I saw something awhile back from a blogger implying that the AFT had helped kill NCLB reauthorization last year, and I've seen a few similar comments from other bloggers and even in the media.  So, I want to set the record straight.

My colleagues sweated blood trying to find an honorable way forward on this bill, because, well, Our members really, really don't like the current law. Our members want it changed, which is, you know, what happens during reauthorization.

So, in 2005 and 2006, AFT officers and staff held townhall meetings with AFT members (and also at times with Members of Congress) to discuss the effects of the current law.  AFT's policy committee, along with AFT staff, then used the information from the meetings to produce recommendations for reauthorization.  Officers and staff ran the recommendations by a task force of affiliate leaders, revised them, worked out the kinks, and produced a final document, which was sent to Members of Congress.  Oh, and we started a blog, too.

In 2007, with Democrats in the majority, there was a push for reauthorization.  AFT staff met with congressional staff, and AFT officers met with congressional leaders, talking about what changes were needed and going back and forth with possible legislative language.

On Labor Day weekend last year, while I was enjoying the three-day holiday, many of my colleagues were in the office, analyzing the first portion of the discussion draft that was released.  They weren't crazy about what they saw in the draft.  Also in early September, AFT Executive VP Toni Cortese and our director of legislation were preparing congressional testimony. 

The discussion draft for the rest of the law came out shortly after, which meant another round of caffeinated analysis of legislative language.  Class-size reduction?  There's a typo and an omission there.  Really, you didn't know that?  Maybe you should've read the discussion draft as carefullly as my colleagues did. Think the language on comparability is clear?  Think again.  Have you done any runs on the effects of multiple measures to see if anything would change?  Our researchers and policy people did.

There were more meetings between AFT staff and congressional staff and meetings between the big guns.

My colleagues Cheryl, Tina, Toni, Jane, Michele, Justin, Tor, John (not me), Patty, Howard, Nancy, Earl, Beth -- and probably a half-dozen others I've missed -- ate, breathed and slept NCLB last fall and for much of the past two years or so.

In 2001-02, it took presidential leadership, arm-twisting, etc. to get bipartisan backing for the bill. But where was the bipartisanship this time around?  Rep. McKeon seemed to run away from the draft even though his name was on every page.  Who was going to get the Republicans to fall in line?  Who was going to get them to agree this time to accept, again, an expanded federal role in exchange for greater accountability? The AFT?

I learned this:  Reauthorizing a seriously flawed law is hard, but pointing fingers after reauthorization fails is easy.  If you weren't there every step of the way, if you haven't thought through the consequences of every line of legislative language, if you haven't heard from people who work in classrooms, if you think that changing AYP always equals  "weakening accountability," then you're just talking out your wazoo when it comes to NCLB reauthorization.

In any case, my colleagues, who apparently are gluttons for punishment, are back at it again, ready to work with Congress to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, first enacted during LBJ's tenure.  And they're hoping the song turns out better this time.