If you want to be a peer reviewer on the I3 program here’s your chance to apply.

In the education reform world if you don’t have a geographic or other tie to either team today’s game more or less boils down to Sarah Usdin v. Bart Peterson/David Harris…

Depressing  Super Bowl stat:  None of the three cities involved in today’s game, Indianapolis, New Orleans, or Miami graduates more than six in ten high school students on-time.  Given the demographics of those cities you can see the magnitude and impact of these enormous dropout rates for minority and low-income students.

Wow.  Jaw meet floor.  Scholastic, a serious publisher in the education space (that produces some good products, for instance Read 180) is now allowing its bloggers to call out senior government officials as corrupt on the basis of anonymous third party hearsay and no evidence.   We’ve crossed into a strange new - and unfortunate - world if this is the new norm or somehow even remotely acceptable.

Update:  As you can tell from the now broken link it’s to Scholastic’s credit that they’ve removed the post.

Wow.  If the NEA can’t hide in Montgomery County Maryland, where are they safe?  This is supposed to be one of those places that shows that the critics are all wrong…

More on the policy changes in Houston.  Background on Houston and why it matters starts here.

In DC the Wash Post editorial board weighs-in on the fate of the federal voucher program there and don’t miss this pretty hot letter to Secretary Duncan over the whole thing (pdf).   

Meanwhile in LA Macke Raymond (ES Board chair) with three smart reccomendations on policy, charters, and quality.*    And a new Brookings report on expanding choice and some levers for doing so.

There is also a new report from Gary Orfield moving this morning about charters and demographics. (Read the WaPo’s take here).   Less there than meets the eye, or more precisely than meets the rhetoric.  But one point that probably won’t get made in the back and forth:  In more diverse communities, for instance parts of D.C., an emerging problem is the efforts some really good charters have to make in order to have both a blind admissions process and a lot of low-income kids — because they’re generally mission-focused on low-income youngsters.  In other words some schools are starting to gentrify and are having to double-down on recruitment efforts.  In some juridsictions a school can weight low-income students extra in the lottery to improve their odds but that clashes with federal policy creating problems for schools receiving federal charter dollars.

*For more on ideas like these as well as others check out this paper (pdf).

Update:   Be sure to check out Will Marshall on all this.  He gets into the wayback machine.

Update II:  DFER is to the point.

Update III:   From The Economist, ouch!

Keep an eye on The Education Equality Project, which announced its new new co-chairs today: Michael Lomax of the United Negro College Fund, Janet Murguia of La Raza, and Joel Klein of the NYC schools.

It’s easy to see this latest debate in New York City (about the teachers’ union filing a grievance because plans to require teachers to set goals for each student constitute an increase in the workday) as just another example of teachers’ unions run amok.   Or, as another example of fighting over trees, like three minutes in the school day, while losing sight of the forest.    If it gets more media traction that’s likely how it will be played.  

But this episode is really an example of a deeper, more far-reaching, and more destructive problem in public education:  The almost complete absence in too many places of collegiality, professional decision- making and ability of professionals to solve day to day work challenges without resorting to fights over contractual rules.   Rhetorically the mantra is that teachers should be treated like professionals, and it’s true they certainly should as it’s professional work.   But this sort of thing is the very antithesis of how professionals conduct business and handle relations.   And that’s a problem that goes far beyond one grievance in NYC, it’s cultural.   And it’s going to take a new approach to contracts and organizing schools to get past it that meaningfully empowers teachers as professionals and establishes new norms for how a professional workplace operates.   There are some promising models in places like MN, Colorado, and some charter schools but a long way to go.

Update:   A related but different angle on this here.

Kevin Carey has an interesting post up over at Q & E about the recent The New Yorker profile of Arne Duncan.   Like Kevin I bristled a little at the writer’s division of the school reform world into free market types and liberal traditionalists.   Where, for instance, would someone like Ted Sizer fit in that typology?  To be fair though the author was writing for a general audience so a long unpacking of the Byzantine alignments within education was probably out of the question.

