Tag Archives: Nancy Pelosi

Pelosi, the Wayward Dem’s on SCHIP, and Al Wynn

There was a very good discussion in the comments of Lucas’ diary about Nancy Pelosi only speaking against Republicans for opposing the children’s health insurance bill (SCHIP), and not criticizing the Democrats who opposed the bill.

I think the role of Pelosi and the House leadership on SCHIP deserves more discussion, so I’m creating a new diary.

While I agree with Brian’s point that he wouldn’t expect Pelosi to publicly call out these Democrats by name in her email, her failure to call for switching the No votes of everyone who voted against the bill rather than just among Republicans signals that this is about politics, not passing the bill.  If it were solely about doing what was necessary to pass the bill, then Pelosi’s approach would have been much different from the start.

(continued)

For one thing, having any Democrats opposing SCHIP is a PR victory for Republicans:  it means that there’s bipartisan opposition to the bill.  Pre-emptively arm-twisting these 8 Democrats ahead of the vote would drastically raised the stakes for Republicans because they would get pinned for the full blame of the bill not being passed, or the veto overridden.  Having a few Democrats lets them muddy the water enough to sell “Congress failed kids” rather than the truth, which is “Republicans failed kids”.  Pelosi controlled the timing of the vote, so she could have easily put the full court press on beforehand, and given them ample warning that she would call them out for opposing the bill and all sorts of other things she could do to them to get them in line.  But she didn’t, obviously. 

Plus, we have to keep in mind the opportunity Pelosi lost by not getting these Dems to support the bill before they’ve publicly voted against it.  Had she done so, they could have been able to claim they were always for it.  As it stands now, they have to implicitly admit they did the “wrong thing” when they switch their vote to do the “right thing”.  Admitting error is a very hard thing to do for a politician. 

However, given the current situation, the fact remains that the easiest No votes to turn around should still be these Democrats – not the Republicans.  To not go after them means Democrat incumbent protection has a higher priority than children’s health insurance, and that should be condemned. 

And let’s not forget the bigger context here: Pelosi’s going to fundraise for Al Wynn, who has voted against his constituents and the most basic Democratic party principles (abolishing inheritance taxes, bankruptcy bill to name a couple).  By doing this, she’s sending the signal that what matters above all is circling the wagons for fellow Democratic incumbents.  And Marshall and the rest of the SCHIP opposing Dems qualify, so doesn’t it stand to reason she’ll give them a free pass too?  (And perhaps even campaign for them when they get a serious primary challenge?)

Although I hope there’s real arm-twisting going on behind the scenes, the fact that there’s no public pressure on these Dems suggests that they’re not really going to go to the mat on this, and so thank heavens for Blog Pac and Blue America PAC for going after these guys.

October 12, 2007 Blog Roundup

Today’s Blog Roundup is on the flip. People wrote a *lot* in the last couple days, which means that yesterday was a bad day for me to quit sniffing glue be too busy to put together a roundup. Let me know what I missed.

To subscribe by email, click
here and do what comes naturally
.

Oh, Madam Speaker…

Soldiers, Mercenaries,
“Security”

Health Care

Whiskey Is For Drinkin’

Environmment and, um,
Labor

Other Legislation

Local News

All the Rest

Pelosi Prefers Congress the Way It Is

(To be fair, I think we should point out that we still need those 15 Rep. votes, even if we get the 8 Dem votes. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

About an hour ago, my inbox was graced by an email from Speaker Nancy Pelosi, subject line “Heartless.” Inside, she took President Bush to task over SCHIP and his abandonment of the “compassionate” part of conservatism.  It used dramatic language like “forbid” and “cruel veto pen” while suggesting:

This was perhaps George Bush’s most heartless act ever — knowing that he could help deliver health care to millions of American children — then, wiping out that hope with a stroke of his veto pen.

We may not be able to change the President’s mind. But, if we work together — make it our mission between now and October 18th — we can find the 15 Republican votes we need to make the President’s cold-hearted veto pen powerless.

