AFT’s Weingarten on Senate’s Big, Ugly Betrayal of America’s Working Families
As we prepare to celebrate our independence, the promise of the American dream, of freedom and prosperity for all, is now further out of reach.’
WASHINGTON—AFT President Randi Weingarten issued the following statement after the Senate passed President Trump’s billionaire tax scam:
“This is a big, ugly, obscene betrayal of American working families that was rammed through the Senate in the dead of night to satisfy a president determined to hand tax cuts to his billionaire friends.
“These are tax cuts paid for by ravaging the future: kicking millions off healthcare, closing rural hospitals, taking food from children, stunting job growth, hurting the climate, defunding schools and ballooning the debt. It will siphon money away from public schools through vouchers—which harm student achievement and go mostly to well-off families with kids already in private schools. It’s the biggest redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich in decades—far worse, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, than the version passed by the House.
“But if you only listened to those who voted yes, you wouldn’t have heard anything like that. You would’ve heard bad faith attempts to rewrite basic laws of accounting so they could assert that the bill won’t grow the deficit. You would’ve heard false claims about what it will do to healthcare and public schools and public services, which are the backbone of our nation.
“The reality is that the American people have rejected, in poll after poll, this bill’s brazen deception. As it travels back to the House and presumably to the president’s desk, we will continue to sound the alarm and let those who voted for it know they have wounded the very people who voted them into office. But it is also incumbent on us to fight forward for an alternative: for working-class tax cuts and for full funding of K-12 and higher education as engines of opportunity and democracy.
“Sadly, as we prepare to celebrate our independence, the promise of the American dream, of freedom and prosperity for all, is now further out of reach.”
###
The AFT represents 1.8 million pre-K through 12th-grade teachers; paraprofessionals and other school-related personnel; higher education faculty and professional staff; federal, state and local government employees; nurses and healthcare workers; and early childhood educators.
Imagine a cross-country road trip using outdated maps. What are the chances you’ll take the best routes or even get to your destination?
This is what’s happening in California classrooms. Teachers receive outdated tools to teach reading; consequently far too few students become motivated, competent readers and writers.
Our most disadvantaged students pay the steepest price. Only 2 in 10 low-income Black students in third grade are at least on grade level in English language arts. The same is true for 3 in 10 low-income Latino students, 2 in 10 English learners, and 2 in 10 students with disabilities. Overall, only 4 in 10 California third graders read on grade level.
Many factors, in and out of school, influence reading achievement. Schools cannot affect what they cannot control. But they can control how reading is taught. AB 2222, introduced by Assemblymember Blanca Rubio, seeks to update how schools teach reading. It would require that instructional reading materials, teacher preparation reading courses, and in-service teacher professional development all adhere to reading research, which the bill refers to as the “science of reading.”
English learner advocacy organizations opposing AB 2222 — the California Association for Bilingual Education (CABE), Californians Together and, most recently, the Center for Equity for English Learners at Loyola Marymount University — have voiced extreme objections to the bill with no hint of attempting to find workable solutions.
Yet when Assemblymember Rubio, formerly an English learner and a teacher, called upon CABE and Californians Together to help draft legislation to serve every child in California, including English learners, the groups refused, citing a “philosophical difference.”
Philosophies aside, existing research could help teachers of English learners do a better job. Why would self-described advocates for these students walk away from developing solutions, choosing instead to deprive teachers and teacher educators of research knowledge to help students attain higher literacy levels? Whose interests are served? Certainly not students’.
Vague, misleading language and misinformation plague the field, most perniciously about the “science of reading.” The term is cited repeatedly in the bill but poorly defined.
Moreover, opponents of the bill are fond of labeling science of reading as one-size-fits-all, rigid, or a “magic pill.” It is none of these. Nor does it “isolate” phonics.
Anyone who knows anything about reading research over the past half-century knows these characterizations are simply wrong.
Many districts have indeed implemented poor practices such as excessive phonics instruction and insufficient attention to language, comprehension, vocabulary and knowledge development, all in the name of “science of reading.” This can’t be blamed on reading science. The culprit is misinformation, which opponents of the bill perpetuate.
I’ll try to clarify.
The science of reading — just as the science of anything — is a body of knowledge that informs how students develop reading skills and how we can most effectively teach reading (and writing) in different languages to monolingual or multilingual students. This science, based on decades of research from different disciplines and different student populations worldwide, shows that:
While a first language is typically acquired naturally by being around people who speak it, written language (literacy) must generally be taught, learned and practiced. This is true for a first, second or later language.
Literacy is extremely difficult, if not impossible, without foundational skills connecting the sounds of the language with the letters representing those sounds, what is typically called “phonics” or “decoding.”