But perhaps more than Kevin I think the education world can be delineated pretty well by viewpoints on two dimensions:  Choice and accountability.   Rhee, for example, is as Kevin says a big government reformer but she’s also very open to choice schemes and pluralism in the delivery of educational services so she’s not strictlya government reformer.   The simple 2 x 2 below looks at the two dimensions and you can see where various policy actors and interest groups fall along the two continuums.   And it’s the actors in the upper right corner combining choice and markets via ideas like charters with a strong dose of public oversight and accountability (Duncan, Rhee, etc…) who seem to be driving the agenda right now. 

The Mind Trust in Indy (Disc-I’m a founding board member) is doing rolling admissions for a new cohort of fellows.

Old NCLB meme:  This law is forcing schools to dumb everything down and it’s all basic skills. But too many schools can’t clear its unrealistically high bars.

New NCLB meme:   The standards in this law were unrealistically high.  So we’re going to replace it with more ambitious ones…

Core Knowledge is going to give its curriculum away for free in an effort to link it to the forthcoming common standards and support their implementation. It’s raising some concerns about what this means for Core Knowledge’s sustainability, but I have a different concern:  Brand.   Core Knowledge is a good curriculum but if it gets weakly implemented in a lot of places it’s going to erode the organization’s well-deserved reputation.

Arne Duncan said today while releasing the President’s budget request that “we’re going to continue to grow this pot.”*  Subversive!  Expect demands for an apology any minute.

But everyone is excited about ESEA reauthorization given the administration’s host of proposals today.   Eliza Krigman has a solid write-up in National Journal.   Justin Cohen has a great blog post laying out the issues.  Meanwhile in The Times Rip Van Dillon seems to have missed the past eight years.  He writes:

“Educators have complained loudly in the eight years since the law was signed that it was branding tens of thousands of schools as failing but not forcing them to change.”

Right…that was the complaint…not enough reform!

Meanwhile, Willingham thinks the psychology of Race to the Top is screwed-up.  He’s right but only insofar as you define state desire as a comprehensive statewide function and consensus rather than some leaders using this as leverage to move the ball.

*OK, he was referring to Race to the Top funds…

Kevin Huffman turns in a great column on Race to the Top.  He’s right to single out Louisiana.  Their application* (and a few others) combine ambitious ideas, real plans for implementation, and an integrated strategy.

Also in theWaPo today, Kevin alludes to the “controversy” over Secretary Duncan’s remarks about New Orleans schools and Katrina.  But to have a controversy don’t you have to have some credible people really upset?   In this case everyone the Wash Post talked to (or at least cited) supported Duncan’s take, which isn’t surprising since it’s a pretty common sentiment in the city.   Duncan isn’t offering any sort of cost-benefit argument, you’re hard pressed to find anyone who doesn’t appreciate the horror of the storm and its aftermath.   The point is that one outcome is an intense focus on improving the city’s previously catastrophically bad schools. 

*Disc-Like Kevin I worked as a  thought partner with a number of states, including Louisiana, to help them prepare their applications but have no stake in any particular outcome.

AFT President Randi Weingarten had a lively apparence on MSNBC’s Morning Joe this morning.  I think she lost Carl Berstein!

So have we repealed parts of the Constitution, in particular Article I lately?  Otherwise it’s a little unclear how this proposed $1 billion incentive fund for ESEA reauthorization works since Congress, you know, controls the purse strings?  They call it a budget “request” for a reason.   Ed Week’s Klein has more on the pending budget request with some Charlie Barone insights on the politics of this ESEA carrot.

Per Rick Hess’ latest jihad poking sticks at the Obama Administration over this “secret” reviewers issue around Race to the Top, aren’t there a lot of consequential government processes and decisions where the accountability is look-back rather than contemporaneous?  The issue here isn’t whether there should be complete transparency, merely when the information should be released to maintain the integrity of the process.

I’m not saying I agree with the Administration on this issue.  In fact, I can see both sides on this one but tend to think the lousy politics and corresponding risk to what is a promising initiative outweigh the benefits.   And Petrilli isn’t wrong about the political cover immediate transparency would provide.   I’m just saying that they do have a case and reasonable people can disagree.   As I said earlier below, it’s precisely the  opportunities for influencing the process that Hess seeks that bolster the administration’s case.   What’s debatable is whether any of that is outweighed by the potential for blowback that political operatives are now trying hard to create.

Read this entire Bill Turque blog post from The Washington Post.  And then say…wow.

Update:  The blog post is gone, airbrushed away Kremlin style!  Did Larry King complain?  Stay tuned!