That’s right.  With my help and yours, maybe Congress can find its way out from under President Bush’s thumb.  All we need to do is convince Republicans.  And yet, there are eight Democrats who voted against SCHIP.  Should we not also be trying to convince them?  Change their minds?  The Speaker doesn’t seem to think so.(flip)

On the front page of DailyKos right now is a bit about Nancy Pelosi’s plans to fundraise and campaign for Al Wynn in his primary against Donna Edwards.  It juxtaposes this with her comments from yesterday saying that wanting to end the war immediately is irresponsible and that it is “‘a waste of time’ for them to target Democrats.”

But the two together and you get a rather strange assessment of Congress.  She doesn’t think that constituents should make their views known on major issues facing the country.  She also doesn’t think, apparently, that voters in MD-04 should replace Al Wynn, regardless of whether he actually represents their interests well.  It’s a depressing and hollow attempt to deny the responsibility of Democrats in failing to make any demonstrable progress towards ending the Iraq catastrophe.  On the one hand, she has to cover herself because any failures of the Democratic caucus ultimately will come back to her.

But she’s said that members of Congress will not listen to the voters. Period. It’s a waste of time. And trying to replace members of Congress who haven’t performed as well as their constituents demand, then constituents should lower their expectations.  And that’s what it all comes around to- a sentiment we’re all familiar with here.  Apparently it isn’t that Democrats aren’t accomplishing enough, it’s that we aren’t selling them short enough.  If people would just stop expecting anything from their government, everyone would be much happier.

Well I say nuts to that.  She declared Democrats in Congress to be leaders…except nobody’s going anywhere.  She declared that the “common folk” are irresponsible and shouldn’t be listened to.  She’s signed onto the inviolable sanctity of incumbency, but also declared that the best representation ignores the will and desires of the people.  And most of all, she’s declared that her caucus is exactly how she wants it.  Given what she’s done with it thusfar, I wonder whether it much matters how she wants it.  It’s time to start getting over the notion that “not worse” isn’t the same as “better.”

California FISA Targets

There is a huge fight right now to fix the FISA bill, with a new one called “The RESTORE Act” (H.R. 3773).  Two big issues: 1) Will they include language that let’s the FBI issue blanket, rather than targeted warrants? 2) Will they give immunity to the phone companies who broke the law because Bush told them too?  The bill is up in the House and the final language is a moving target.  It is the crucial time to get in touch with people who might be persuaded to ensure good language goes to the floor for a vote.

Here is the latest from the ACLU:

The bill caves in to Bush’s fear-mongering in a major way: it does NOT required the government to get an individual warrant before wiretapping Americans’ phones and emails. Instead, it allows for program or basket “warrants,” which aren’t really warrants at all. They’re the modern-day equivalent of allowing government agents to sit in our living rooms, recording our personal conversations. Only they’re more frightening, because the government now has the capacity to monitor us remotely and without our knowledge, and to save the information in a secret database forever.

One good thing is that the bill doesn’t yet include immunity for telecom companies that broke the law by handing over Americans’ private communications to the government, but we’re hearing immunity could be added back to the bill at any time.

Here are a few folks I know need to hear from you.  Give them a ring.  It is much more effective than sending email, though you can do that too.

CA-29  Adam Schiff  Schiff  2022254176
CA-14  Anna Eshoo  Eshoo  2022258104
CA-27  Brad Sherman  Sherman 2022255911
CA-28  Howard Berman  Berman  2022254695
CA-39  Linda Sanchez  Sanchez 2022256676
CA-35  Maxine Waters  Waters  2022252201
CA-01  Mike Thompson  Thompson  2022253311
CA-08  Nancy Pelosi  Pelosi  2022254965
CA-16  Zoe Lofgren  Lofgren 2022253072

Harman Speaks to Westside Progressives in Los Angeles

My post about Jane Harman’s remarks at a town hall meeting yesterday about the secret “torture memos” revealed this week by the New York Times is up at Think Progress, submitted through their Blog Fellows Program, which I can’t recommend enough.  Let me contextualize those remarks a bit more, and add some of the other interesting things Rep. Harman had to say.