The best way to help children acquire foundational literacy skills is through direct, explicit and systematic instruction to help them develop accurate and automatic word reading skills. The practice known as “three-cueing,” where students are taught to recognize words using some combination of “semantic,” “syntactic” and “grapho-phonic” cues, is far less effective for most students, including English learners: It’s insufficiently explicit about how the sounds of the language are represented in print.
Some students will require a great deal of explicit instruction; others will require much less. Instruction building on individual students’ strengths and addressing their needs is necessary.
As they develop these foundational skills, and throughout their schooling, students need instruction and other experiences to develop oral language, vocabulary, knowledge and other skills. Accurate and automatic foundational literacy skills merge with these other skills, leading to skilled fluent reading and comprehension, both of which must be supported and improved as students progress through school.
Although all this is true for students in general, some require additional considerations. For example, English learners in English-only programs (as most of these students are) must receive additional instruction in English language development, e.g., vocabulary, as they’re learning to read in English. English learners fortunate enough to be in long-term bilingual programs, continuing through middle and high school, can become speakers and readers of two languages — English and their home language.
Unfortunately, AB 2222 undermines its own cause by failing to articulate clearly what science of reading actually signifies. With some improvements, the bill could acknowledge what we know from research that is relevant to meeting the needs of English learners:
How to help English learners having difficulty with beginning and early reading get on track, either in Spanish or English;
How to help older English learners make better progress in their reading achievement by providing comprehensive advanced literacy instruction; and;
How long-term bilingual education can pay dividends in terms of bilingualism, biliteracy and generally enhanced English language achievement.
It is difficult to pack all this into a piece of legislation clearly and precisely. But try we must if we’re serious about improving reading achievement rather than winning the latest reading wars skirmish.
We should get past the squabbling, turf protection and unhelpful language and instead do the right thing for all students. AB 2222’s introduction is an important step forward on the road to universal literacy in California. We must get it on the right track and take it across the finish line.
•••
Claude Goldenberg is Nomellini & Olivier Professor of Education, emeritus, in the Graduate School of Education at Stanford University and a former first grade and junior high teacher.
The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
In 2014, the California State Board of Education adopted the evidence-based and standards-driven English Language Arts/English Language Development Framework (ELA/ELD Framework) — nonbinding guidance that encourages the implementation of a research-informed, comprehensive literacy approach for all students.
The framework was the first in the nation to integrate two sets of standards: English language arts (grade-level literacy for all students) and English language development (progress in learning English for students from different language backgrounds), with a focus on the needs of English learners.
Amid ongoing discussions about how to best teach literacy to English learners, it is critically important to both demonstrate the significance of the ELA/ELD Framework and to renew calls to fully fund and implement this crucial guidance.
We cannot overlook the fact that the framework has never received the necessary funding for district, school and classroom implementation. Lawmakers appropriated $85 million to provide professional learning and support family engagement in mathematics, science and computer science — recognizing the need for support to accompany mathematics and science framework implementation. Without similar funding for English instructional materials, professional development, coaching and support services, the framework will remain nothing more than a collection of good ideas.
A few districts in the state have taken it upon themselves to focus on professional development and instruction on the tenets of the framework. Norma Carvajal Camacho, assistant superintendent of educational services for the Azusa Unified School District, said it has been transformative for their students: “By integrating primary language instruction and ensuring effective designated and integrated ELD, we have created a more inclusive and dynamic learning environment, resulting in significant improvements in language proficiency and overall achievement for our English learners.”
Unfortunately, without funding to back its implementation, most districts have not been able to adopt the framework’s powerful strategies for improving literacy for all students. This lack of funding means many districts are not providing the necessary professional development for teachers, not investing in high-quality instructional materials, and not offering sufficient coaching and support services. As a result, the framework’s potential to improve literacy outcomes remains unrealized in most areas.
The framework should be the cornerstone of any statewide strategy aimed at improving literacy and reading. It centers literacy and seeks to develop fluency, decoding, comprehension and vocabulary. It also takes into account that knowledge about the world, including the aforementioned skills, comes from reading and writing about meaningful and engaging content.
Imagine a classroom where the students don’t just learn reading and writing in isolation, but connect these skills with other content areas. An integrated approach promotes learning environments where students can read, write and discuss scientific experiments, historical events, or even create stories based on what they’ve learned in math. This is an approach in which students are also immersed in reading entire books. The framework uplifts this integrated approach to literacy and language instruction, delineating literacy expectations from transitional kindergarten to 12th grade. It emphasizes the five research-based cross-cutting themes that encompass all facets of the “science of reading”:
Foundational skills: Acknowledges the significance of phonics (the ability to recognize written letters from spoken language), phonemic awareness (the ability to identify individual sounds), and fluency as essential building blocks of literacy.
