2012 senior class photos
2012 West Carrollton graduation
Home of the Week
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2006 > January > 18 > Entry
Chat with a teachers’ union leader
NEA President Reginald Weaver’s speech today at Central State University was even more pointed than I expected — highly critical of No Child Left Behind, Congress and American indifference to the plight of the poor. He is an engaging speaker with a lot of passion.
Primarily Weaver argued that the discussion of educational achievement needs to be widened to consider the external factors like poverty and school resources. He was most eloquent speaking about poor children and their obstacles.
After the speech, I got to ask him a few questions one-on-one.
First, I asked him about the bi-partisan nature of No Child Left Behind. Many critics like to paint NCLB as a right-wing conspiracy to destroy public education and Weaver was echoing some of those themes in his speech.
I asked him about civil rights groups and others on the political left who succeeded by lobbying into NCLB requirements that make schools tell us how “subgroups” like black children, poor children or disabled children, are scoring on tests. And the law penalizes schools that don’t ensure those kids are making progress.
I wanted to know if he agreed, as some left-leaning supporters of NCLB believe, that the law can at least help by shining a bright light on the problem of minority underachievement and creating a high incentive for schools to care about those kids in a way they never had to before.
Weaver said the NEA supported breaking out the subgroup data in that way. But he complained that underfunding of NCLB has left schools without the resources to take action that will really help bring those disadvantaged kids up.
“We ask, ‘once the data is disaggregated, what are you going to do?’” he said. “A lot of schools find they disaggregate the data but there is not enough funds or a commitment to do anything about it.”
Weaver suggested many NCLB supporters are not genuinely interested in helping disadvantaged kids.
“I’ve stopped listening to what people say and just look at what they do,” he said. “People talk a lot about it but they don’t do anything.”
Next I asked him about choice, Dayton being the charter school capital of the nation and about to wade into the world of publicly-funded vouchers when Ohio’s program goes statewide this fall.
“I have no problem with choice. I have a problem with using public money to do it,” he said.
He said the public priority must be on raising the quality of all public schools so they are all equal to the very best public schools in America today.
So I asked him the question I hear from school choice supporters in Dayton who are furious at the NEA for actively trying to block charter schools and vouchers with court challenges.
Here’s what they say — “I need options now. I need a good school for my child. I am trapped while wealthier folks have choices. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to try something different that might work for my child?”
“I respect that they want out,” Weaver said. “In the future, kids won’t have to worry about it. I want every school to be like the best public schools.”
Yes, but what about those who are desperate for options now? I told him how I had sent my daughter to Dayton Public Schools for two years. I was happy with the school overall and she only changed schools because we moved in favor of a bigger house. But I had that option to move if things hadn’t worked out for my child. I could afford it. When I looked around at her classmates and their families, it was plain many of them did not have the same options.
“You don’t call an independent fire company to put out a fire, you call the public fire department and police,” he said. “Why would you do it when it comes to public education? It shouldn’t be done outside of public schools.”
He went on to say many poor families who might use choice options would see their kids struggle no matter where they went because the parents are burdened with financial struggles and other obstacles.
“Their parents don’t have jobs!” said Weaver, getting more emotional. “Where is the outrage? What they need is a community that is stable and safe. Where is the outrage for that?”
Permalink | Comments (3) | Categories: Charter Schools and School Choice, My Favorite Posts, Urban School Issues
Comments
By Mary
January 19, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this
Thanks for the support, Rick. However, just in case someone else wants to slap another label on me such as “anti-liberal” to go along with “anti-union”, maybe I need to point out I am probably actually more like a “neo-liberal” (or is it neo-conservative?) which might be someone who is somewhat socially liberal, but fiscally conservative. (Atually, I think labels for people oversimplify their opinions.) One thing I liked about the book “Cheating our kids” was the author took on both the Democratic and Republican parties and discussed educational activism where both liberals and conservatives were in agreement. They united to make reforms in education.By Rick
January 19, 2006 7:27 AM | Link to this
I echo Mary’s statements. Weaver is just another typical liberal who believes more money is the answer to everything. I previously posted citations to reports that indicate more money is not the end-all, be-all of education reform. It is folks like Weaver who did not care about children languishing in urban schools, the important thing to them was higher salaries for teachers.By Mary
January 18, 2006 5:37 PM | Link to this
What I am hearing in your description of your conversation with Weaver is the same emotional rhetoric used in education discussions for years. Save the public education monopoly from the boogey man of parents and students having more control over their educational experience, escaping hostile environments, and the cycle of poverty. The monopoly mainly protects the power of the teachers’ union and their financial gratification, but he did not say that. It also keeps their hand wrapped around the necks of students and parents. Part of what keeps poor families in poverty and frustrated is substandard education through public schools. Money is not the issue. Some of the most inspiring reform stories come from the urban areas (read “Cheating our Kids” about education reform activism in New York, Milwaulkee and how little money has to do with the big issues.) As far as relying on the fire department as a public entity, customers have more control over needing and using a fire department than they do over what goes on when their child is in school under compulsory education laws for extensive years of their lives and extensive times out of their day. I do not correlate educational services to emergency fire services.