I asked the question to Harman about the secret memos.  Earlier this week, the White House claimed that all relevant members of Congress had been fully briefed on the classified program sanctioning harsh interrogation techniques by the CIA.  At the time of the memos, Harman was a member of the “Gang Of Eight” routinely briefed on intelligence matters.  Harman was shaking her head as I asked the question if she was fully briefed, chuckling almost in disbelief.  Her answer:

We were not fully briefed. We were told about operational details but not these memos. Jay Rockefeller said the same thing, and I associate myself with his remarks. And we want to see these memos.

over…

Harman is now the third member of the Gang of Eight, joining Jay Rockefeller and Nancy Pelosi, to reject the White House’s claim that they were fully briefed about these memos.  The Administration is lying, again, and it is now incumbent upon Congress to make every effort to obtain those memos and to enshrine into law a full repudiation of the arguments therein described.  The follow-up question I wanted to ask Rep. Harman, but could not, was how she would go about pressuring the White House to get those documents.  Obviously the vehicle for this is through the confirmation of Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey.  Considering that these memos came out of the Justice Department, there should simply be no movement on his confirmation without an exchange of the memos.

Let me add some additional information about the town hall.  I wrote in my Think Progress post this tidbit:

Harman later revealed that she was speaking with an unidentified Republican in her office, who told her that if President Bush were to attack Iran, then even he would vote for impeachment.

You have to understand the environment of this town hall meeting.  The audience included the hardcore progressives that made up the core of the Marcy Winograd primary challenge to Harman in 2006; in fact, Winograd was on a panel right before Harman’s arrival.  These people were SCREAMING for impeachment; the first two questions were about this issue.  And Harman could do nothing but reiterate that Nancy Pelosi, not her, had taken impeachment off the table.  She went on to describe her no votes against the Clinton impeachment and how MoveOn.org was born out of the impeachment debate (odd of her to approvingly cite MoveOn, considering she voted to condemn their remarks in the “General Betrayus” ad).  But when she brought up Iran, she said “this little anecdote should make you smile,” and mentioned the above exchange.

Here are some of the other notable tidbits in Harman’s meeting.

• She recommended Jack Goldsmith’s “The Terror Presidency” as the best source for understanding how the Bush Administration attempted to expand executive power through neutering the Office of Legal Counsel.  She had the book with her.

• She reiterated that “intelligence was politicized again” on the FISA bill, referring to the fake terror attack hyped by the White House designed to get wavering Democrats to sanction warrantless surveillance.  It was a cold-blooded tactic, and it should be heavily publicized.  I thanked Rep. Harman for speaking out on this, and I hope that she’ll continue as well as encourage other members to corroborate her allegations.  Harman said she is working to change the new FISA bill, which will “probably be introduced this week.”  The goals are that any surveillance must be done through the FISA court, with a warrant, and with minimization protocols if a US national is involved.

• Harman spoke about her legislation to close Guantanamo, restore habeas corpus, and end the use of national security letters outside their initial purpose.  She spoke glowingly about the vote this week to put Blackwater contractors under the auspices of US law, and thanked both Rep. Waxman and Rick Jacobs, who produced Iraq for Sale, with their efforts to get the word out about Blackwater’s numerous abuses and how they fell into the “legal black hole” regarding their activities.

• She recommended the Seymour Hersh article about developments with respect to Iran, and said that she has invited him to speak to the Congress.  Harman was adamant in saying that “targeted sanctions are working” with Iran, and that the government should “stop the saber rattling” that could lead us to another catastrophic war.

• She trumpeted her contribution to the House energy bill, a measure to retire the incandescent light bulb by 2012.

• On trade, she made a disappointing statement.  Despite voting against NAFTA and CAFTA and claiming that she was proven right on those votes, she said that some trade deals are admissable with proper labor and environmental standards as well as trade adjustment assistance, and referring to the current Peruvian Free Trade Agreement that will come up for vote in a couple weeks, she said that “It was approved by Charlie Rangel.”  Uh-oh.  We know that this bill, crafted in the dead of night to appease corporate interests, does not go nearly far enough to ensure labor and environmental standards, and would be nothing more than NAFTA-light.