Meaning making: Encourages critical thinking and comprehension by emphasizing reading, writing, listening, language, motivation and vocabulary development.
Language development: Focuses on nurturing oral and written language skills to express information, ideas, perspectives and questions effectively.
Effective expression: Promotes various modes of communication, such as writing, discussions and presentations to showcase students’ understanding and knowledge.
Content knowledge: Highlights the interconnectedness of content, language and literacy, emphasizing the importance of knowledge about the natural and social world in enhancing text comprehension.
No single element, on its own, makes for a sound approach to reading or literacy — they interdependently bolster one another. Integrating all of these elements, ensuring a coherent and aligned approach over time, and supporting instruction that is responsive to students’ needs will produce better results for English learners and all students.
In California, where students speak more than 140 different languages at home, the framework recognizes the value of cultural diversity, multilingualism and biliteracy as assets to be nurtured and celebrated. The framework also includes a call for all educators to ensure English learners are provided with both integrated and designated English language development instruction.
Without designated instruction for English learners that helps them understand how English works and provides extra practice in speaking and reading, most aspects of learning to read in English become especially challenging. It becomes a struggle to hear and isolate the sounds of English, a challenge to understand the syntax and structure of text, and it becomes increasingly difficult to comprehend and make meaning of vocabulary in a language they haven’t learned.
Included in the framework is guidance for curriculum and instructional planning that is aligned with the standards for integrated English language development occurring throughout the school day in every subject area for every English learner. Our instruction should be responsive to the linguistic demands English learners are facing throughout the curriculum.
There are other efforts underway that are aligned to the ELA/ELD Framework. The Literacy Roadmap, for instance, will help educators apply the framework to classroom instruction and navigate the resources and professional development opportunities available to implement effective literacy instruction. The Literacy Standard and Teaching Performance Expectations for Preliminary Multiple Subject and Single Subject Credentials for teacher candidates are also aligned to the ELA/ELD Framework. These efforts are essential for addressing equity and improving outcomes for all students. Both initiatives will require significant efforts to support teachers, parents and administrators to ensure high-quality literacy instruction.
Our students and teachers need and deserve a significant investment to fully realize the potential of the ELA/ELD Framework. Doing so is necessary for improving literacy outcomes for California’s 1.1 million English learners and all of California’s students. We are ready to work with policymakers to prioritize funding and support its full implementation.
•••
Martha Hernandez is executive director of Californians Together, a statewide advocacy coalition seeking to better educate English learners by improving California’s schools and promoting equitable educational policy.
The opinions in this commentary are those of the author. We welcome guest commentaries with diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
Veteran prosecutor Joyce Vance shared some good news: the nomination of Ed Martin to be U.S. Attorney in DC is hanging by a thread and may be dead. Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina interviewed Martin and said he would vote no in the Senate Judiciary Committee because Martin supported the January 6 insurrectionists, even those who assaulted police officers. Since the split on the committee is 12 Republicans and 10 Democrats, Martin’s nomination would not get to the Senate floor. If you live in North Carolina, please call Senator Tillis and thank him.
Vance writes:
Last night, I wrote to you about Ed Martin, Trump’s nominee to be the United States Attorney in Washington, D.C.. Martin, until quite recently, used the handle “Eagle Ed Martin” on Twitter, a reference to his days working for Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum. Apparently, someone mentioned to him during the last month that the handle wasn’t appropriate for a U.S. Attorney hopeful.
But no whisper in the ear could fix Martin’s other flaws, from utter lack of qualifications and knowledge about how to do the job to flagrant ties to people known for their open antisemitism. Last night, I suggested we all needed to be in touch with our senators on the Martin nomination. Although we still need to do that, the message is different now. That’s because North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, made it known that he won’t support Martin.
Before Martin goes to the floor of the Senate for a confirmation vote, he has to make it out of committee. And that’s unlikely to happen now. The Senate Judiciary Committee is made up of 12 Republicans and 10 Democrats. All of the Democrats oppose Martin. With Tillis abandoning him, the best Martin could do is 11-11, and a nominee who receives a tie vote doesn’t advance. For all practical purposes, the outcome of that vote will be a death knell for his nomination.
