So this “secret” job fair scandal in Chicago is amusing.   But isn’t the understory here the fact that districts go to great lengths like this to try to hire talent?  I’m pretty sure (though not 100 percent and too lazy to check late on a Friday)* that Chicago has a cap on salaries in their contract for credit for previous teaching experience so hiring newbies isn’t a huge cost-saver relative to other potential hires because the differentials are smaller.

In any event, overall in districts with bumping rules and strict seniority provisions the amount of gaming that goes on is stunning.  The good principals and administrators are like little Ari Golds, wheeling and dealing…

*Update:  Yup, it’s still in there, full contract here (pdf).  By the way, this provision, in essence a salary cap at the third step on the salary schedule, is a good example of how not every ridiculous provision in teachers’ contracts is there at the behest of the union.

So you’re thinking to yourself that Teach For America took something of a cheap-shot yesterday.  Well, here’s a chance to do something nice for TFA and look good doing it (or more precisely look good after doing it).   Here’s a coupon for 30 percent off any purchase at Gap, Banana Republic, & Old Navy over the next few days.  Five percent of proceeds go to TFA.

In the it’s a small world department, one of the two researchers behind this new finding about oxidized lava and how the earth evolves (Liz Cottrell) is married to Wireless Gen’s Dave Stevenson…More here.

The WSJ wants to know who will blink first on RTT….

Is USATs Greg Toppo source greasing in pursuit of something else or just looking for a way out of journalism and into a job flacking for the NEA?   Today’s story about Teach For America really abuses the research and seems to generalize from a few anecdotes.  Just because the NEA says veteran teachers are being laid off for TFA teachers, is there really any evidence it’s happening systemically?  Toppo’s two examples and secondhand heresay from teachers’ union leaders fail to convince*…NEA officials can’t be trusted to relay the research accurately so probably worth verifying this, too, no?  Obviously, I happen to think TFA matters and find the backlash against it unsurprising…still c’mon…

*For instance the issue in Charlotte, NC is that they’re going to only use seniority as a tie-breaker in layoffs using quality as the primary driver…that’s what has the teachers’ unions all in a bundle…

Update:  This is easy!  The blogosphere does Toppo’s work for him.  Within ten minutes of posting, key Boston anecdote and assertion from the story debunked: According to a source close to HR in BPS, there are more than 100 posted openings, no veterans let go for TFA’ers despite Toppo’s relaying claims to the contrary…oops!  Maybe USAT can save money by just covering education via Twitter?   Improved accuracy a nice byproduct!

Update II:   This is ugly!  Here’s more information (than you wanted to know!) on the errors in the story, people can whine, Greg’s a nice guy, but this one is still a lemon and would, it seems, rise to the level of needing a correction and/or clarification.   Bottom line, there are not two sides to everything, sometimes there are facts.

In Boston no teachers have been fired to make room for TFA.  Period.  Teach For America will bring in 20 teachers, into a system that has more than 4,000 teachers. Earlier this year, BPS removed a number of provisionally certified (the non-tenured) teachers – which they do every year; and they announced plans to fire some fully licensed teachers from non high-needs subject areas and schools.  The Boston teachers’ union leader, Stutman, is fixating on Teach For America because it is an easy way to draw attention to the firings.  But BPS is hiring new teachers the way they do every year. They have already hired dozens of new teachers. As of Wednesday, there were more than 100 openings in the system. The Boston Teacher Residency has about 75 people in its cohort annually. The district hires from all the local universities. And Teach For America is bringing in 20 people and they have to interview for jobs just like all the other graduates of universities or teachers coming from other cities. Principals and schools will decide who they want to hire. Again, no teachers have been fired so they can be replaced with Teach For America Corps members.   Toppo obviously took this assertion at face value.  Did he check its veracity with either BPS HR officials or with Teach for America?  I don’t know, but I sure doubt it since it made it into the paper and so far no counter-evidence forthcoming…