• Someone asked Rep. Harman about the Walt-Mearshimer book “The Israel Lobby” and AIPAC’s support for endless war, including war with Iran.  Harman, who has been linked in the past to lobbies like AIPAC, said “I’m not a member of AIPAC… I support a two-state solution where Palestine can thrive economically with borders that are defensible to Israel.”  She pretty much dodged the question.

• On the still-unresolved EPA waiver that would allow California to make their own rules on tailpipe emissions that contribute to global warming, Harman said that she signed on to a letter protesting the slow-rolling from the EPA and the Department of Transportation, and she added that Gov. Schwarzenegger should work harder to get DoT to “back off” (they’ve been accused of lobbying lawmakers to pressure the EPA to block the California law).

• Finally, Harman asked for education activists to call her office and tell her about the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind.  While she said that Rep. Miller has claimed to her it has been improved, she said “I am prepared to oppose it” if the changes are not satisfactory.

Progressive Punch: Jerry McNerney ranks 195th of 232

Woohoo! Jerry did it! Jerry McNerney has managed to become the most un-progressive Democrat of the entire California congressional delegation. For those keeping score at home, Jerry’s 82.45 was about a half point lower than the next CA Dem, Jim Costa, that progressive stalwart, at 82.97. And for all the talk of Harman changing her ways, she’s still worse than even Joe Baca, almost 7 points worse from a very safe Dem seat.

For all of you CA-45 fans, “moderate” Mary Bono came in with a stellar 4.42 Chips are Down score. So, for all the bluster of the SCHIP vote, she’s still dancing the same jig as the rest of her party.

On thing must be said, the Speaker has done an excellent job at preserving unity amongst the caucus. Whether that means she’s being too incremental and/or ineffective, or just laying down the law is the big question. The reason her approval rating, and the Congress in general, is down has a whole lot to do with the fact that little has changed on the Iraq front. So, would it be better to have a speaker who is more willing to take risks? Perhaps, but the impediment of the president always lingers over her head, veto pen in hand. So, whether the unity is really there, is an open question. Full data over the flip.








































