter and the spirit of the legislation. It allowed Title I funding to be conditional on the NCLB testing and sanction paradigm.

I haven’t read the current legislation cover to cover myself, but I don’t think think that it says anything about state tenure laws or the use of student data to evaluate teachers. The questions that CT (?) asked about NCLB regulations were within the confines of what the NCLB legislation said. I believe that these conditions are clearly outside the scope of the legislation, and therefore quite problematic.

Of course the states wouldn’t get any money unless they win the case or change their laws, whichever come first. That should go without saying.

I’m not sure why you think that “with Health Care in serious jeopardy the Obama guys are not going to risk alienating teachers and their union.” Are you saying that Obama & Co will now back off of demanding charter caps be lifted, tenure laws made more strict and allowing the use of achievement data to measure teachers? All three of those positions run against against teacher union positions. This is not about the NCLB authorization. This is about the Race to the Top funds, and that is going on right now!

There is substantial case law … a state, Conn (?), sued the fed over Ed Dept implementation of NCLB, without success … the regs would have to directly contradict the underlying statute … a clear nexus … and, of course, the state would not recieve the dollars while the action proceeds through the courts …this is an intellectual exercise … with Health Care in serious jeopardy the Obama guys are not going to risk alienating teachers and their unions … they will finesse … the NCLB reauthorization … which will not raise it’s head until AFTER Health Care will be the battlefield …

Obviously the executive branch writes the regulations. But those regulations must fit within the legislation. There is a whole body of law regarding the leeway and discretion that the executive branch can have in this area.

I am asking if — perhaps even suggesting that — the kinds of conditions that the executive branch is trying to attach to these funds are not consistent with the authorizing legislation. I think that the executive branch is overreaching on this one. There was no intent to use these funds to force states to change their own laws — quite unlike how congress authorized the DOT to pressure states to change their speed limits and seat belt laws.

I do not know if any state will actually sue the federal government on this, but there clearly is a case to be made. It would be up to the courts to rule on this matter. But the power to write regulations is not unlimited, and is — Bush’s signing statements not withstanding — subservient to congress’s right to write legislation.

The law, the stimulus law, allocated the dollars, the Dept of Ed, wrote the regs … want to change the regs, change the president … the next big fight will be the offspring of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), now named No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the postponed reauthorization, which provides Title I funding, will be a major fight … at the present time the two major players, chairman Miller on the House side and Kennedy on the Senate side (or his yet unnamed successor) support pay for performance and test-based (outcome based) school/teacher evaluation … the Race to the Top “fight” is over … the “fight” over NCLB is in its infant stages … and a fight it will be!!!!!

Law: Congress. Regulations: Executive Branch.

Oh, and they are all elected. If you don’t like it, write to them and then try to vote them out. (Translation: wrong side of history!)

While Congress writes the bill, once it becomes law the federal agency, part of the executive branch writes the rules … the Stimulus dollars, the source of the Race to the Top funds, gives wide discretion in rule making to the executive department overseeing the funds … I suspect that the reauthoriization of NCLB, probably with a name change, will be far more specific …with major congressional battles over “puntative” versus “supportive” for “failing” schools.

It is up to Congress to determine spending, not the executive branch. The question is whether Congress authorized Duncan, the US DOE or anyone else in the executive branch to require states to change their laws in order to get this funding.

In NCLB, congress approved the denial of Title I funds to states that did not comply with the testing and sanction regime it required. That was the federal stick with which it forced state compliance.

I understand the federal government can condition federal funding on any number of things. I am not arguing with that. But I have a problem with how the Secretary of Education is trying to strong arm states without authorization from Congress to do so.