Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (221174)	2/26/2007 12:43:51 PM
From: Katelew	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Read letter dated 2005. nea.org

To: Brumar89 who wrote (221174)	2/26/2007 12:48:02 PM
From: Katelew	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Summary of letter if you are still too lazy to read it for yourself: NEA's Position on the Teacher Incentive Fund: Opposed The "Teacher Incentive Fund" provides resources to states to implement merit pay and tenure reform. NEA strongly opposes this program: The Teacher Incentive Fund is unnecessary, duplicative, and serves merely to divert scarce resources away from existing underfunded programs. Resources should not be diverted for this new program, but instead should be targeted to existing underfunded programs such as Title II Teacher Quality State grants. Title II, which has been level funded for the past three years, already allows use of funds for the stated purposes of the Teacher Incentive Fund and also gives states and school districts significant flexibility to utilize funds for activities that best meet their needs. In contrast, the proposed Teacher Incentive Fund creates new bureaucratic application and other requirements and restricts use of funds to only two possible uses – merit pay and tenure reform.