Update II:   I looked and couldn’t find it anywhere online but commenter Phillip Marlowe got his hands on one.

Update III:  An edited version is now back up via the original link.   Lesson…Don’t mess with Larry King!

Three new reports that are all worth your time.

The National Charter School Research Project (I’m on the advisory board but wasn’t involved in this except as a reviewer)  just released “Hopes, Fears, and Reality 2009.” (pdf).  Important data and analytics on charter schools.  Learning Point Associates just released an interesting report on the views of teachers about various reforms and the extent to which they converge or diverge from the research base (pdf). 

And this Eric Hanushek* analysis of the ecnomic impact of improving PISA outcomes is going to be released tomorrow at Davos (pdf).  *His wife chairs ES’ board.

The WaPo has a fresh exclusive: Obama to propose consolidating federal education programs in his budget.   That’s a significant move (and a smart one on the policy) albeit one likely to encounter a lot of resistance.  Plus, the budget has a carrot:  If Congress passes an ESEA reauthorization they get…one…billion…dollars!   But is that enough?

And some big budget numbers for education…right after the “freeze.”   Sort of a mixed message on SOTU day or is education spending still enough of a valence issue that it doesn’t matter?  Not sure how this helps the administration quell the vocal discontent on the left about the freeze though.  It’s domestic spending, yes, but they hate education reform…In any event, the ESEA sweepstakes are on again.

Albemarle County Public Schools (VA) superintendent Pam Moran gets a nice write-up for her leadership on technology.   She’s also a leader on charter schools in VA — and that’s bucking the trend.

AEI’s Rick Hess is outraged about the lack of immediate transparency around Race to the Top. Secretary Duncan has committed to a transparent competition but the reviewing and judging is happening in secret with the details to be released later.   And like nouveau-populists everywhere Hess is fed up with this Washington double-speak and is not going to take it anymore!   Ed Week’s McNeil is bummed, too.  

First, here’s a prediction:  If the idea that the Obama Administration is giving away billions of dollars through a secret process becomes a theme on talk radio and some of TV’s yell shows then the administration will have to change course on this.  Remember, it was just a few months ago that the President of the United States had to pre-release a speech to schoolchildren because people were worried about indoctrination.    

On the issue, I’m not sure what the Department of Education’s argument for secrecy is, but here’s a good one I see: 

In practice  ”transparent” is not synonymous with contemporaneous.  In other words, a process can be transparent while it is going on or it can be transparent after the fact.  Or it can, of course, also be neither.  The Administration is obviously aiming for post facto transparency here.   And substantively if they release the reviewers’ actual notes, details of the process and any trainings, and obviously the reviewers names, then that’s enough for any congressional oversight and public accountability after the awards are announced.

Hess notes that learning all this after the winners are announced is too late to make a difference on the process.  And he’s right.  But it’s the very idea that there could/should be some public influence if various actors, stakeholders, or interest groups don’t like some aspect of the process that bolsters the administration’s case here.  No one will be happy with this process in its entirety.  Considering the high stakes of the Race to the Top, the oversight and political accountability that exists, and the clear opportunity for transparency after the judging, it’s hard to argue that if there is self-dealing (by the administration or readers) there won’t be consequences.  So this is the best way to insulate the process while it is going on.  Afterwards, let the chips fall where they may.

The counterargument:

This is politically tone-deaf.   It takes one of the administration’s few green shoots right now, education, and turns it into a liability.  It’s pretty easy to take shots at this, as the Hess blog posts show.   Besides it is hard to keep something like this secret anyway so it’s entirely possible that the political hit for not disclosing will be for naught anyway in practice.   

On the substance, we’re talking about $4 billion, doesn’t the public have a right to some visibility into the deliberations about how that money is spent just as they do with congressional appropriations?   Notes and after the fact information is fine but there is no substitute for real-time information about what is being considered and discussed.    There is also the possibility that the transparency will surface conflicts or issues that might not otherwise have been noticed.  Finally, what really is the downside?  Are people really going to lobby the readers or is this just about avoiding headaches?

You make the call…

It’s not just movies…

First John Legend wrote a strong Huffie piece earlier this month about education reform calling it the civil rights issue of our time.  Now he and Deborah Kenny take their message to Morning Joe on MSNBC.

Update:  Daily Riff has more Legend.

