I’ve read the settlement agreement in Central Falls and my first reaction is WTF?

The teachers are getting their jobs back and the district is getting the reforms it wanted (which were pretty modest to begin with).  Good on both.  So can someone explain why it took months, why the President of the United States got involved, why we needed statements from the U.S. Secretary of Education, etc…to reach this point?  Good for Deb Gist for seeing this through but wow.  If this is going to be the norm for every personnel agreement involving a low-performing school we’d better lower our expectations…

Mile High- What happened in Colorado last week on teacher quality really is a big deal.   The comprehensive nature of this bill is enormously significant and the AFT publicly breaking with the NEA on an issue this important.  The CW is that because the AFT is a small player in CO it wasn’t significant.   This has it exactly backwards.  Because the AFT is a small player in CO but chose to do this anyway is a signal.   In fact, it’s causing a weird nexus between the anti-union dues crowd and the anti-testing crowd. This Denver Post column is must-reading about it.

There is also a deal in New York on the table. It’s not as ambitious as Colorado or D.C. but before you dismiss it remember the context…this is NEW YORK.  Here’s a taste of that. In addition, everyone fetishizing various numbers for what percent of a teachers’ evaluation should be based on test scores would be wise to remember that there is some room for innovation here because there are not hard and fast validated templates that can be laid over state or local systems right now as well as various technical constraints.   In other words, some innovation is fine.

And speaking of politics, brutal column from the Indy Star.  Sign of the times.

$23 billion question? Arne Duncan sent a letter to the Hill urging action on the $23 billion teacher job bill and The White House put the word out, too. A lot of folks in the reform community on the other side until some language addressing last hired/first fired policies is included.   Also some challenges around budget rules, which mean a unified Democratic caucus is a must in the Senate.  Stay tuned.  Sawchuk has some important context in Ed Week. Absent some structural reforms the problem is going to get worse and worse and we’ll look a back at $23 billion as a bargain.  Matt Miller on the issue here.

Almost Heaven? A great story about some bravery from State Senator Erik Wells got lost in all the other political news out of West Virginia.

Charlottesville filmmaker Chris Farina’s new film “World Peace and other 4th-grade achievements” is pretty cool and well worth your time.

Justin Cohen weighs-in on the Politico Race to the Top story from last week.

Turns out you can run an outstanding school in East Palo Alto.

Joel Rose and School of One get a Freakanomics star turn in the NYT.

George Miller is going to take on Head Start and fraud later this week at a hearing Tuesday at 1:30.  Could be some action coming out of this one.   In fact, Miller knows you need to do that on a full stomach, so he met with Rachel Ray last week.

So what do Crosby, Stills, and Nash, Jackson Browne, Wayne Shorter, and Ben Harper have in common?  They all played the annual benefit for ICEF Public Schools last week.

Georgia state chief Kathy Cox is going to lead the Delivery Institute.

Here’s a very cool edujob at the Louisiana Department of Education.

Ben Wildavsky lays out the free-mind-trade argument under-girding his new book in the WSJ.

Brookings is still worried about education journalism but has Richard Colvin figured that out?

Great event on charters and special needs students next Monday, 24th, in D.C. And Arizona State is sponsoring a throw-down on improving American schools. It’s at the National Press Club June 4th.

At New Schools Paul Herdman (Rodel DE) got an award, so did Kristin Richmond (Rev Foods).  Tim Daly (TNTP) is getting one tonight at the Teach For America dinner.   First reader to figure out what they have in common, wins a free book.

Johnston teacher quality bill on the move in CO again, sans big changes, big win for him.

New Schools Summit in DC today.   My short take on more than a decade of these.

We’re excited about Bellwether’s launch this week.  The event is this Thursday at the Sumner School in Washington, D.C. from 3:30-5.

Jane Pauley will lead what should be a provocative discussion with Cami Anderson, superintendent of District 79 in New York City, John King, the Deputy Commissioner of Education in New York and a founder of the incredible Roxbury Prep, Kim Smith, a founder of New Schools Venture Fund and now of Bellwether, and me about the opportunities and challenges facing the entrepreneurial education reform sector.   Kathleen McCartney, the dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education and a member of Bellwether’s board of directors will kick things off.   Mary Wells, Monisha Lozier, and Sara Mead will be there as well, obviously, so good chance to meet them if you don’t know them all.

