AFT claims the proposed regulations concerning the rights of school and school district employees "would attempt to work a retroactive application of a new rule, it would impinge on the sovereign power of states guaranteed by a federal form of government to construct their relationship with their employees, and it would impinge on the associational rights of school employees." In its response, NEA notes that it "strongly disagrees with the Department’s proposed language regarding collective bargaining agreements." In particular, both unions are worried about a provision they say would allow school districts to attempt to comply with ESEA without regard to state statutory or teacher contract language, if those statutes and contracts were created after the ESEA law was signed on January 8, 2002.

NEA attached a lengthy legal memorandum to its response, the gist of which states that districts "should be required to implement [the regulations] in a manner that does not violate any other laws or agreements, regardless of when they may have been adopted." If its version of the regulations is not adopted, NEA alleges that districts "will attempt to dismantle existing contractual provisions in anticipation of future interpretations of [the federal regulations]."

Legal citations aside, NEA and AFT’s position promises a lot of litigation when a district’s interpretation of what is necessary to implement ESEA provisions conflict with the union’s interpretation of what is required by the local collective bargaining agreement. It is also easy to see what two areas will bring on the quickest union action: teacher qualifications and supplemental service providers.

NEA strongly disagrees with the Department of Education’s regulations on teacher qualifications, stating that the proposed language "would allow uncertified teachers to meet the definition of ‘highly qualified.’" NEA finds this provision to be unspeakable. "Claims that inexperienced college graduates can be as successful as formally trained teachers are insulting and demeaning to qualified members of the teaching profession," reads the NEA response.

The unions’ primary complaint about supplemental services providers is that they, too, could employ uncertified individuals. AFT claims the proposed regulation "undermines the goal of having services be provided by qualified and certified or appropriately licensed individuals or entities." NEA adds that the regulations "would allow faith-based entities to receive federal funds as supplemental services providers, while continuing to practice religious-based discrimination."

2) Educational Testing Service Readies PR Strategy. With standardized testing becoming the focal point for much of the discussion about the new Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), it is not surprising to find the Educational Testing Service in the news. ETS is the world’s largest, private nonprofit organization devoted to standardized testing and scholastic measurements. But ETS is showing more of a profile these days, with its executives visiting newspaper editorial boards and establishing community outreach programs.

The unions are making criticisms of standardized testing the cornerstone of their public relations and community outreach campaigns against several ESEA provisions. The ETS decision to fight fire with fire may be due to the influence of one of its chief executives. Sharon Robinson is the senior vice president and chief operating officer of ETS, with experience in both government relations and teacher assessments. More importantly, Robinson was for many years a high-level official with the National Education Association before joining ETS in 1997.

Because of her NEA background, Robinson will be better able to anticipate general objections to standardized testing and respond accordingly. It should liven up the testing debate considerably.

3) School Choice Black Market Dragnet Nabs Teacher. Parents lying about their place of residence in order to get their children into better public schools -- what EIA has termed the black market in school choice -- made headlines yet again last week. This time the "culprit" was a Florida elementary school teacher.

Eileen Hickman of Pinellas County provided a false address to the Palm Harbor University High School, which placed her daughter in classes there. When the district discovered the subterfuge (through anonymous phone calls, according to the report in the St. Petersburg Times), Hickman’s daughter was expelled. The twist in this case is that Hickman is employed by the district and received a five-day, unpaid suspension for her actions.

4) News Not Getting Better for Texas NEA Affiliate. The teacher union recruiting season is starting to wind down, and the news doesn’t look good for the Texas State Teachers Association (TSTA). As catalogued in numerous EIA reports, the troubled NEA state affiliate is saddled with declining membership, NEA financial oversight, closed regional offices and a complete reshuffling of its organizational chart. The union’s estimates at the beginning of the summer called for 10,000 new members just to break even in total membership, though it budgeted for a net loss in members in order to head off any further deficit financing.

There is still a week or two remaining before new member sign-ups peter off entirely, but sources within TSTA tell EIA that the union has thus far recruited fewer than 3,000 new members statewide. Even that figure comes with an asterisk, as the one TSTA local that is producing a large portion of that gain is Education Austin, the merged local that shares affiliation with TSTA and the Texas Federation of Teachers. Therefore, every new member signed up by Education Austin only produces half the normal revenue for TSTA.

Should TSTA fail to recruit enough new members to balance its budget, it faces a menu of unappetizing choices: dues increases, staff layoffs, increased national subsidies or loans, or more drastic measures. For its part, NEA can tolerate just having a presence in smaller states, but it needs a viable affiliate in such a large and important state like Texas. Stay tuned.

5) Federal Elections Commission Closes NEA Complaint. NEA announced that the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) will take no action against the union as the result of a complaint filed by the Landmark Legal Foundation in June 2000. The complaint claimed that NEA was using direct general fund and in-kind contributions to national campaigns in violation of federal law. The FEC informed the union that it would "take no action against NEA." NEA released no further details about what else, if anything, was written in the letter.

"Any group primarily funded by right-wing extremists who are out of touch with working families, wastes valuable taxpayer dollars with these false accusations," said NEA President Reg Weaver in a prepared statement. The Landmark Legal Foundation has released no statement, but the organization still has similar complaints pending against NEA on file with the Internal Revenue Service.

6) North Carolina Budget Includes PAC Checkoff for Teachers. The North Carolina legislature passed a state budget last week that did not contain the state lottery the North Carolina Association of Educators (NCAE) was hoping for. However, a little-noticed provision in the budget may ease the union’s way for another attempt. NCAE will now be allowed to use payroll deduction to collect political action committee (PAC) contributions from its members. Not only will NCAE save money on administrative and fundraising costs, but the relative invisibility of such a small deduction from each paycheck will probably increase the PAC’s coffers considerably.

7) Quote of the Week #1. "Whatever kind of teacher that 85% of the richest people who send their children to public schools have for their kids, that’s what I want for everyone. I don’t believe that’s a teacher who has entered through the alternative certification route." -- NEA President Reg Weaver. (USA Today, Sept. 16, 2002).