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Rank Name 07-08 All-time ChipsAreDown Party State
1 Pelosi, Nancy 100.00 93.58 100.00 D CA
3 Sánchez, Linda T. 98.97 96.45 98.43 D CA
6 Lee, Barbara 98.45 96.99 97.18 D CA
9 Capps, Lois 98.28 88.95 97.49 D CA
13 Solis, Hilda L. 97.94 95.77 96.24 D CA
18 Richardson, Laura 97.83 97.83 96.43 D CA
23 Woolsey, Lynn C. 97.57 94.69 95.92 D CA
24 Filner, Bob 97.55 94.02 95.91 D CA
25 Matsui, Doris O. 97.42 94.46 95.30 D CA
26 Becerra, Xavier 97.33 92.41 95.19 D CA
37 Farr, Sam 96.72 90.66 94.98 D CA
39 Honda, Michael M. 96.63 94.39 94.67 D CA
51 Roybal-Allard, Lucille 96.39 92.79 94.03 D CA
55 Lofgren, Zoe 96.34 87.42 94.65 D CA
56 Tauscher, Ellen O. 96.23 83.14 93.10 D CA
58 Napolitano, Grace F. 96.17 90.68 93.42 D CA
63 Schiff, Adam B. 95.88 86.79 92.45 D CA
68 Waters, Maxine 95.77 93.38 93.31 D CA
71 Miller, George 95.72 93.67 93.20 D CA
73 Davis, Susan A. 95.70 87.53 93.10 D CA
77 Eshoo, Anna G. 95.64 88.63 93.38 D CA
82 Sherman, Brad 95.52 84.99 92.79 D CA
88 Berman, Howard L. 95.28 87.56 92.38 D CA
88 Watson, Diane E. 95.28 92.71 91.80 D CA
97 Thompson, Mike 95.01 85.33 93.42 D CA
102 Lantos, Tom 94.74 87.73 90.51 D CA
104 Sanchez, Loretta 94.49 84.58 90.19 D CA
114 Baca, Joe 94.16 82.91 90.28 D CA
127 Waxman, Henry A. 93.63 91.96 89.49 D CA
153 Stark, Fortney Pete 92.02 93.12 87.74 D CA
178 Cardoza, Dennis A. 90.09 77.80 84.86 D CA
179 Harman, Jane 89.82 76.91 83.86 D CA
187 Costa, Jim 89.22 78.46 82.97 D CA
195 McNerney, Jerry 87.63 87.63 82.45 D CA
274 Lewis, Jerry 18.40 10.68 4.73 R CA
283 Bono, Mary 16.01 11.32 4.42 R CA
295 Doolittle, John T. 12.72 4.44 1.57 R CA
313 Calvert, Ken 10.39 5.41 0.95 R CA
322 Hunter, Duncan 8.85 5.38 1.32 R CA
330 Gallegly, Elton 7.60 5.89 1.89 R CA
342 Rohrabacher, Dana 6.67 7.73 4.08 R CA
346 Dreier, David 6.38 5.19 2.51 R CA
352 Bilbray, Brian P. 6.07 13.85 3.77 R CA
356 McKeon, Howard P. “Buck” 5.91 3.87 1.27 R CA
370 Herger, Wally 4.92 3.30 0.95 R CA
373 Lungren, Daniel E. 4.81 4.43 1.25 R CA
376 Radanovich, George 4.60 3.65 1.27 R CA
378 Issa, Darrell E. 4.36 4.52 1.27 R CA
380 Miller, Gary G. 4.18 2.45 1.25 R CA
384 Nunes, Devin 4.01 3.30 0.31 R CA
385 McCarthy, Kevin 3.97 3.97 0.63 R CA
388 Royce, Edward R. 3.49 6.55 1.26 R CA
394 Campbell, John 3.12 3.77 2.85 R CA

Chips are down scorecard

(I was working on a similar post, but I’ll still post my own, with all CA data and some other miscellany. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

The problem with most scorecards is that they are written by lobbyists concerned with always getting the votes of potential supporters. Thus, there is an equal weighting while in the real world not all votes are equal. In fact, regardless of everything else, some votes are dealbreakers and when they show up on scorecards as one of 12 votes or something, it looks silly. However, Progressive Punch has a new “when the chips are down” scorecard. After the flip is the ratings of CA’s congressional delegation, in descending order.

Senate:

92.86 Boxer, Barbara
90.45 Feinstein, Dianne

House:

100.00 Pelosi, Nancy
98.43 Sánchez, Linda T.
97.49 Capps, Lois
97.18 Lee, Barbara
96.43 Richardson, Laura
96.24 Solis, Hilda L.
95.92 Woolsey, Lynn C.
95.91 Filner, Bob
95.30 Matsui, Doris O.
95.19 Becerra, Xavier
94.98 Farr, Sam
94.67 Honda, Michael M.
94.65 Lofgren, Zoe
94.03 Roybal-Allard, Lucille
93.42 Napolitano, Grace F.
93.42 Thompson, Mike
93.38 Eshoo, Anna G.
93.31 Waters, Maxine
93.20 Miller, George
93.10 Davis, Susan A.
93.10 Tauscher, Ellen O.
92.79 Sherman, Brad
92.45 Schiff, Adam B.
92.38 Berman, Howard L.
91.80 Watson, Diane E.
90.51 Lantos, Tom
90.28 Baca, Joe
90.19 Sanchez, Loretta
89.49 Waxman, Henry A.
87.74 Stark, Fortney Pete
84.86 Cardoza, Dennis A.
83.86 Harman, Jane
82.97 Costa, Jim
82.45 McNerney, Jerry

Student Privacy: Military Recruiter Edition of George Miller Getting NCLB Wrong

(full-disclosure: CTA has hired me to do blog outreach on NCLB)

Remember the uproar from parents when NCLB was first passed and they discovered that the law would automatically pass on their children’s contact information to military recruiters?  They made it an opt-in policy, rather than an opt-out, leaving it up to already incredibly busy parents to make sure recruiters could not hound their kids without their permission.  And it’s not like the military actually paid attention to those forms.  They often kept pressuring students to join the military, even once the opt-out form was signed and turned in.

