Matt Isenhower, the Democrat’s candidate for the 45th state senate seat, is very pleased with the Washington Education Association (WEA)—our state’s powerful teachers union. In fact, Isenhower is so delighted with the WEA, he took to Twitter to express his gratitude to the powerful union for its endorsement of his candidacy. Isenhower tweeted,
I’m so honored to have received WEA’s endorsement last weekend! I’ll work in Olympia to make sure our students&teachers have what they need!
— Matt Isenhower (@matt_isenhower) April 9, 2014
Just why is Isenhower so honored by the WEA’s endorsement? Well… Isenhower’s education policy is all about adults, not kids. Here’s why:
- The WEA exerted its considerable influence over Democrat lawmakers in Olympia to withhold $40 million per year in federal education funding for needy children because it didn’t want to take a teachers test seriously.
- The WEA persuaded State Senator Rosemary McAuliffe, ranking member of the Early Learning & K-12 Education Committee, to vote against her own bill that would keep $40 million in federal funds for Washington state schools by making a simple adjustment to state law. Once again, all because the WEA didn’t want to take a simple test seriously.
- The WEA refuses to drop its lawsuit against charter schools despite the fact those charter schools exist to provide a stable educational environment to homeless children and at-risk youth.
And there you have it…. the three reasons why Matt Isenhower might hate your kids.
Oh, fer pity’s sake.
1) It wouldn’t be Democratic lawmakers withholding $40 million, it would be the Federal Government, and it wouldn’t be withheld, it would be spent in a different way. Apparently the shift you guys are going for is towards the Obama administration’s education policy, so congratulations for that.
2) McAuliffe’s bill NEVER CAME UP FOR A VOTE. The “simple test” that you wave your hand dismissively at HAS NEVER BEEN GIVEN BEFORE. That simple adjustment to state law NEVER PASSED OUT OF THE REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED SENATE.
3) The WEA isn’t the lead in the charter schools lawsuit, and since we’ve yet to open one in Washington State it’s more than a little silly to talk about how great they’re working here.
4) Hey, did anyone else get a WEA endorsement last week? Why yes, they did: http://ourvoicewashingtonea.org/wea-pac/
Paul Harris (R)
Hans Zeiger (R)
Linda Kochmar (R)
So, as you shift the debate, I’ll patiently wait for the post where you shift all over these three Republicans for their WEA endorsement. You can get shifty with Kim Wyman, too, for 2012.
Shift happens,
–Ryan–
Hey, Ryan, no body said there were not progressives in the Republican party as well as the Democratic party. What is bad is bad no matter who votes for it or which side is causing the influence. Personally, I don’t see what is so bad about holding educators accountable and ensuring they are competent to teach our kids. But, I resist federal influence at every level and don’t believe we should have to be “bribed” by the feds to get our educators to subject themselves to appropriate means to test their competence and abilities.
“don’t believe we should have to be “bribed” by the feds to get our
educators to subject themselves to appropriate means to test their
competence and abilities.”
Do you believe that Common Core and Smarter Balanced are the “appropriate means” to reach the goal you’re talking about?
“No!” What’s that got to do with teachers being willing to be tested regarding their competence and abilities? Personally, I think all employment should be based on performance as opposed to tenure or union contracts. Just as our children should be able to meet certain requirements to advance to the next level of their education, so too should teachers have to meet certain requirements before getting a raise.
the bottom line is that isenhower is a tool of the teacher’s union. the facts may be confused but the story is correct. the teacher’s union fought against using student scores as a requirement for teacher’s evaluations. the feds say “must” and the wea fought it. the state WILL lose $40 mil of federal funds because of the union’s recalcitrance.
“the bottom line is that isenhower is a tool of the teacher’s union.”
Based on what, exactly? Is anyone who takes WEA money a tool of the teachers union, or only the Democrats?
“the facts may be confused but the story is correct.”
That’s not the way that facts work, friend.
“the teacher’s union fought against using student scores as a requirement for teacher’s evaluations.”
No, they didn’t. The Teacher Principal Evaluation Project (TPEP), which gave us the new evaluation system, has always countenanced using tests scores as a piece of the evaluation. My personal goals for this year were based off of NWEA test scores, which will reflect in my evaluation.
What the WEA pushed back against, and I thank them for doing so, is tying evaluation to the new Smarter Balanced tests which a) have never been given before b) are based off of really poor Common Core standards and c) don’t get results back in time to be used in evaluation anyhow.
People who are trying to paint the teachers as a bunch of shirks really need to do some reading. The talking point, which is all Shift seems to be going by, is terrible.
