There is a lot going on in the New York charter school world, Gotham Schools rounds up talking pointgate here, budget cutsgate here, and conflictgate here.  And there was the lottery for scarce slots in charters.

The New York papers are all over talking pointgate today here, here, here, and here.  I sure hope that all the surprise being expressed about this is feigned.  Regulatory capture in education is hardly news, in fact it often morphs into a Stockholm Syndrome-like condition… 

I don’t know a great deal about advertising but I know that good placement matters.

I’m still pretty young but I lived through stock market bubbles, housing bubbles, and now more than one teacher shortage bubble…

Usually Reliable Robelen looks at the ongoing debate about how similar President Obama’s education policy is to what President Bush did. 

I’m pretty sure that Jonathan Schorr of New Schools Venture Fund…

… and Jermaine Clement from Flight of the Conchords were separated at birth.

Also, in case you were wondering, I have no plans to marry John Thompson.

Couple of edujobs in the charter school world, including a CEO role.

The lede of this article speaks to the symbolism problem in our field, the body speaks to what’s really at stake here.    Some new research on community college completion rates.  And if someone can explain how denying all these public school parents more choices is good for public education, please do.  Here’s another cut at that issue from Cleveland.

Here’s one account of what went down in New York last week at the EEP meeting, but hedge fund manager cum fight promoter Whitney Tilson has the too hot for newspapers version.  And, if you like theater, this event promises some.

And remember the Nelson Smith – Stephen Joel Trachtenberg fight over college scholarship eligibility for public charter school students from D.C?  Well, a few years have passed and it’s ended well and charter students can now participate.

Symbolism matters in social movements.  Has the contemporary education reform movement been strategic about using symbols?  I take a look at that in a new USN column.

Mostly lost among all the stimulus action last week was a letter Secretary Duncan sent to the states (pdf) on some No Child Left Behind regulatory issues.  The administration didn’t roll back the Spellings graduation rate requirements or make other radical changes.  I would have preferred a more aggressive push on public school choice for students in low-performing schools, perhaps even with required audits about whether potential receiving schools actually have space or not rather than a walking back of the pressure there and the “n” size regulation isn’t helpful, but the sky isn’t falling.  It barely even registers on Petrilli’s gadget.  It’s mostly innocuous stuff. 

Unless you’re in the tutoring industry that is. 

There is a lot of chatter about what’s next for the “supplemental educational services” or SES tutoring industry when No Child Left Behind is reauthorized.  Duncan’s new regulation means he’ll ease some requirements around the program and is going to waive some of the requirements that pertain to SES for stimulus funds.  That makes sense since those funds are big one-time shots of money that the states couldn’t reasonably spend on tutoring anyway.  But, the regulatory change seems to indicate trouble for the program longer term.

So, the short answer to what’s next is that it’s not an industry I’d invest a lot in (even if I could, ES has a policy precluding ES personnel from investing in for-profit education ventures) for a couple of reasons.   First, the business model of requiring public school districts to help competitors for resources set up shop is completely screwed up (that’s a technical B-school term).   That creates an internal tension in the program that can’t be fully resolved no matter how much regulatory pressure is brought to bear.   There are fixes for that (pdf) but not a lot of political appetite to make them.

Second, quality within the SES industry is really mixed and has been all along.   At the same time, there are not yet good cues to help parents or policymakers differentiate among good providers and lousy ones.  That’s why in most states pretty much every provider that is not run by a felon or completely in financial disarray and has at least one employee who owns a suit can get approved to provide services.   And it’s a chaotic space with insuficient information so it’s hard for parents to make good decisions.

And third, in his letter Secretary Arne Duncan said that he’s going to allow school districts that are not making “adequate yearly progress” or AYP under the No Child law to nonetheless provide tutoring services to students themselves if they want to, something currently prohibited.  Under his proposal states can refuse them, but state boards of education that, regardless of service quality, are going to choose for-profit vendors over local school districts are few and far between.   That’s too bad though because there is a big difference between allowing a district like Chicago that might not be making AYP but can nonetheless bring real capacity to a problem to provide services and allowing a district with say 6 schools, all of them lousy, to do the same.   In other words, absent the politics and lack of attention to quality that exists today, Duncan’s proposal makes a lot of sense.

Without a real change in the path we’re on it looks like the current marketplace will change in the wake of the new law and SES providers will have to either market directly to parents who will be paying the entire cost out of pocket or to school districts for contracts.   So, if I owned an SES company, what would I do?

First, I’d decide whether I want to be acquired by a larger company and just get out of the business or whether I want to try to make it in the post-NCLB environment.  If the latter I’d go after the talent that will be available as the industry shakes out and I’d make sure I could make a good empirical case to school districts about quality of service.  And if I were a good provider I’d be trying to partner with other good providers to come up with some standards for quality and some sort of accreditation process that actually has teeth.  What’s out there now doesn’t.

