My Time.com column this week is five cautions for Mark Zuckerberg if he wants his Newark donation to leverage change.

Three posts @ Flypaper worth your time, Liam Julian, Peter Meyer, and Terry Ryan.

Greatschools.netorg rolled out a new tool for parents this morning on the Today Show.  Check it out.

Uh oh, things must be worse on the campaign trail than it appears if the “they’re going to abolish the Department of Education” gambit is being unleashed by Dem candidates. This is the Hail Mary of Democratic education politics and it rarely works.  In fact, sizable numbers of Republicans have been elected in the face of this tactic some years.

In general it doesn’t work because – despite the rhetoric education -  doesn’t move a lot of voters by itself in national elections.   And this year, in particular, the big issue is jobs, jobs, and also jobs.  Don’t tell them this in Rockefeller Plaza, but right now education ranks very low in polls where Americans are asked to name issues of greatest concern.

Can’t say I’m a regular Oprah viewer but seeing James Wilcox get some props on the show could turn me into one….You can watch the entire segment from last week (in pieces) here.

Also, don’t miss Joel Klein on Waiting for Superman.

President Obama gives a candid answer on the ‘where/why do you send your kids to school’ question.

New Joyce Foundation* site on improving teacher quality. It’s interactive and a useful tool, it’s a must-click!

*Funds some BW work.

You can visit the site for all the ongoing activities so I won’t link it all here, but here’s a link to yesterday’s MTP panel with Bobb, Duncan, Rhee, and Weingarten. As opposed to the usual airy questions on most TV segments about education, NBC’s David Gregory asked some pointed ones.  Refreshing!  Of course, wasn’t enough to keep you from thinking that some of the panelists were being paid by the platitude but it was a good effort nonetheless.

Always some interesting opportunities at Teach For America but a couple of especially cool ones right now.  Wanna be Wendy Kopp’s chief of staff?  Lead advocacy and organizing for TFA?  Then click here.

And a few openings at the Broad Foundation including a managing director role at The Broad Residency.

50CAn, an ambitious EAO growth strategy, is launching and has a few roles to fill.

This week’s column at TIME.com is about value-added evaluations for teachers and how the field needs to go to get past the pure data fetish as well as the Ouija board approaches the unions like.

Wow.  Inflation.  Just last week we were talking about a million. Interesting play in New Jersey as Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg is giving Newark Public Schools $100 million and NJ Governor Christie is giving Newark Mayor Cory Booker more control over their operations.  Local coverage here. Mayoral control in Newark has been a contentious issue for some time.

Implications?  Well, it’s no secret that an unflattering movie about Zuckerberg is coming out next week.   Hard not to see the fine hand of providence in that, it’s a good misdirection play.  But, Zuckerberg has connected with the charismatic Booker, too.  So although it will be played by critics as 100 percent cynical, that doesn’t seem the case.

Most interesting implication is with regard to Booker’s political future.  What kind of a deal did he cut with Christie? There are only so many statewide offices in New Jersey and those two are heavyweights.

The reality on the ground for some celebrated schools…

Is Arne Duncan getting religion on turnarounds?

Don’t miss the new McKinsey and Company report on human capital in education.  Closing the talent gap (pdf) is provocative and interesting as a big idea for transforming how we think about human capital in education.  Disc – I was tangetially involed in the project.

New study on performance-pay out of Nashville (pdf). Well done and worth your time if you follow the issue.  Sawchuk’s write-up is, as always, a must-read.   Couple of quick thoughts on this:

*I’ve never thought, and have written previously here, that pay was a lever to make people work harder or better, we all have capacity constraints affecting what we can or can’t do.   So the results are not especially surprising.   The impact of moving to a compensation system that recognizes performance has more to do with the teaching force in the future than the teaching force today.  It sends a signal that in this field, performance and excellence matters.  Right now the signal is that everyone gets treated alike, as widgets, regardless of how well or how poorly you do your job.

*This is one study, the rapidity with which a surprising number of people are saying this somehow settles the debate about performance pay is discouraging if you care about sensible consumption of research and evidence.  And funny, they don’t say that about single studies that don’t confirm their views…

*A preliminary study of the same issue in Little Rock (that I can’t find a link for right now but will add when I do) found different results (and ones that challenge my assumption about pay making people work harder and better).  A lot of work happening out there on this.  Just sayin’…

New Head Start regulation out of Washington.