The event is open but is now oversubscribed and we’re on a growing wait list.  So if you’ve rsvp’d that you’re coming but now realize you can’t please let us know so we can accommodate others.  If you’re on the wait list please be patient and if you haven’t RSVP’d for a spot please do as soon as possible.  We’re taking people off the list in order.

All RSVP’s and cancels through events@bellwethereducation.org

We look forward to seeing you.

The education jobs bill and last hired/first fired is the topic at National Journal this week.   My take here.

Update: New case for public school performance:  Better than housing!

NYT catches up with Joe Williams and what he’s up to. It’s a must-read.  (Disc. I’m a DFER board member).

Update: One thread you’re hearing this morning in reax to this story is a lot of how awful it is these rich people are involved in schools and ‘how do we know the schools these hedge fund types are starting are any good?’ kind of chatter.   That’s a political attack but actually not a big issue, they’re overwhelmingly very good places for kids and are posting good results.   Hardly as surprise, they’re serious, intentional and well-resourced places.

The more subtle issue that does require thoughtful attention is the lack of community resources in many communities to open similar schools.   Even in New York some very good charter struggle to get traction and attention (read political and financial support) in the way that some name-brand ones can.  That’s absolutely not a reason to oppose these schools or lob bombs over the fence at them as too many do.  Rather, it should occasion some serious conversations about diversity, strategy, leadership, building capacity, and talent pipelines and how to build those elements in a durable way.

Colbert King checks in on D.C.’s juvenile detention system.   He’s obviously right that it’s a misaligned mess and there is still a long way to go there.  But there are also some green shoots that offer learning and optimism.

In particular the New Beginnings program at the former Oak Hill facility demonstrates that you can treat youth offenders with respect, provide serious educational services, and improve outcomes. It’s hard to describe how night and day it is with the facility it replaced.  But it costs money and takes effort and too often these programs are an afterthought – especially in lean fiscal times.

It seems like Russ Whitehurst,  Deb Meier*, Diane Ravitch, and everyone else now arguing or hinting that the Race to the Top does not have legitimacy in law would have a stronger case if the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (pdf) didn’t, you know, specifically authorize the Secretary of Education to allocate those funds to states of his choosing in amounts of his choosing based-on the core areas of focus identified in the law, “and such other criteria as the Secretary determines appropriate.” I3 is there, too, by the way.**

It’s certainly fair to argue about whether or not that kind of discretion is good policy, and there is a long running argument about whether or not Congress defers to much to the Executive Branch because of the vagueness that laws are frequently crafted with.  But even the hint that there is any kind of abuse of power here seems more than a little beyond the pale and sadly symptomatic of the debate today – especially considering the congressional negotiations that went on over this language prior to its enactment.

Perhaps soon they can have a forum and bridge the differences about whether or not the U.S. Constitution, 16th Amendment notwithstanding, really requires us to pay income tax?  That’s a lively one in some circles, too, and equally rooted in the law.

*While we’re at it, also seems like Meier would have a stronger case on Race to the Top ‘gun to your head’ or ‘irresistible lure’ coercion if a bunch of states were not actually opting out and in the process demonstrating the genuinely voluntary nature of the competition.

**In fact, it’s some of the most popular No Child Left Behind waivers that seem to be lacking a statutory home…

Charter school policy and politics in Virginia makes you want to stick a fork in your eye.

In Colorado the AFT has endorsed the Mike Johnston teacher evaluation bill. Noteworthy.   Stand for Children’s* Colorado chapter working that one hard.

In Connecticut the legislature passed some education changes in the 11th hour to help that state’s Race to the Top chances.  ConnCan working hard on that one.

Update: The latest from Denver.

*Bellwether works with Stand for Children.

Children’s Defense Fund comes on board efforts to curb seniority-based layoffs (pdf).

MN Governor Pawlenty previews some of the Republican political themes around education.

