NEA head insulting
Regarding The Associated Press news story “ American students' skills lag on international test ”: That Secretary of Education Arne Duncan called American students' lagging test results on the Program for International Student Assessment “a picture of educational stagnation” reflects the disappointment and concern of many people. With ongoing endeavors, from teacher in-service education to applications of instructional technology, hopes remain that our students' achievement gains will materialize.
However, for Dennis Van Roekel, president of the National Education Association, to say that “(i)n the United States, we don't have the commitment for all kids and it needs to change” is an insult to members of the NEA who work with energy, determination and, yes, commitment to help “all kids” learn and achieve. Exactly who is the “we” that he chastises for lack of commitment to the vision for increased student success? Students' parents? Teachers? Taxpayers? School administrators? Corporate mentors? Legislators? President Obama?
Van Roekel's opinion is yet another “good excuse” for the lack of achievement. Rather than disparage the many Americans who value, support and are committed to students and their educational achievement, he needs to reaffirm his own commitment to all kids' achievement and demonstrate the leadership required to attain that commitment.
Linda M. Romito
The writer is a retired principal of North Allegheny School District's Peebles Elementary School.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.