Important proposed regulation on Head Start quality. Low-performing Head Start programs would have to compete to continue funding.  This would have the effect of (a) improving quality and (b) ending the essentially entitlement-oriented approach to Head Start centers, which should pay dividends system-wide.  It’s going to be controversial (a lot of jobs at stake – I know, I know, it’s all about the kids!) so pay attention to the proposed regulation and the final regulation. But this is a big deal because despite its popularity, Head Start has a long way to go to be more uniformly effective.

Oprah is all into charter schools today, that’s great.  But hope someone looks into why some of the very charters she’s highlighting are getting attacked and thwarted by school districts in California, even this week.  Unless that’s too contentious for daytime TV?

NBC’s Education Week is fast upon us. They want to kick it off with a virtual town hall for teachers but you need to register. By the way, I’m not getting paid to post that but now that I read this story, I think I should be!

On the 22nd in D.C. there is a forum in D.C. about public policy and children’s diets. Moderated by Dan Glickman, reason enough to go.  And yes, they’re serving breakfast.

Great policy edujob at the New York Center for Charter School Excellence.

And another turnaround guide, this one from LPA.

Atlantic rounds-up takes on election eduimplications in D.C. Also, don’t miss Michal Lomax in The Root.

Update: Newsweek talks with Rhee.

Update II: On WaPo’s front page, lead story, Turque writes  that she’s gone. Times Ed Board weighs-in about the new contract and its funding.  And from the other day, my take in TIME on what that would mean. Plus Rishawn Biddle says, “No Tears For Fenty.”

Update III: Joe Klein @Time = pissed.

Politico’s Ben Smith breaks the news that the American Federation of Teachers spent a million dollars to defeat DC Mayor Adrian Fenty and most likely send their longtime nemesis Michelle Rhee packing. I just assumed their intense involvement in the race was common knowledge, ads even carried their tag line.

To give some sense of this, with approximately 4200 Washington Teachers Union members that’s about $238 per member.  Sounds expensive.  In fact, it was a bargain for the AFT.  That amount per-member would be completely unaffordable in most large cities. So forget the public rhetoric, at a price they could afford the AFT was just able to send a powerful message to politicians everywhere about their willingness to go after dissenters.  In a lot of places they won’t even have to spend nearly that much next time.   That $1 million will probably continue to pay dividends for some time.

From LA – the new California data is out.  Looks like seven of the top ten high schools in the city are charters as are the two top middle schools.   Four of the bottom ten schools in the city are charters, too.   So (a) how are averages here very useful in the “on average they do…” sense?  And (b) aren’t there some things to be learned from the schools at the top?

Also worth noting that Aspire Public Schools are basically the best large school district in the state. Meanwhile, ICEF in LA has elementary school  students outperforming schools in Beverly Hills and Santa Monica, high performance overall, and the best SATs among charters and neighborhood high schools.  But no, nothing to learn here!

From Indy, analysis of charter school achievement there (pdf).  Indy’s interesting because of the role of the mayor’s office.

Speaking of generalizations that obscure complicated issues, great new CRPE report looking at teacher attrition.  Again shows that conversation about teacher turnover is confused by the variety of factors causing turnover and bad comparisons.  It’s an issue, especially at some name-brand schools, but the rhetoric is often disconnected from the reality.

Important Ed Week write-up of where possible House Ed and Labor chair Kline (R) is on education. But here’s one thought on the Administration’s ESEA strategy and perhaps why people tend to be bearish on their ability to move a bill.  A big 8?  President Bush got his version done with a big 4 (Miller (D), Boehner (R), Gregg (R), and Kennedy (D)).   These days you can’t get eight people in DC to agree on anything.

Stand for Children, a great grassroots organizing group Bellwether provides policy analysis support for, is looking or an ED for its new Illinois chapter.   And, here’s a great (non-political) edujob at The Department of Education:  Managing the National Charter School Program. Meanwhile, at Bellwether we’re hiring another person for our D.C. office.    Thank you to all the great people who applied for the other openings, this role is a little different but still a great opportunity.