Second, contra the article’s assertion there are not 18 districts (that’s even 18 districts, leave aside this alleged national trend) that are firing teachers to “make room” for Teach For America corps members.  The article in fact quotes an authority figure asserting that, “I don’t think you’ll find a city that isn’t laying off people to accommodate Teach For America.”  That is simply untrue.   (More generally, to be blunt, based on what we know from the research, one can wish this were so…)  In any event, if there were examples the NEA would be bringing evidence rather than making wild claims that only the gullible would take at face value.  Charlotte, NC, is the most interesting quasi-exception.  There, the superintendent, Dr. Gorman, decided to lay teachers of based partially on performance rather than just seniority, and he still wanted to bring in new corps members as part of an overall strategy for reform.  That move, which based on the research makes sense anyway, is sadly unusual.   But there and elsewhere they are still hiring new teachers from a variety of routes.    To make the case, as the NEA has and Toppo relays, that all this amounts to making room for Teach For America teachers is akin to saying districts are making room for new graduates of teacher ed programs, transfers from other cities, and so forth.   It’s worth remembering the scale of the personnel systems in many of our larger districts (the kind TFA mostly serves) and the numbers of teachers moving in and out even during a downturn like this.   Toppo failed to check the 18 district assertion, the more general claim, and didn’t put any of this into a larger analytic context for readers.  

And, again, absent a lot more evidence, the whole idea that there is a trend here is flimsy.  In fact, it seems like a caricature of the old joke among reporters, one example is a happening, two is a trend!

In both these cases Toppo’s defense could be, well I didn’t say it, they said it.   Sure.  But when you more or less uncritically relay assertions from people presumably in positions of responsibility, they carry weight.  And I’d like to think that if a lobbyist for the hamburger industry were to tell Toppo that burgers are really good for you at least twice a day, for instance, he’d take a minute to check that out and not just relay it followed by a quote from someone saying, no, no they’re not!  Reporters on other beats check things like this.  This is no different, the union leaders are self-interested here and trying to use the downturn to skewer TFA.  The situation calls for skepticism and some authoritative analysis by the reporter.

Finally, speaking of authoritative analysis, Toppo gives the debate on the research the old “on the one hand, on the other hand” treatment when at this point there are really not two hands but some actual evidence. The NEA can say there is no research supporting Teach for America teachers, but all the serious studies (Mathematica, Calder, NY) show the same thing:  Teach For America teachers are – on average – as good or better relative to other teachers including veterans.   At an absolute minimum they do no harm.  That’s pretty essential for readers to understand in a news story about veterans and TFA teachers especially because people naturally, and understandably, think veterans are always better.  

It’s also essential context if you’re going to let the guy who runs the NEA say that Teach For America is committing “educational malpractice” an assertion that leaving aside its complete irony and shamelessness, is demonstrably false based on the evidence today.   If the American Medical Association abused research the way the National Education Association does it would be a national scandal.  But in our field they are aided and abetted by reporting like this.  [By the way though, when you stop and think about the human capital system in education, these research findings are hardly surprising.  In fact, what I think surprises is that the Teach For America effect is not stronger than it is, that needs more research but has some sobering implications for some contemporary education debates.]    Regardless, Toppo not only doesn’t give readers a sense of the body of research or what it actually says but mixes anecdotal impressions with a discussion of aggregate evidence.   Research like this can be confusing, it can be hard to report, some researchers are less helpful on transparency than others, but none of that is an excuse when it’s your job to parse it.  

Only in education do stories often turn on opinions about the research rather than a discussion of the implications of the research.   Maybe Toppo will write a story soon where we can all offer our opinions on gravity and whether objects float around here on earth?  If there are two sides to everything then there must be two sides to this pesky debate about gravity allegedly holding things down.

So Merrow, not ad hom, those are the facts.  If you have data on this to the contrary, please bring it.  Otherwise…

Despite the off-again and on-again nature of the health care debate right now, it still seems that politically No Child Left Behind reauthorization is inversely related to any health care bill.  If health care doesn’t pass, vulnerable incumbents, especially Dem incumbents, will be eager to see some bills – like education – passed that they can run on next fall.   If health care does pass it’s a big accomplishment and while it doesn’t mean No Child Left Behind reauthorization is dead by any means, it lessens the urgency – particularly in light of Race to the Top and all the action there. 