And if I were an industry leader I’d partner with some others to make the case to lawmakers that some aspects of this should be kept in place – albeit with some changes to address the issues above.  It’s hard not to think that if this were a federal subsidy for suburban kids to take violin lessons or play lacrosse there would be riots if Congress went anywhere near it.   Done well SES can help low-income students with academics, but the quality providers have been too quiet and now don’t have a lot of time left to make that case.

I’m not that surprised that the 3rd year evaluation of the D.C. voucher program (pdf) found modestly positive results, that’s in keeping with other research on the issue.   I am surprised that Andy Smarick thinks evidence will have anything to do with the debate:

Of course, there will be lots and lots written and said about this over the next several days, and of course this all will have a bearing on the reauthrorization [sic] of the program…

Right!  I’d forgotten how empirical the debate on the Hill was…

For voucher opponents the program is like that scene in “Saving Private Ryan” where the Germans keep shooting the runner to make sure the message dies with him.  As long as the voucher program lives it carries a message, they must stop that.   Proponents feel the same intensity, just in the opposite direction.

That’s why, bottom line, this seems unlikely to change any minds.  Previous D.C. voucher posts here.

Update:  WaPo ed board turns up the heat.

ES Board Chairman Alan Bersin discusses his experiences in San Diego and education reform more generally in this interview.  It’s lively…

Update:  Denver Post here.

TAP’s Dana Goldstein seems to be on board with the performance-pay as the new vouchers meme.  She’s right that any alleged silver bullet should be regarded with caution substantively and politically.  But beyond the silliness of litmus test education reform, is that really the issue here?  Is anyone saying that differentiating teacher pay along more dimensions than just years of service and degrees is a sufficient education reform?   What makes transformative educational reform a challenge is that a host of complicated and contentious changes need to happen somewhat in tandem for the country to see real progress.   Changes in how teachers are paid, and human capital reform in education more generally (pdf), is one vital aspect of that but not the only one.   I guess the political debate might have trouble multitasking but that’s not news.

Here are some ways to spend all those stimulus dollars…

Update:  For real ideas and information Thompson has a site on the technical details (for instance the special education fix that was attached to the omnibus spending bill) and Learning Point has a free site for all things stimulus that’s proving to be a very popular resource and has webinars and programming.

There is a lot of excitement (NYT  here, Ed Week here) about the new stimulus guidance from the Department of Education (pdf).   And sure, the emphasis on data, benchmarking student achievement, teacher effectiveness and charter schools (pdf) is great from a reform perspective.  But the guidance vividly shows the difference between requirements and assurances as levers for reform in federal policy.  And because – for whatever reason, and accounts vary – reform was included in the stimulus bill only via the latter, assurances, the Department is now playing a weak hand in a game with some accomplished bluffers.   Charlie Barone does a better job of explaining the dynamic in plain English than I did in describing the $5 on $600 problem, but we both agree that the game is now the “race to the top” fund and an effort to influence a $600 billion annual industry with a one-time infusion of $5 billion (and less than that really).

More generally, anyone who still thinks that shining a light on states is enough to get them to dramatically improve their schools hasn’t been paying attention — for decades.  Federal policymakers have tried that approach on a range of issues from higher education to teacher education to all manner of K-12 issues and it’s had little effect.   The states are pretty good at gaming the data or even presenting it in ways that can actually make bad situations look good to the uninitiated.  Besides, is the problem really a lack of information about the problems per se?  I don’t think anyone influential is sitting around wondering whether or not teacher evaluations are any good or if all states have challenging standards and tests for students.    

In other words, the theory of action here has three flaws and just two ways out.  The flaw are that, first, the problem is not an absence of information about the problems, it’s political will.  Second, many/most states are not chomping at the bit to improve their schools.  Again, political will and often dysfunctional politics.  And third, most of the money will flow before the chance to have real teeth in the policy comes. 

Two ways out.  First, if the administration is laying the groundwork to get Congress to move on these problems then that’s a good plan but absent a whole lot more money to invest and a willingness to throw a lot of political capital in, too, it’s a dicey strategy given all the variables.   And second, per the above, pulling a rabbit out of the hat with the ”race to the top” fund.

Every year the Final Four occasions an important round of concern about the graduation rates for athletes in the big powerhouse programs.   Check out the New America Foundation for one example.  

But what gets lost is that while the graduation rates for athletes need to improve, schools know exactly how to support them and keep them in school while they’re eligible to play NCAA sports.  That has implications for supporting students and improving college completion rates more generally.