If you’re not already sick of the NEA-Miller story, there’s a new Klein-Hoff EdWeek piece up online today that fleshes out some of the events of the past week. Included are not only the whole he-said, she-said about the TEACH Act language that you probably already know, but also some interesting tidbits like how the NEA made sure to have folks from each of the House ed committee members’ districts at the Monday hearing, the toe-the-NEA-line responses of some Dem House members about the issue.
That leaves two questions: Why did Miller include the merit stuff in the first place, and what’s going on between the NEA and CTA? I don’t know if Miller had to include the merit pay stuff to have any chance of McKeon’s support, or for other reasons. But fighting the merit pay thing and revamping the AYP system at the same time (and comparability) continues to seem to me to be biting off more than necessary. Or I’m missing something -- Miller puts in the merit pay stuff just to give something for the NEA folks to focus on, hoping to preserve the standards and accountability provisions. Let me know if you’ve got it figured out.