And here’s a great opportunity in Detroit for someone who really wants to be involved in something important there.

Think you want to launch your own organization like Stand or a state EAO?  Here’s a how-to from PIEn.

And Rick Kahlenberg is after legacy admissions again! This should be a good session.

My take on what a Fenty loss likely means for schools in DC and for school reform nationally is my column this week at Time.  Punchline:  Instability in DC, politics nationally, talent drain, and not a great day for reformers if she goes.  But there is more via the link above.

Over at TNR Seyward Darby’s take is well-worth checking out, too. I’d argue, however, that the next contract negotiation is less the issue than all the behind the scenes formal and informal changes that can make the contractual provisions irrelevant in the meantime.   But she gets into the charter issue some in a way I haven’t seen elsewhere — all that new money Mayor-elect Gray promised may well come with some strings charters don’t like so much.

From the Pentagon Memorial Fund:

The Pentagon Memorial Fund, responsible for the September 11th Memorial at the Pentagon, is looking to recruit members for its new Educator’s Leadership Group. This group would be responsible for helping to create educationally relevant resources, activities and curricula to help teachers better address the events that took place at the Pentagon on September 11th, 2001. We are looking for people with experience in grades Kindergarten through college, public, private or charter schools, homeschooling and military schools.

Our first face to face meeting will be held over Columbus Day weekend, October 9th-10th, 2010 in Washington DC. Attendance at that meeting is mandatory in order to be considered for the group. If you would like to participate or know someone who might be interested please send an email to info@butlerunlimited.com and you will receive the application to complete and return.

A couple of education implications from yesterday’s primaries.  In Baltimore Bill Ferguson (D) won, keep an eye on that.   In Delaware two outcomes from the Christine O’Donnell upset in Delaware.  First, Rep. Mike Castle (R) was a pretty consistent champion of education in the House of Representatives, especially education research.   His voice on that will be missed.   Second, the understory is that New Castle County executive Chris Coons, the Democratic nominee for Senate that O’Donnell will face in November, is a very solid public servant and thoughtful on education.  I’ve known him a while.  He’s a centrist and will be a voice for common-sense education reform in the Senate – where he seems pretty likely headed.

In D.C. where the incumbent mayor lost to the city council chair,  I’ll write more later but a couple of short points:

It’s Rhee!  It’s Rhee!  It’s a referendum on Rhee! As Sara Mead has noted, it’s useful to actually read the polls.  In fact, while Michelle Rhee was an issue in the election it was more as part of the overall criticism of Fenty and the zeitgeist of the election than a deciding factor.   When voters were specifically asked about Rhee only one in three said she was crucial to their vote – one way or the other – and parents of kids in the schools were actually more likely to support Mayor Adrian Fenty than now-Mayor-elect Vincent Gray.  In any event, much as people in education like to think so, elections rarely turn exclusively on education.

Vince Gray, leader for the ages? When the incoming mayor says, “Let me say this to those who say you can’t have both collaboration and reform, that they are mutually exclusive,” he said. “I say, ‘You are wrong!’ … Make no mistake, school reform will move forward in a Gray administration.”  As one of those, I’ll say that you surely and sincerely have to hope he’s right but on urban education reform he’s swimming against the tide of history (and in this case a teachers’ union wanting some payback for its support, too!).

Still, this will have some impact on reform in the city and reform nationally.   Probably not the gloom and doom stuff you’re hearing from some folks this morning, but (facts of the election aside) it’s going to matter.   More later.

*This post was slightly updated from the original for style about 20 mins after being posted, none of the points were changed.

Yesterday Alice Cain discussed how RTT was about more than money.  Today PIE-NET’s Suzanne Tachney shares the view of state advocacy leaders about the competition.

No Safety In Numbers?

By Suzanne Tachney

Last week, Eduwonk and I traded emails on the relevance of the Eastern flavor of the Race to the Top winners. Did you notice that seven of the twelve winning states are stops on the Amtrak Acela line to Washington DC? Now that’s the stuff of conspiracies!  I did. He thought it was coincidence.