” the state WILL lose $40 mil of federal funds because of the union’s recalcitrance.”
No, they won’t. They’ll lose flexibility, but the money will still be there and spent in a different way. God willing, if things go wrong folks will start waking up to just how awful the role of the Federal Government in education has been for the last 10 years.
Oh, fer pity’s sake.nn1) It wouldn’t be Democratic lawmakers withholding $40 million, it would be the Federal Government, and it wouldn’t be withheld, it would be spent in a different way. Apparently the shift you guys are going for is towards the Obama administration’s education policy, so congratulations for that.nn2) McAuliffe’s bill NEVER CAME UP FOR A VOTE. The “simple test” that you wave your hand dismissively at HAS NEVER BEEN GIVEN BEFORE. That simple adjustment to state law NEVER PASSED OUT OF THE REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED SENATE.nn3) The WEA isn’t the lead in the charter schools lawsuit, and since we’ve yet to open one in Washington State it’s more than a little silly to talk about how great they’re working here.nn4) Hey, did anyone else get a WEA endorsement last week? Why yes, they did: http://ourvoicewashingtonea.org/wea-pac/nnPaul Harris (R)nHans Zeiger (R)nLinda Kochmar (R)nnnnSo, as you shift the debate, I’ll patiently wait for the post where you shift all over these three Republicans for their WEA endorsement. You can get shifty with Kim Wyman, too, for 2012.nnnnShift happens,nn–Ryan–
Hey, Ryan, no body said there were not progressives in the Republican party as well as the Democratic party. What is bad is bad no matter who votes for it or which side is causing the influence. Personally, I don’t see what is so bad about holding educators accountable and ensuring they are competent to teach our kids. But, I resist federal influence at every level and don’t believe we should have to be “bribed” by the feds to get our educators to subject themselves to appropriate means to test their competence and abilities.
“don’t believe we should have to be “bribed” by the feds to get our neducators to subject themselves to appropriate means to test their ncompetence and abilities.”nnDo you believe that Common Core and Smarter Balanced are the “appropriate means” to reach the goal you’re talking about?
“No!” What’s that got to do with teachers being willing to be tested regarding their competence and abilities? Personally, I think all employment should be based on performance as opposed to tenure or union contracts. Just as our children should be able to meet certain requirements to advance to the next level of their education, so too should teachers have to meet certain requirements before getting a raise.
the bottom line is that isenhower is a tool of the teacher’s union. the facts may be confused but the story is correct. the teacher’s union fought against using student scores as a requirement for teacher’s evaluations. the feds say “must” and the wea fought it. the state WILL lose $40 mil of federal funds because of the union’s recalcitrance.
“the bottom line is that isenhower is a tool of the teacher’s union.”nnBased on what, exactly? Is anyone who takes WEA money a tool of the teachers union, or only the Democrats?nn”the facts may be confused but the story is correct.”nnThat’s not the way that facts work, friend.nn”the teacher’s union fought against using student scores as a requirement for teacher’s evaluations.”nnNo, they didn’t. The Teacher Principal Evaluation Project (TPEP), which gave us the new evaluation system, has always countenanced using tests scores as a piece of the evaluation. My personal goals for this year were based off of NWEA test scores, which will reflect in my evaluation.nnWhat the WEA pushed back against, and I thank them for doing so, is tying evaluation to the new Smarter Balanced tests which a) have never been given before b) are based off of really poor Common Core standards and c) don’t get results back in time to be used in evaluation anyhow.nnPeople who are trying to paint the teachers as a bunch of shirks really need to do some reading. The talking point, which is all Shift seems to be going by, is terrible.nn” the state WILL lose $40 mil of federal funds because of the union’s recalcitrance.”nnnNo, they won’t. They’ll lose flexibility, but the money will still be there and spent in a different way. God willing, if things go wrong folks will start waking up to just how awful the role of the Federal Government in education has been for the last 10 years.
Just goes to show you have to do your homework! R after the name in most cases is the same as D!!! Keep your eyes reading and mouth voicing your opinions to the people who are supposed to represent YOU the tax payer!
Just goes to show you have to do your homework! R after the name in most cases is the same as D!!! Keep your eyes reading and mouth voicing your opinions to the people who are supposed to represent YOU the tax payer!
I think the term “in the pocket” applies here. He is in the Union’s pocket so we know what we can expect from him here on out.
I think the term “in the pocket” applies here. He is in the Union’s pocket so we know what we can expect from him here on out.