The current version of the NCLB re-authorization by Miller/Pelosi has left in that regulation, forcing schools to choose between federal funding and letting the military recruit high school students without the prior permission of their parents.

The following was published in the California Educator back in 2004 (sorry no links):

Victor Banuelos was surprised when military recruiters called him at home repeatedly, telling him that the “only way out of the ghetto” was to join the military. The teenager’s name, address and phone number were provided courtesy of Los Angeles High School before Banuelos’ graduation last June.

“I told a recruiter that I was planning to go to college. He told me that I couldn’t pay for it, and that the only way out of the ghetto was through the military,” recalls Banuelos, now a freshman at UC Santa Cruz. “I told him I would get financial aid or student loans. He said I wouldn’t be able to pay for it and that I should go through the Army and get the GI Bill.” [snip]

The NCLB law gives students and their families the right to have personal information withheld from recruiters if they sign a written form. But even those who have signed these forms may find that their wishes are ignored.

“I got the form from a teacher and signed it,” recalls Banuelos. “But I still got contacted. I think it’s horrible to say that it’s important for no child to be left behind when, in reality, you are telling them they have no options but the military. I know my family is not the richest in the world, but I found a way to pay for college.”

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident.  Plenty of other Californian high school students have had to deal with the same problems:

Frances Martin, a senior at Crenshaw High School in Los Angeles, also signed the form to have her personal information withheld. Recruiters, however, call her cell phone on a regular basis. “I signed the paper to opt myself out and it didn’t mean anything, because they still got the information,” says Martin. “When I asked them how this happened, they said I fell through the cracks. And they keep calling.”

Rep. Mike Honda sponsored a bill, the Student Privacy Protection Act earlier this year to change the rule.  However, this is something that could be easily changed in the current draft of the NCLB re-authorization bill by George Miller and Nancy Pelosi.  It isn’t.  The problematic opt-out policy still remains.

Remember that this policy was put in to place, because there was a fear that some college campuses were banning the military from accessing their campus due to their Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy.  About 15% of high schools were doing the same.  However, federal law already requires every male who is a U.S. resident (regardless of citizenship) to register with the Selective Service System within 30 days of his 18th birthday. Failure to register could result in five years’ imprisonment and a $250,000 fine.  The military just wanted easier access to these kids before they turned 18, thus the provision in NCLB.

For good reason the military has been having a difficult time recruiting, but the Democrats in Congress should not allow them to contact these kids without the express authorization of their parents.  This needs to be fixed and is just one more reason Miller and Pelosi are getting it wrong on NCLB.

For more information see the CTA’s page on NCLB.

NCLB: Teachers and a garage size sign pay Pelosi a visit

(full disclosure: CTA has hired me to do blog outreach on NCLB)  cross-posted on DailyKos

Teachers, lawmakers and San Francisco labor leaders came together today to present House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with a garage door-sized CTA postcard about the current NCLB re-authorization draft.  The 8-foot by 12-foot postcard was signed by nearly 1,000 teachers.  Since the big one would not fit in the door, they dropped off a off a poster-sized picture of the big postcard to her 14th floor office.  Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi was not in her office to receive her visitors and their gift.

Teacher's Postcard to Nancy Pelosi

(sorry for the size, but wanted people to be able to read the text)

CTA Vice President Dean Vogel:

The Miller-Pelosi NCLB reauthorization plan will make it harder to attract and retain quality teachers in California classrooms. It continues to rely on testing as the measurement of student and school success. It creates a new federal mandate to pay and evaluate teachers based on student test scores. Test scores don’t fairly measure student achievement and cannot be used to accurately evaluate and pay teachers.

