CTA members are stepping up to the plate for public education once again. Members attended hearings being held around the state and participated in an online dialogue regarding a draft of the California Master Plan for Education, which is posted on the Web site for the Joint Committee to Develop a Master Plan for Education - Kindergarten through University [www.sen.ca.gov/masterplan].

There are problems with some of the recommendations, says CTA President Wayne Johnson. CTA policy suggests that CTA will support others.

"It will take some analysis and study to come to decisions on all the recommendations," says Johnson. "CTA will certainly oppose moving management of the state's education system into the governor's office. The superintendent of public instruction is a constitutional office, and it should remain an elected position with responsibility for the state's education program.

"However, CTA may support Recommendation 43, which suggests the appointment of a quality education commission to revamp school funding. This recommendation would move the state from making sure that all schools are funded equally to making sure that education funding is adequate to meet the needs of all students and schools." Johnson also applauds the Joint Committee on Recommendations 1, 2, and 3, regarding early childhood education and mandatory kindergarten.

"CTA members were involved on many of the workgroups, and CTA had a group of its own that monitored the Master Plan workgroups," Johnson said. "However, CTA members reported that some of the recommendations in the draft report are not those agreed upon by the workgroups. CTA will continue to monitor the progress of the Joint Committee and any legislation that results from the plan."

The plan was developed by a group of 18 state senators and Assembly members who formed the Joint Committee in July 1999. The work was divided up among seven working groups that included professionals working in education, representatives of business, local government and community organizations, researchers, and graduate student interns. CTA members were appointed to serve on the working groups, while staff monitored the products. In addition, CTA members provided oral and written testimony to the working groups.

"We've been very careful to monitor the committees and submit testimony for them to consider," says Lynette Henley, co-chair of the CTA workgroup and a member of the CTA Board of Directors. "This is a document that could dramatically affect education policy in California, and we want to make sure our voices are heard."

The goal of the plan is to build on the current Master Plan for Higher Education - a document that dates back to 1960 - and develop a coordinated, cohesive policy for the state's public schools, colleges and universities.

The plan consists of 53 recommendations, many of which have several subsections. It is organized in five sections: Vision; Access to High Quality Education; Achievement of Students; Accountability for Learner Outcomes and Institutional Performance; and Affordability of a High Quality Education System.

As indicated above, CTA policy supports additional investment in early childhood education (Recommendations 1, 2, and 3) and in mandatory kindergarten. In addition, CTA supports raising the entrance age for kindergarten to 5, assuming the change will be phased in over a period of years to allow schools and parents to adjust to the change.

CTA also strongly supports Recommendation 20, which speaks to making sure school facilities are safe, well-equipped and well-maintained.

However, CTA will oppose Recommendation 31, which completely changes the function of the superintendent of public instruction. It also moves the management of the state's education system into the governor's office under the auspices of an appointed chief education officer. Currently, the superintendent of public instruction is a constitutional officer charged with the responsibility for overseeing education in this state. The people of California have voted more than once to maintain this system.

In addition, many of the recommendations of the joint committee involve items that are more properly within the scope of collective bargaining. One example is Recommendation 7, which involves career ladders and negotiation of benefits for local teachers. In CTA's opinion, these should be removed from the document.

CTA leaders are also concerned about Recommendation 28, which advocates creating a K-12 Opportunities for Teaching and Learning Index (OTL) that would parallel the Academic Performance Index (API). CTA analysts point out that the OTL will be far more problematic than the API and lead to results that are counterproductive. Rather than pouring money into a system that is aimed only at measuring school performance with limited means, the Legislature should be seeking to improve performance by funding those activities that will produce results.

There also seems to be some confusion regarding the role of vocational and technical education, including adult education. Not all students are college-bound, nor should they be. The plan needs to be adjusted to make sure vocational and technical education is available for all students. While Recommendation 12 addresses this concern, it errs in labeling students and schools rather than calling for the provision of strong occupational education as well as college preparation for all students.

Finally, some items are missing from the plan. For example, special education gets short shrift. The effects of funding special education and attempts to deal with the consequences for students and schools are given minimal attention, according to CTA analysts. This section needs to be supplemented and expanded.

Also, little is included regarding credentialing of teachers. CTA analysts say the plan should include a blueprint for simplifying the credentialing process, including the number and kind of credentials available and the training needed to become professional educators.

The need for data on California's student population is real, but care must be taken in gathering and disseminating this data to protect the privacy of the students, teachers, and administrators. The potential for misuse of the data is immense, and the document does not address this issue.

Finally, many of the recommendations in the Master Plan for Education will be costly, according to CTA analysts. Considering the cost element and addressing the sources for funding for many of these programs and recommendations is imperative. It would not be wise or prudent to approve the kind of sweeping reform described in the plan without indicating where the funds for each new program will be found.

In an effort to reach the public, a two-week online dialogue was conducted June 3-14. The Web site [www.network-democracy.org/camp] for the dialogue includes copies of the reports of various groups, the proposed plan and other documents.

"CTA will be going through the document with a fine-tooth comb" to make sure all of its issues with language on salary, bargaining, professional growth, testing and assessment, etc., are addressed, says CTA Board Member VirginiaAnn G. Shadwick, co-chair of CTA's task force. "There is definitely a lot in the document that needs reviewing."

The final draft is expected to come before the Joint Committee at the beginning of August. It will then be given to the Legislature before the end of its session September 15. Legislation reflecting the Master Plan is expected to be introduced in the next legislative session, which begins in January 2003.

The Web site for the Master Plan [www.sen.ca.gov/masterplan] can help you stay current on the activities of the joint committee and its working groups. You can view the materials presented by wintesses and provide comment on the plan via e-testimony. For more information, call (916) 324-4983 or write the Master Plan Joint Committee, Legislative Office Building, 1020 N Street, Room 560, Sacramento, CA 95814.

Tommye Hutto