Martin may end up rewarded for his loyal service to Trump and Musk with another plum job, one that doesn’t require Senate confirmation. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t celebrate the moment and the fact that it looks like he won’t be the top law enforcement officer in the District of Columbia. Defeating Martin’s nomination wasn’t a foregone conclusion—far from it. It took lots of research, lots of conversation, and lots of hard work by a lot of people. You never know which issue, or even which call or letter, is going to be the last straw. What matters is that Trump and his plans are not inevitable, and it makes a difference when all of us push back against the horrible as hard as we can.
Tillis told reporters this morning that he is unable to support Martin because of Martin’s support for defendants convicted of committing crimes in connection with January 6. He is certain to face a sustained backlash from MAGA’s inner circle, so if he’s your senator, make sure you thank him, and if your senator is on the Judiciary Committee (that’s Grassley, Graham, Cornyn, Lee, Cruz, Hawley, Tillis, Kennedy, Blackburn, Schmitt, Britt, and Moody on the Republican side and Durbin, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Coons, Blumenthal, Hirono, Booker, Padilla, Welch, and Schiff for the Democrats) this is a good time to reach out and either thank them for opposing or encourage them to show a little backbone and follow Tillis’ lead. Martin, after all, supports the people who overran the Capitol, threatening these folks and their staff. He is the least qualified selection I can recall seeing to lead a U.S. Attorney’s office, even edging out Trump’s former attorney Alina Habba, the New Jersey nominee, who should be rejected as well. This is a very big win for pro-democracy forces.
There was also a win on a very different front, one that didn’t get a lot of national attention. Trump’s efforts to cut staff and funding at national parks have garnered a lot of attention in the protests that have cropped up across the country. Many protests have taken place at the parks themselves, notably at Yosemite, where staff unfurled an upside-down American flag atop El Capitan to signal distress. On March 1, people protested at all 433 sites in the national park system—the 63 national parks and additional sites like monuments and historic places. Americans, it turns out, love their national parks.
Despite that, the Trump administration continues to keep them on the chopping block. Last week, the Washington Post reported that the Trump administration had suspended all air-quality monitoring at national parks, stating that “The Interior Department, which includes the National Park Service, issued stop-work orders last week to the two contractors running the program, the email shows.”
The reporting provided detail that makes it clear this is a serious matter:
Data was being collected on ozone and particulate matter and being used in connection with requests to grant permits to industrial facilities like power plants and oil refineries in close proximity to the parks.
The pollutants data was being collected on are “linked to a range of adverse health effects,” including “heart attacks, strokes, asthma attacks and premature death.”
One goal of the program is “to curb regional haze,” which has “reduced visibility at scenic viewpoints in parks nationwide” over the past few decades.
Park Service employees pushed back and demanded that monitoring continue. They pointed out that states lack the equipment and resources to monitor and that without federal monitoring, they would be flying blind. It’s part and parcel of discontinuing environmental justice work at the Justice Department. Data makes it possible to protect the environment and the people who live in it. Trump is creating a permissive environment for business—when you can’t document the consequences of a new plant permit, for instance, it’s hard to oppose it.
But today, Washington Post reporter Teddy Amenabar posted on social media that “After The Post’s article was published, a Park Service spokesperson said the stop-work orders would be reversed and that ‘contractors will be notified immediately.’” Whether it’s traditional media, new media, protests, or our communications with our elected officials, it’s clear that none of what Trump wants to do is inevitable. Sunlight continues to act as a disinfectant. Government employees need public support right now, especially as many of them continue to bravely do the right thing, whether it’s federal prosecutors or park rangers. They richly deserve our support.
So if you’ve been questioning whether what you’re doing matters, it does. The signs you make, the protests you go to, the letters and calls you make to elected officials, your efforts to share information (like this newsletter) with people—all of these efforts matter. It all adds up, small victories and large ones.
Speaking of big ones, Donald Trump appears to have knowingly lied when he invoked the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) in order to deport alleged members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang. In his proclamation, he said, “TdA operates in conjunction with Cártel de los Soles, the Nicolas Maduro regime-sponsored, narco-terrorism enterprise based in Venezuela, and commits brutal crimes, including murders, kidnappings, extortions, and human, drug, and weapons trafficking. TdA has engaged in and continues to engage in mass illegal migration to the United States to further its objectives of harming United States citizens, undermining public safety, and supporting the Maduro regime’s goal of destabilizing democratic nations in the Americas, including the United States.”
Not so fast. An intelligence community memo was partially declassified yesterday, two weeks after a FOIA request was made for it—that’s lightning speed in the world of FOIA, where requests can drag on for years. The memo contradicts Trump’s claimed basis for invoking the AEA. Hat tip to my friend Ryan Goodman, whose new Substack is great if you haven’t seen it already, for highlighting the parts of the memo that contradict Trump’s claim that TdA is mounting an invasion of the U.S. on behalf of Venezuela’s government.