Here is Dean at the press conference.  He is the sweetest man, the kind of guy I wish I had as a teacher.

A few state politicians joined the teachers in speaking out against this NCLB draft.  Sen. Leland Yee, with his unique credentials said:

Leland Yee

Tying a student test score to a teacher evaluation or merit pay is an improper use of student assessment.  As a child psychologist, I understand that there are many factors that contribute to a student’s performance. I support the efforts of CTA to stop this latest version of NCLB, which only makes a bad law even worse.

There is a letter circulating the state capitol that many Democrats in the legislature have signed on to, calling on Pelosi to oppose the merit pay and other harmful one-size fits all education proposals in the reauthorization plan.  Here is an excerpt:

We urge you instead to help reshape this measure into one that would empower districts and local associations,” the letter states, in part. “Together, teachers and district administrators can develop proposals that include workable and productive means for recognizing teachers while improving the professional development of all teachers.

The event today is getting notice in the education community.  David Hoff over at the excellent NCLB blog at Education Weekly said:

In San Francisco today, the California Teachers Association will hold a news conference outside the office of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. The NEA affiliate will unveil a postcard opposing the House draft that 1,000 California teachers signed. The news advisory, which is not online, says the postcard is the size of a garage door. The CTA has its own legislative alert.
This is quite a public display of the union’s power, and it’s over a discussion draft. What’s going to be next?

The answer is whatever it takes to get this thing right.  It is too important not to be pulling out all the stops.  California’s children are counting on us to make sure that NCLB is fixed.  The quality of their education is at stake.  That is why you see the blog ads, state politicians speaking out, and postcards signed by a thousand teachers.

Find out more on the CTA NCLB website.

——

6th in a series.  See earlier posts:

Nancy Pelosi and George Miller are getting it wrong: NO on NCLB

Getting George Miller’s Attention and the Bad Miller/Pelosi NCLB Bill

Merit Pay and NCLB: George Miller Still Getting it Wrong

School Progress Assessment: George Miller and NCLB

More Reasons to Oppose the George Miller/Pelosi NCLB Proposal

More Reasons to Oppose the George Miller/Pelosi NCLB Proposal

(full disclosure CTA has hired me do to online outreach on NCLB)

It is well known that the current focus of NCLB on testing forces teachers to teach to the test. In fact, according to a recent national study by the Center on Education Policy, a majority of the nation’s school districts report that while increasing time for test preparation they have decreased class time for science, social studies, art, music, and physical education. In some elementary schools time for student lunches has also been cut to spend more time to prepare for the standardized tests mandated by the feds.  How depressing is that, kids forced to eat quickly and lose out on valuable social time to cram for a test.

The Miller/Pelosi reauthorization proposal continues to punish lower-performing schools, rather than providing assistance and resources to help all students and schools succeed. Their proposal creates four new levels of sanctions for struggling schools. This year NCLB labeled one out of every four California public schools as failing.  As an example of how ridiculous NCLB’s school rating system is, a California distinguished school, after successfully passing 45 of the 46 components of the NCLB rating system, was labeled a failure because ten English language learners did not score high enough on one test.

This relates directly to what I wrote about on Friday on the problematic usage of benchmarks rather than progress to assess school’s performance.  By California standards they were achieving, but missing just one benchmark, in this case 10 kids just learning English did not score high enough on one test taken on one day.

Remember that the Miller/Pelosi reauthorization proposal creates a new federal mandate to pay and evaluate teachers based on student test scores.

We know that test scores by themselves don’t fairly measure student achievement and they certainly will not be able to accurately evaluate a teacher’s effectiveness.  At a time when California will need more than 100,000 new teachers in the next 10 years, this proposal will discourage the quality teachers our schools so desperately need from ever entering the profession.

Call, write and fax your Congresscritter.  Plus contact Pelosi and George Miller.  Find out more at CTA’s NCLB page.