Also, smart WaPo editorial on Race to the Top this morning, with a health care angle tucked in…

Quaid’s AP story about class size is making the rounds of the blogs and the twittosphere.    It’s actually a frustrating story because (a) there really isn’t much of a debate about whether class size matters more than teacher effectiveness, the research is clear it doesn’t, effectiveness matters more and (b) most districts pay little attention to effectiveness when they lay off teachers.  Or much at all.*  Assuming an adequate supply of effective teaching candidates, smaller classes (in the teens kinda small) in the very early grades have some benefits – both to students and as a recruiting strategy for good teachers.  But because districts are so locked-in to their personnel patterns there is very little in the way of creative distribution of teachers so we’re not talking about targeted reductions being at-risk here nor are we talking about really small classes**, more like a student or two here and there and mostly across the board.   For instance, the article cites LA where the problem is not whether classes are larger by one or two kids in middle or high school but rather that average class sizes there are, according to AP, 35-43 kids, to begin with.  That’s nuts.

*’Tis apparently true:  Teachers are mostly treated as interchangeable anyway.  If the economic downturn actually meant more attention to educational productivity it would be a silver lining to an otherwise unfortunate situation…  **There are exceptions, of course, there are always exceptions seeing as there are 13K+ school districts around the country, but in general.

OK, Twitter has now apparently fixed the problem plaguing the Twittosphere yesterday, so if you want to follow me on Twitter and drink snark right from the fire hose you most likely have to click through once more.  Most followers lost in the flood.  Sorry!

Ed Week’s Klein writes-up the Senate education approps bill mark-up.   Less money for the Teacher Incentive Fund than the House…sets up a bit of a debate with the administration and among senators…key item, this letter from a group of senators (pdf) seeking more funding for the program….

Barone busts the effort to rhetorically rewrite New York law in light of Race to the Top criteria…

Update:  California trying to get cute, too!

Things like this could be a powerful byproduct of the Race to the Top…

There seems to be some problem with my Twitter feed, followers not being added.  So if you really need to mainline the Eduwonk content make sure  you’re actually following.

NYT’s Sam Dillon takes a look at the state of play on charter schools and teachers’ unions.  It’s a useful check-in and overview for those who don’t follow this closely.  But two things do jump out. 

First, if Sam doesn’t bury the lede he at least shovels some top soil on it:

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, called the gains of the past year “a precursor.”  You’re going to see far more union representation in charter schools,” Ms. Weingarten said. “We had a group of schools that were basically unorganized, groups of teachers wanting a voice, a union willing to start organizing them, and now money in our organizing budget to back that up. And all of that has come together in the last 6 to 12 months.”

That’s sort of key to all this, no?  The unionization drive that’s going on now isn’t some spontaneous thing, it’s an organized effort!  Nothing wrong with that, and kudos to Weingarten for being upfront, but it’s nuance that matters to understanding what’s happening out there.  I’m no media critic but isn’t the lede here the unprecedented effort the teachers’ unions are undertaking to do this?

Second, Dillon writes that, “The largest teachers union, the National Education Association, has no national charter organizing campaign. But some of its state affiliates have helped charters unionize.”

That’s true, as far as it goes.  But, if you’re keeping score at home the NEA did not so long ago have a big charter initiative, they were going to start some, etc…it was an enormous debacle, that’s why (a) you don’t hear much about it now and (b) Randi Weingarten’s various charter initiatives are significant on a couple of levels.

LA’s Paul Pastorek, one of the very best state ed chiefs in the country, under fire…And here I thought everyone was in snyc…

Regular readers have kept up with the career of maverick David Steiner, now he’s the incoming education commissioner in New York.  Here’s a piece that Richard Whitmire and I wrote about a recent Steiner initiative at Hunter College and he did a controversial chapter for this book.

Update:  Gotham Schools has a long Steiner treatment up.  