It’s not clear how or whether this will impact ongoing litigation. Judges largely defer to presidential assessments of this nature under the political questions doctrine. We don’t know if this revelation will have any impact in court, although there should be some ambit, even if it’s small, for courts to reject presidential assessments that run entirely contrary to the facts. But in the court of public opinion, where facts still matter, here are some facts, from the people who know the subject best.
Finally for tonight, the North Carolina Supreme Court race that we’ve been following so carefully since last November seems to finally be over, and Allison Riggs, the Democrat who won the race, will now be declared the winner per an order issued by a federal judge who is a Trump appointee. Two recounts confirmed Riggs’ victory, but the disgruntled loser challenged it nonetheless. He tried to convince courts to disallow ballots cast by North Carolina voters who complied with all of the rules for voting by changing the rules about what ballots could be counted after the fact. He could still appeal this ruling, but it is a solid decision and unlikely to be reversed on appeal. The bottom line democratic principle is that you don’t get to move the goal posts to secure a victory. Didn’t work for Trump, and it didn’t work in North Carolina. Chalk another one up for the rule of law.
Whether it’s lawsuits or your letters, engaged citizens get results. We have a long way to go, but take heart; we are making progress. We can get there. Every little step forward adds to the tally in favor of democracy.
Teaching is often pegged as being an exhausting profession.
When I first became a teacher, I was constantly exhausted by the end of the day. As a budding teacher, I had a mentor who always brought up thought-provoking questions, allowed me to struggle in order to grow, and guided me as an effective mentor should.
Now, as a veteran teacher myself, one thing he told me really stuck with me: At the end of the day, the kids should be exhausted, not you.
When I first heard this, I didn’t really understand the significance of it. As time passed, and my teaching style evolved, I realized how right he was. Being a teacher means having a passion for the content and the kids. This can create a slippery slope of wanting to be the perfect teacher — the one showcased on social media and paraded by their district. But striving to be the perfect teacher can sometimes overshadow the real purpose of teaching: allowing the students to grow and shine.
As a first-year teacher, I felt like I needed to talk the entire period in order to be most effective. The truth is, the less I talked, the more students were encouraged to talk. When students are talking, the learning becomes more meaningful. Getting students to talk, research, write and share their ideas is going to exhaust them in the best way possible. The period will fly and opinions will be formed, changed and formed again. Getting students to talk, debate topics and see others’ perspectives is how meaningful and authentic learning occurs.
But, had you told me that during my first year of teaching, I would have brushed you off and claimed that it wouldn’t be feasible in a science classroom. Now, as a veteran teacher, I am happy to say that it works wonderfully in a science classroom, and I’m willing to bet it would work in any classroom or content area. I’ve created a few steps that you can explore to encourage student discourse.
Start small. In the first week of school, I always play a 10-minute game of “would you rather?” Students all stand up, much to their dismay, and I present them with two choices.These choices are silly, gross and downright stupefying. Students opting for choice 1 go to the right of the room, choice 2 go to the left. Then, I call on a few students to explain their choice. This silly game just created a small foundation in the classroom, one built on openness and encouraging discussion.
Be consistent. Each topic we learn, no matter what the content area, has room for debate. One topic I like to bring up is whether humans should create and maintain animal sanctuaries. At first glance, the topic doesn’t seem that controversial. However, once you take into account who pays for the services, the land used for them or the importance of keeping wild animals wild, the conversation naturally flows. By the end of the class, the students are hooked and want the conversation to continue. Each week, students read articles of high rigor to support or refute their stance. This creates the buy-in teachers are always looking for.
Allow all voices to be heard. When you create a classroom environment of open discussion, you have to be prepared for disagreement. Setting the stage for all voices to be heard, as long as they’re respectful, is vital to making a safe learning environment. Set the expectations, keep them consistent and allow all students to share their opinions on the topic. Encouraging them to make arguments based on evidence from the text or visual aids will take the learning even deeper.
Students are used to sitting in a classroom, filling out the worksheet, and moving on throughout their day. There is a huge difference between compliance and engagement. It is beautiful to take the same content, make it engaging and get students thinking hard. Students, no matter where they are academically or socially, have opinions. Sharing their views while using evidence will open doors and expand their understanding of the world around them. So, by the end of the day, are you exhausted or are your students?
•••
Kati Begen is a high school biology educator and credential coach in Fresno. She is currently working on her doctorate in curriculum and assessment at Southern Wesleyan University. More articles by Kati Begen.
The opinions in this commentary are those of the author. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
