Even the California Teachers Association is getting on the bandwagon to return the public schools to higher standards and basics and testing.

Yesterday, CTA officials met with the Register’s editorial board and acknowledged that things had changed since the administration of Del Weber, the outspoken CTA president who died in December 1995.

“We’re trying to be much more proactive,” President Lois Tinson explained to us. She’s a lifetime teacher who comes from Arkansas. Too often in the past, she explained, the CTA was known for what it opposed, not for what it wanted to achieve.

While the optimism and activism were refreshing to hear, we nonetheless question the organization’s ability to induce significant change, given the inherent inertia of any body that does not face a significant challenger or watchdog, such as a competitor.

Their words are about change, their devotion to education seemingly sincere, but the momentum to reach for higher standards, testing and better methods will have to come from within. And within, there are strong incentives to maintain the status quo — funding, certain kinds of jobs, pet projects.

Still, the CTA openly endorses the higher standards being proposed by the California Academic Standards Commission. The CTA officials generally are pleased with the commission’s English requirements but “we have not had the opportunity for input on the math part,” Ms. Tinson said. The main concerns were the pace and nature of implementation of the standards, the level of specificity and whether or not algebra and geometry should be combined, as the standards propose.

Not surprisingly, the CTA officials said higher standards might require more money, especially for “class-size reduction,” Ms. Tinson said. “Any time you add things to a teacher’s workday, it’s going to cost some money.”

Although our meeting was more even-toned than one hot session we had with the firebrand Mr. Weber a few years ago, the CTA officials showed little room for new thinking on some issues.

They balked at the English for the Children Initiative that will be on the California ballot next year and also rejected any notion of school choice involving non-public schools.

We referred to a recent poll that found 84 percent of Hispanics surveyed favored the initiative, which would mandate teaching English as early as possible. It was the highest support of any group surveyed. Since Hispanics overwhelmingly participate in bilingual ed, isn’t it logical to conclude that the most important customers see the program as seriously flawed?

Not to the CTA. Its governing body, the State Council of Education, voted last weekend to oppose the initiative. The vote included about 600 representatives, not all the 270,000 CTA teachers. “Our teachers will vote overwhelmingly against the initiative,” insisted CTA Executive Director Carolyn Doggett.

The CTA did, however, support SB-6, a bill sponsored by Dede Alpert, Democrat from Coronado, that would allow at least some additional English instruction. It died last session, but a new version is likely to be reintroduced early next year.

On school vouchers, the CTA spoke strongly against the concept — even a voucher program that might lift children out of the worst schools. “We are opposed to vouchers,” Ms. Doggett said flatly. “We shouldn’t de-fund public schools.” Ms. Tinson says: “We should go into those schools and fix them.”

Alas, the problem is that, with few measurements, limited accountability and no competition, so often troubled schools languish for years unfixed. If a private sector alternative existed — such as school choice — improvement would be jump-started.

Any institution changes slowly. It’s commendable that the CTA, spurred by public demands for higher standards and quality, has budged a little in what appears the right direction.

But there’s plenty of open road ahead. CTA leadership would do well to re-examine, and reject, many of the unsuccessful practices that come under the guise of bilingual ed, even if such a position rankles some members. CTA leadership would benefit by viewing competition as a ready needle in the side, one that prods all educators to be sharper and more responsive to the students and parents that schools serve.

Finally, the lesson for us all is to stop experimenting with children — be it in the name of keeping a budget intact, keeping a job or defending a practice that no longer works.



Comments are closed.