Over at Politco a quick squib on the reversal of fortune issue with regard to education reform.  Diane Ravitch sees it as a reversal, too, but in a different way.   At National Journal the debate is on the achievement gap.  My take is here.

Finally, I have bowed to the inevitable (and peer pressure).  I’m on Twitter now as of the other day.   If you’re following the Eduwonk feed (and I have no idea how you would have found it but some readers apparently did) it’ll become live at some point but for now it’s the feed linked here where I’ll try to deliver ed policy snark in <140 characters…you can also follow ES here.

Jay Mathews writes-up some blogging censorship of a California teacher blogger as a case of heavy-handed administrators and political correctness run amok.  But I think the episode actually points to a deeper problem.  Despite all the talk about professionalizing teachers, they’re mostly still infantilized by those in authority.   For instance, from the story:

…after the program’s director, Rachel Lotan, said some of her fellow teacher trainees found her “domineering and intimidating” and didn’t want to sit next to her in class.

Seriously?  Leave aside the academic freedom issues, isn’t the thing to do here to gently explain to them that part of being a professional is successfully working with people you may not like or even find domineering and intimidating?

This is not a trivial issue.  This undercurrent is essentially often offered up as to why more rigorous evaluations or use of data isn’t a good idea.  It might not always be fair!  Or why we can’t differentiate pay for teachers.  They won’t understand if some people are paid more or less for teaching some subjects!  It’ll make the workplace tense!   Or why only teachers’ union officials can speak for teachers, etc…

The LAT story about how President Obama’s stance on teacher data puts him at odds with California includes this passage:

You cannot ignore facts,” Obama said. “That is why any state that makes it unlawful to link student progress to teacher evaluations will have to change its ways.”

The remarks escalate a disagreement between the Obama administration and California education leaders. While a 2006 law prohibits the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers on a state level, it does not mention local districts, where state officials say pupil data can be used to judge instructors. A handful of districts currently are doing that; L.A. Unified is not.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Friday he would push to amend state law if necessary.

Hmmm….I can’t imagine State Board of Education President Ted Mitchell would be opposed, he’s a reformer’s reformer.   So doesn’t the Obama stance put the Administration more at odds with the California teachers union more than “leaders” in general.  To be fair, the story strongly implies this lower down but why not just come out and say that?  Or if there are other leaders who are opposed, name them.  Readers want to know!

The article also says:

Federal officials have said that California legislators do not have to necessarily revise current law. Instead, the attorney general could certify that the state law is not a barrier to teacher accountability.

Although conceivably a state could cobble together a district by district approach to doing this, the guidance doesn’t read this way.  And such an approach would be a pretty significant loophole with the potential to undermine the intent.    Readers want some sourcing!  This reader at least.

Everyone is simply abuzz about the Race to the Top and the President and Secretary Duncan will unveil the proposed regulations later this morning.   

Couple of takeaways from the guidance. 

First, as the go-to Bushie for Road to Paigeascus conversions on ed issues,  Petrilli is posturing.  Federalism is hardly threatened here and in many ways a lot of this looks like the various “super ed-flex” and performance agreement ideas that conservatives were touting during the debate over No Child Left Behind.  Besides, states can choose not to compete.  And although they have to do a few things in this proposed set of regs, they’re pretty much left to their own devices about how.   In fact, that’s the problem.  When left to their own devices they tend to come up lame as the recent differentiated consequences pilot amply illustrated. 

Although the draft regs would exclude states that have a prohibition on linking student and teacher data at the individual level, very few states have an outright ban.  The problem, is that according to the Data Quality Campaign only 21 states (pdf) can make such a linkage  but fewer than a handful actually do anything with it.  That said, as the astute Michele McNeil pointed out yesterday, two states that do have bans are NY and CA…not exactly bit players.  Still, less than meets the eye.

Don’t miss the definitions of student achievement and effective teachers and principals.  That’s the first salvo in what’s likely to be a long debate at the federal level as we shift from credentialing based on paper credentials to some definition of effectiveness.