If you were wondering when conservative voucher supporters would prominently pick up on the futility argument so in vogue in some circles (that public schools are sort of helpless to do a lot because of poverty and schools doing really well just have really smart kids in them) – that day was today in the NYT.*

Charles Murray makes the libertarian case for radical school choice, and it’s a case you hear on the left and the right, but he again mischaracterizes what the kind of tests widely in use today show and don’t show.  He writes,

…The day after the Milwaukee results were released, I learned that parents in the Maryland county where I live are trying to start a charter school that will offer a highly traditional curriculum long on history, science, foreign languages, classic literature, mathematics and English composition, taught with structure and discipline. This would give parents a choice radically different from the progressive curriculum used in the county’s other public schools.

I suppose that test scores might prove that such a charter school is “better” than ordinary public schools, if the test were filled with questions about things like gerunds and subjunctive clauses, the three most important events of 1776, and what Occam’s razor means. But those subjects aren’t covered by standardized reading and math tests. For this reason, I fully expect that students at such a charter school would do little better on Maryland’s standardized tests than comparably smart students in the ordinary public schools.

Actually, at the K-8 level the tests are general knowledge tests so kids getting a good education tend to perform better — Core Knowledge schools are a good example of this in practice.  Meanwhile, there are even some schools with average kids that do a lot better and a lot of research showing that different things schools do matter to achievement. As for Occam’s razor, they don’t teach it…

In fairness, school finance litigator Rocco Testani was on this a few years ago but not in The Times!

Interesting and pointed LA Daily News op-ed on ICEF and the performing arts high school in LA (also, funny lede).

Buy-in v. boldness in RTT is the topic on the NJ blog this week. A lot of good posts, and Jon Schnur joins the pushback on the CW about buy-in.

Generally in teachers union elections the position of “I don’t give a f***” gets the most votes  in contract ratifications, election of officers, and so forth.  In other words non-votes far outpace votes.

Looks like despite all the noise about the contract and everything else there is a small participation problem in D.C. (pdf) and that Mr./Mrs. I don’t give a…is poised to win again.

Remember, can’t have charters because they get in the way of all this teacher voice!  And remember, no one has ever seen teachers in DC so fired up…

Update: Antonucci has more.

Newsweek’s Alter joins the Ed Trust and a small but growing chorus of voices in asking why we’re not getting some commonsense change along with any new federal money to avert layoffs.

The argument against this you’re hearing quietly in the education community is that there were not a lot of strings and reform tied to the bailouts over the last few years so why do it to schools.

Re the teacher evaluation bill moving in Colorado here’s a good example of the subtle and pernicious effect of the disproportionate attention to out-of-school factors that is promoted today.  A legislator opposed to the bill writes that (emp. added):

I say the problem is that we have growing numbers of students who lacked a quality early childhood and thus will always be behind, students who need more intensive services, students who need more individualized instruction – while, at the same time, we have dwindling resources to meet the needs of these students.

I’m there on intensive services and individualized instruction.   And I want to see an expansion of high quality early-childhood programs, too.   But, the achievement gap grows while students are in K-12 schools, it doesn’t shrink.  And none of this has anything to do with whether or not to evaluate teachers to ensure that the kids who need the most are getting it.  Let’s not run up the white flag or use it as an excuse not to get on top of the things we can do more to control within the system — like teacher quality.

Update: Willingham is on this theme, too, this week.

A while ago I hinted at the tension between charter schools in DC* and Michelle Rhee over the teacher pay raises in the new contract.  That’s now becoming a bigger issue.

When Michael Bennet, now Senator Bennet (D-CO), was superintendent of schools in Denver I remember all the grumbling about his indifference to charter schools within the ed reform scene there.  It wasn’t that he was hostile to them at all, he was quite supportive.  Rather, if he had a large dollop of money to invest in reform it was usually for something systemic to help the city’s schools.  Michael’s view was that while $3 million could help open a great charter, it could also help develop a training program, recruitment strategy, etc… that would help the beleaguered district improve.   In other words, while he was a reformer’s reformer, he knew he wasn’t superintendent of the charters, he was superintendent of the public school system there.   Although not in Bennet’s case, too often that ethic turns into hostility to charters, and that’s a huge problem.  But in the context of intensive urban education reform benign neglect for charters isn’t unreasonable and may be the best strategy to help both sectors and ultimately build urban systems that work for all students.