President Obama’s just announced non-defense discretionary “freeze” proposal doesn’t make ESEA reauthorization any easier…

Update:  Commenter Doug correctly notes that education may be spared some – as last week’s RTT announcement illustrated — and the administration is leaving itself wiggle room in this proposal overall.  But that’s not the point.  This is still bad news for ESEA for two reasons.

First, traditionally it takes big dollops of resources to buy reform in education.   For instance, don’t believe the rhetoric, in the first few years President Bush put billions of new dollars into No Child Left Behind, increasing federal spending on K-12 by almost 40 percent.  That was the political grease for reform.  Second, the Obama “freeze” proposal is not receiving bouquets from the left.   So it doesn’t help with already strained intraparty Democratic politics further complicating a successful ESEA reauthorization.

Update II:   Petrilli thinks the Republicans will like this and perhaps want to work with Obama now.  Even better, he says, the education groups will be satisfied with all the stimulus money already spent!  Petrilli is apparently easily fooled.   The groups were looking for more funding after the stimulus last year so it’s inconceivable they will not want more this year.  Besides, when has the education system ever said it had enough money and was ready for some good ‘ol reform?  For the Republicans’ part, it’s more likely they will just up the ante in the fiscal restraint game.   The President says $250 billion in savings over the next three fiscal years and they say good, but not good enough, let’s do $350.  There is an arms race quality to these gambits.   And even after the Brown win there are still not enough Republicans to tilt this issue anyway so ESEA reauthorization will require a pretty united Democratic caucus in the Senate.   But most to the point, did Petrilli not get the memo that the Republican game plan this year is to deny Obama victories not enable them?

Ed reform going big screen?  A few years ago I thought that maybe Coach Carter was the first post-NCLB education reform film.  That was premature, the wave is breaking now.  A lot of excitement that  “Waiting for Superman,” Davis Guggenheim’s (he also did Inconvenient Truth) film was such a hit at Sundance and landed a big distribution deal.   Now there is “The Lottery” about a charter school lottery coming later this spring.  That’s sure to be heartbreaking, if you’ve ever seen one of these lotteries it’s brutal.    And I understand there is at least one more in this vein in the works…

Urban Teacher Residency United is launching a new cohort in its residency for residencies.  Here’s an interesting edujob:   Executive Director of DC School Reform now (pdf).    Update:   More DC-area edujobs. SEED is hiring.

And you don’t want to miss this smart testimony from Wireless Gen’s Larry Berger on rethinking Tprocurement for the RTT assessment competition (pdf).

New DLC* report says the issue isn’t whether we’re heading into a “lost decade,” it’s that we just had one (pdf). *disc-where I’m a senior fellow.

It was great to see Revolution Foods profiled in The Times over the weekend.  The company, which provides healthy school lunches, has popped up on this blog from time to time, they’re outstanding and doing interesting and important work.

Sawchuk turns in an important, yes, must-read, story on common assessments…

Charlie Barone has been pointing out for a while that based on the estimated allocation amounts in the final Race to the Top regulations it’s mathematically impossible for every state to get a grant absent a major political failure.   He’s right, but there is also a number between say a dozen and 50 that if we get past it will mean the potential impact of the money is being diluted.   

On the other hand, Rick Hess thinks that advocating for a Race to the Top outcome whereby only a small number of states are winners in Round One establishes a fungible standard so that victory can be declared under a variety of outcomes.   But it’s less complicated than that.  For Round One there is a number between zero and somewhere in the low-single digits that will indicate seriousness in terms of the number of states that win.  And Rick overlooks that a lot of people have read and been involved in various applications and have a lot of visibility into the state plans, so it’ll be hard to fool or get away with much here.

On all this, Andy Smarick turns in a piece that’s well worth reading in Ed Next.  If you want to read one long analysis on all this it’s hard to do better.

Around the states there is a lot of chatter in the wake of the Round One deadline.   Geoffery Canada takes his state, NY, to task.  In CO they passed some last-minute legislation but not everything the state needed so the governor just established a council to look at some of the knotty issues around teacher effectiveness.   Finally, some of the small states are worried that size may work against them and you hear some buzz that small states are too small to make a difference.   But places like Washington DC, Rhode Island, or Delaware offer the chance for some interesting work, at scale, if they can pull it off.