The charter school language is interesting.  It’s not just about caps but about states that have practices that effectively preclude charter schools from opening.  That’s good, because some states have charter laws, no caps, but the laws are basically faux laws because of how they work.   Maryland, Virginia, etc…fall in this category.  If the department holds the line there it will prove to be an important way to differentiate.

And overall that’s the big takeaway.  If the Dep’t can hold the line on this so that they can genuinely delineate amongst the states, keep the regs from getting watered down, and only give awards to states that are serious, and make some tough calls they’ll have something important here.  But that’s going to be a big lift and it’s going to be made harder – substantively and politically – by not taking a firmer line on some things up front in the regs.

 Here’s NEA president Dennis Van Roekel in today’s WaPo:

“We’re absolutely in sync with where they’re going,” said Dennis Van Roekel, president of the National Education Association. Van Roekel said performance pay, charter schools and links between student and teacher data raise difficult issues for his union. On the data issue, Van Roekel said he told Duncan: “This is going to be a tough one for us.”

That quote is self-contradictory nonsense.  it’s akin to saying they’re on board with Dunan’s ”moon shot” except for the parts about rockets, rocket fuel, astronauts, engineers, and mission control…To be fair, the NEA can’t support a lot of this because its at odds with their own member-derived policy positions, but it’s silly to pretend otherwise.

And you’re hearing a lot of that sentiment…we’re with you on the goals but…

A few interesting states to keep an eye on:  CO, DE, LA…

Per this post from the other day, this episode in Baltimore seems more Chanin than Weingarten?

The 9th Circuit threw out the anti-Teach For America lawsuit Renee v. Spellings today (pdf).

Once again the Center on Education Policy releases a report challenging the CW on an education issue and once again only Ed Week steps into the breach.  Last time it was No Child Left Behind and student test scores, this time it’s the “plateau effect” of test scores and reform.  This is useful work, but at this point if Jack Jennings doused himself in gasoline and set himself ablaze in front of the NEA, would anyone notice?  Well, I suppose it might at least generate a few stories blaming No Child Left Behind…

My friend Ed Kilgore once noted that the definition of being an insider in Washington is finding things out 15 minutes before everyone else.   Is the internet ruining that small thrill, too?  I was barely into reading the drafts of the proposed new national education standards when Panic at the Pondiscio decided to publish a leaked copy…

I am so much more down with Bill Gates on this issue than I am on this one.  We don’t need lousy schools but, as bad as they can be, doesn’t the earth actually need hurricanes?

So, in the wake of the election the buzz was that President Obama would be able to do something big on health care, maybe even climate change, but education was pretty hopeless because of the teachers’ unions.   As the Administration gets ready to roll out its “Race to the Top” plans at the end of the week, and given the state of play on those others issues, seems worth asking if perhaps the buzz wasn’t backwards?

At EduStat, Tony Wagner thinks there is something really wrong with our schools and is hammering on the importance of college prep…but a lot of talk about skills….uh oh!

Wait!  Wagner makes a point of saying he’s completely in agreement on the point of content, we just need some discipline about how much is enough.   That’s a good point.   The only people who read state standards these days are the people who write them.    And we all know that the education field is spectacularly good at making hard choices…

Fortunately, NGA, Achieve, and CCSSO are going to sort that out for us.  So, next problem?

Update:   Local press here.

This NRO article about how the experience with public and private student loans shows why we should be leery of government health care would be a lot more convincing if, you know, the private student loans were actually a better policy than federal direct loans…

In fact, the private student loan market is not a model for much except highly effective lobbying.  Link via Jay Greene’s blog.

Albemarle Public Schools in Virginia are hosting the Edustat University this year.   500 registrations, 700 people showed up on Monday morning…isn’t it usually the opposite?  You can follow along online, chat, tweet, watch and so forth…A surprising amount of buzz about what’s happening in Washington (Race to the Top, innovation, etc…) given that the attendees are mostly local educators.   Most popular guy there:  Consultant David DeSchryver because he knows where the federal money is…

Another speed bump on the way to the promised digital revolution…

The New York Times, July 21, 1969.