And that brings us to Michelle Rhee in D.C.  Like Bennet she’s a reformer’s reformer.  And like him she’s pro-charter.   She’s pro-choice in general in fact.  But she’s the Chancellor of the District of Columbia Public Schools, not just the Chancellor of the Charters.   Her job is to fix the demonstrably awful schools in D.C. not just to help charters grow.  To the extent there are inequities in the city’s funding formulas that don’t put charters on a level playing field with other public schools, those should be remedied (although D.C. is much better on that score than some other jurisdictions).  But, the charters have enjoyed the pick of teachers in the city for a long time now because they offer better working conditions, better opportunities, etc…Now the city is, yes, competing under Rhee’s leadership.  And competition is part of what this is supposed to be all about in terms of a theory of change.  Fortunately, the charters can continue to compete in a bunch of non-monetary ways but the idea that this new contract is an untenable problem because it will complicate the human capital situation for the city’s charters doesn’t hold water.

Put a different way that will resonate with some people, sometimes Creon is operating in a larger context, longer time lines, and under different constraints than are immediately apparent in the specifics and passions of the moment.

The one aspect of this I do worry about is the issue of leveraging reform, assuming the contract ultimately goes through.  Teachers in D.C. did not see raises for several years but are not underpaid the way teachers in some jurisdictions are.  The point of this new money is to leverage a new, and better, approach to human capital in the city.  In other words, if Rhee isn’t able to really exploit the new contract to change things in DC, it’ll be an enormous missed opportunity because the new money’s real value is in what it can bring about by way of change.

Update: Smarick has a smart response to this up. Let me be clear, I’m all for using charters as a reform strategy.  My point is just that as contemporary education reform becomes more integrated with education policy overall reformers should be ready for the kind of hard choices that come with running large systems.   So to Andy’s example of a district working with a CMO, sure.  But you can argue that some sometimes big system-wide fixes, even if not ideal for charters, are the best way to serve more kids better as quickly as possible.  E.g. the new contract in D.C.

*I was a charter trustee in the city for seven years.

Just in time for National Charter Schools Week the NYT turns in a big thumbsucker on the state of charters.

Three quick observations:

First, this is basically a summation of the CW today.  That’s fine, especially for a general audience, but the real action right now is about the second generation of charter school policy.  For instance, encouraging replication of success along the lines of what Michigan is trying to do, better charter authorizing, drilling down on why quality is better in some places than others, and so forth.

Second, the article buries some important angles. For instance on the Raymond charter study it says parenthetically “(Ms. Raymond’s study did show that learning improved the longer students were in charters.).” But that’s no small point or aside, it pretty much contradicts the way almost everyone is talking about the study.  And, like pretty much everything on charters, the top line on that study obscured the more important learning buried inside.

Finally, the issue of fiscal sustainability is not well understood or reported yet, primarily because this field doesn’t do numbers very well. Pretty much all the analysis out there conflates growth capital and operating money, extrapolates inappropriately from the status quo based on that conflation, and fails to account for the big differences in finance by geography and the persistent (approximately 20 percent on average) underfunding of charter schools relative to other public schools*. In other words, a charter network that struggles in CA could be completely sustainable in NY, even accounting for higher labor and operating costs there. And because CA has so many charters, and CMOs, and is such a fiscal basket case, it skews the analysis. At the same time, other networks, for instance KIPP, don’t aspire to absolute sustainability but have a different mission.  There are scale and sustainability problems for the sector (CMO and non-CMO) but the fiscal aspects are overplayed and basically a matter of public policy.

In fact, if you’re not convinced that education politics are completely screwed up and driven by turf and politics rather than outcomes consider that KIPP gets attacked for spending more money for the results it achieves rather than being held up as an example of how money matters in education and we ought to be spending more on poor kids.

*Underfund the regular public schools by 20 percent we’d worry about their sustainability, too! They’re looking at cuts of far less than that right now and you’d think the sky is falling.