NEA Letter Responding to House Education Committee 
ESEA Titles II through XI Reauthorization Draft

George Miller    
Chairman    
House Committee on Education 

Howard P. "Buck" McKeon
Ranking Member
House Committee on Education

Michael Castle
Chairman
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education

Dale E. Kildee         
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education 

Dear Representatives:

We are writing in response to the discussion draft of Titles II through XI that you released on September 6. 

As we have stressed in prior communications with the Committee, we remain adamantly opposed to the federal intrusion on local collective bargaining found in the discussion draft of Title II.  Most of our discussions to date have centered on the premium pay program (Section 2111), which mandates that local districts applying for these grants must use student test scores as an element in determining teacher pay and bonuses.  We have asked repeatedly for a reasonable compromise that would ensure that any such programs are agreed to either through collective bargaining or, where bargaining does not exist, through a 75 percent majority vote of affected teachers.

We have found other "performance pay" provisions in the discussion draft of Title II, including Section 2112 (career ladders), Section 2216(c)(2)(A) (authorized use of state grant funds), and Section 2513(g)(2)(A) (authorized use of grant funds), which also mandate or authorize states and local districts to use student test scores as an element in determining teacher pay.  Our members across the country have made it very clear to us that they will not tolerate these assaults on labor.  From a policy standpoint, the performance pay provisions as currently written do not make sense, since experience has shown the importance of educator buy-in if these programs are to work long-term.  Educators' buy-in is not earned with federal mandates over which they do not have adequate ability to negotiate with their local districts.  Just in the past week, articles criticizing state "merit" pay plans appeared in Florida (Teachers shun merit-pay plan) and Alaska (Teachers give performance incentive program low marks).

Also troubling, Section 901 of the discussion draft removes the High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE), thereby eliminating teachers' ability to use the HOUSSE provisions to meet NCLB's highly qualified requirements.  States have counted on these provisions to help them retain caring, quality educators in the classroom until these teachers have met all the paperwork requirements found in the highly qualified definition.  Eliminating HOUSSE would cause irreparable harm to thousands of teachers not new to the profession, and would make it unnecessarily more difficult for states and school districts to meet the 100 percent highly qualified requirement. 

We believe certain teachers have a right and a critical need to continue to utilize HOUSSE, including:

• Multi-subject secondary teachers in rural schools who are highly qualified in one subject at the time of hire.  Such teachers should be able to use HOUSSE to demonstrate competence in additional subjects within three years of the date of hire, since the draft provides them such additional time to meet the highly qualified rule;
• Multi-subject special education teachers who are new to the profession and are highly qualified in language arts, mathematics, or science at the time of hire.  Such teachers have a right under IDEA to use HOUSSE to demonstrate competence in additional subjects within two years of the date of hire;
• Teachers coming to the United States from other countries, who should be able to use HOUSSE to meet highly qualified requirements;
• Teachers not new to the profession who are currently highly qualified but have a future change of assignment at their current school.  They may need to use HOUSSE to establish that they are highly qualified in such new assignment;
• Teachers not new to the profession who are currently highly qualified but change school districts within their state or move to another state.  These teachers may need to use HOUSSE to meet highly qualified requirements; and
• Teachers who are rehired after a period of not having worked as a teacher, whether due to work in another profession, retirement, or any other reason.

In reading through the discussion draft, we are equally disturbed by what is missing.  For example, the draft lacks a necessary focus on class size reduction (or even a standard way of calculating class size throughout the country), access to quality early childhood education, and resources for school facilities and materials.  We will not have great public schools for every child in this country until all students have access to quality early education programs; modern, updated schools that offer them up-to-date textbooks and other equipment; and class sizes conducive to learning for all students, most particularly poor and minority students, students with disabilities, and English language learners.  All children benefit from greater levels of individualized attention, instructional strategies, and services.  To fail to acknowledge this fundamental aspect of the teaching and learning process is short-sighted at best.

NEA's other concerns with the discussion draft include:

1.  The discussion draft as a whole contains several provisions that could undermine teachers' collective bargaining rights and adversely affect compensation or other terms and conditions of employment.  

In addition to the performance pay provisions cited above, there are several provisions in the Title I draft affecting terms and conditions of employment, including new limitations on how many years a student may be taught by "novice" teachers, new comparability requirements for teacher salaries, bonuses for certain AP teachers, and a new extended learning time program.  We strongly urge you to add protections to prevent reduction of teachers' and other school employees' rights or remedies under federal, state, and local laws, or collective bargaining agreements under any of these programs or requirements.  In addition, we urge protections against reduction of educators' rights to engage in good faith bargaining over issues affecting their compensation and terms of employment.  Any changes affecting such must be agreed to through collective bargaining, or where bargaining does not exist, by a 75 percent majority vote of acceptance by teachers in affected jurisdictions.  We also question the wisdom of the federal government becoming so deeply involved in teacher pay and assignment issues.  This sets a dangerous precedent for the entire labor community.

2.  We encourage the Committee to include in the next version of the bill programs that provide schools and teachers with the tools and resources necessary to help all children succeed, including:

• Smaller classes (such as the provisions of HR 2668);
• School repair and modernization (such as the provisions of HR 3021, the 21st Century High-Performing Public School Facilities Act); and
• Quality pre-K programs (such as the provisions of HR 3289, the Providing Resources Early for Kids (PRE-K) Act).

There are several areas in the draft bill in which we are supportive of the concepts and programs (though we are concerned in several cases with the details associated with the programs).  These include:

• Increased focus on professional development for educators-teachers and paraprofessionals-including those who teach diverse learners;
• Increased focus on what works for teachers, including mentoring, focused professional development, peer collaboration, as well as other supports;
• Continued focus on supportive programs that we know work for students, families, and communities, such as afterschool programs and safe and drug-free schools (with a new focus on ending gangs and bullying);
• Focus on integrated curricula;
• Supports for substitute teachers;
• A new environmental education program;
• Support for formative assessments, performance-based measures of student learning, and enhanced and innovative assessments that measure critical thinking, problem solving, and application of knowledge to real world contexts;
• Professional development for teachers on how to administer such assessments and use the results to improve instruction and student learning;
• Inclusion of principles of universal design for learning and response-to-intervention in several areas; and
• An expanded and improved adolescent literacy program.

While we appreciate the fact that you released these discussion drafts and asked for comments, we still are receiving substantive comments from our members and leaders across the country regarding the more than 1000 pages of draft bill language.  Thus, we will submit additional detailed comments on Titles II through XI shortly, and may submit additional comments on the overall bill.

In summary, we do not need an updated NCLB that causes yet another set of unintended consequences and inconsistencies.  Therefore, we urge you to continue having substantive conversations with stakeholders about the entirety of issues set forth in the discussion draft, so as to revisit the inconsistencies before enacting another law.  If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Diane Shust or Joel Packer.

Sincerely,

Diane Shust
Director, Government Relations

Joel Packer
Director, Education Policy and Practice