2004 Summary of SLATE Reports
Jodi Mahoney and Millie Davis
NCTE Division of Communications and Affiliate Services

This spring, NCTE received thirteen annual reports from affiliate SLATE representatives who reported the following information.  The reports represent a small percentage of the affiliates that have SLATE representatives, but they offer the following information.

Only four affiliates have a legislative committee or lobbying agent, and two affiliates have personal ties to a legislator.  Of the thirteen affiliates reporting, nine affiliates have a SLATE column in their newsletter.  Eleven have a website, and seven of the websites have a SLATE section.  Of the seven, five publish education issues and four publish anti-censorship information.  Five of the reporting affiliates nominated someone for the NCTE/SLATE Affiliate Intellectual Freedom Awards. Nine of the thirteen affiliates lent assistance in combating attempts at censorship.  Nine affiliates presented workshops or professional meetings devoted to SLATE concerns, and six affiliates developed news releases or obtained publicity for SLATE activities.  Seven of the reporting affiliates are members of the NCTE Education Advocacy Network, and one affiliate asked for more information regarding the Education Advocacy Network. 

The 2003-2004 academic year was active with a variety of SLATE concerns.  NCLB was a major concern, as were funding cuts, challenges to texts, censorship cases, class size, federal student loans, and curricular issues. One affiliate challenged a district’s prevailing plan to force all teachers to be “specialists” in ELL education.  The governor of one state put a voucher system into place after voters voted it down twice. While the governor’s system was overturned, the affiliate continues to watch the issue.  Meanwhile, a voucher system of sorts has been implemented for colleges—beginning this fall, students may use state funds at private colleges.
 
The affiliates reported major issues that SLATE needs to be aware of are parental concerns about literary selections; censorship of literature for violence, language and religion; curriculum reform; promoting multicultural and diversity teaching; and school funding.  Multiple affiliates reported their major issues being NCLB and testing concerns.

Five of the reporting affiliates would be interested in joining a discussion list, although two affiliates said they would not be interested at this time.  One representative was concerned soon everything would be only electronic, leaving some representatives without necessary information, and one representative requested sending copies of each affiliate’s SLATE activities to other SLATE representatives.

Affiliates requested more SLATE STARTER SHEETS and position papers from NCTE and another CD on rationales.  It was suggested that NCTE provide samples of work by other SLATE representatives, and provide affiliate “models” for those affiliates who are becoming more active, and provide information on how to become more proactive with legislators.  The word “proactive” was used many times throughout the reports; affiliates would like to become more proactive, instead of reactive.  One affiliate wanted NCTE to be aware of the challenges to getting floor time at affiliate meetings as the meetings are often packed with agenda items.  A request was made for more convention sessions on media literacy.  In summary, most affiliates were interested in learning how to become more proactive, and requested information and teaching models from NCTE.