Seriously, I don’t buy the chatter about rigged outcomes for political gain either. If the Colorado scores tell us anything at all, these raters were not of one mind enough to conspire.

The PIE Network and others have complimented Secretary Duncan for a refreshing approach to policymaking that valued competition and merit. That’s credit still due. Race to the Top leveraged significant changes in state laws (by the Wall Street Journal’s account, at least 23). But then it’s especially puzzling why the list of round two winners is a mishmash of solid reform leaders and mediocre plans while bolder strategies were stiffed?

Those of us who work in the education change business have faced¬–and will face again–the dilemmas inherent in this kind of policy; its therefore worth some reflection on some of the basic tensions that reform advocates always need to balance in order to use these mechanisms to drive change.

The first is between comprehensive, whole system policy verses policies that pull systems toward desired outcomes. Why is this a choice? Good policy is good communications and to entice change, it must convey crystal-clear priorities. RTTT’s scoring system gave points for edgy issues that put political leaders in harm’s way, but awarded as many points for the softball stuff that appeases the status quo crowd. The result was a cost for every bold move.

A second is always a conundrum for reformers: balancing between demonstrated results with process requirements. This has been discussed extensively with the consensus that RTTT focused too much on the latter. But there’s one “process” consideration I wish we could find a way to consider more: the differences in state contexts that just make it harder to accomplish something in one place verses another. One example, it’s much easier to change teacher effectiveness laws in right-to-work states.

Another example, comparing buy-in by percentage created a much higher test for states like California, with over 6 million students, than for much smaller states. And California’s second round plan that offered an urban district coalition would have served more poor and minority students than smaller states with near 100 percent participation. (In fact, many of the districts in that coalition serve more students alone than some winning states!) But the rules didn’t allow for recognition of such innovative but unanticipated solutions.

The final tension may have garnered the most ink: balancing the need for the appearance of objectivity vs. the need for leaders to exercise judgments. The RTTT process erred on the side of the former and as a result, some incredibly bold leaders are now flapping in the political winds. And if we don’t learn from that mistake, the reform movement can’t hold ground.

The biggest problem here is that putting numeric values on raters’ subjective judgments is not the same thing as scientific measurement, yet in politics, we often treat it like it is. Joe Williams of Democrats for Education Reform argues that Duncan should not have reversed those scores and, given how the rules were initially established, he’s right. The credibility of the whole problem would have been compromised.

Problem is, calling a state like Maryland, which has been hostile to charters and played it safe on most of the other criteria, also dulls RTTT’s credibility.

If the Administration has a shot at a round three, some thoughtful reflection on improving the rules would do a great deal to resharpen RTTT’s competitive edge. Plus, isn’t that what we urge schools to do¬¬–reflect on practice to improve it?

Some fixes are simple: best practices in scoring performance assessments offer a credible approach to the inter-rater problems we saw in Colorado. The tougher balancing act is allowing some way for the Secretary to weigh in the same way judges have limited authority to overrule juries when its clear they aren’t following the rules. That would certain invite critique, but if built into the rules upfront, that critique usually won’t last more than a news cycle—and we know that critics will get their say in that news cycle no matter what policy makers do.

Given that, why not make the right call rather than the safe one? After all, the safe calls aren’t the ones that foster change.

Suzanne Tacheny Kubach is the Executive Director of the PIE Network and a former member of the California State Board of Education. Other PIE Network leaders reflect on Race to the Top in the PIE Network’s Newsletter Game Changer.   Andy Rotherham helped launch PIE-NET.

That’s the old adage, a gallows joke about last minute non-credentialed hires.  But turns out it’s not true in Philly.

Two guest posts coming today and tomorrow.  Today, Alice Cain, former education advisor to House Labor and Education Chair George Miller (D-CA) and current leader of education work at Hope Street Group discusses Race to the Top implications on teacher evaluation.  Tomorrow, Suzanne Tachney the executive director of PIE-NET (disc: a group I helped launch) and a former state board of education member shares the view from state advocacy leaders.

Winning is about more than money

By Alice Johnson Cain

With the recent announcement of 10 more Race to the Top winners, we are one step closer to improving more schools for more kids—and not just in the winning states. As a former Congressional staffer who helped write portions of the Race to the Top legislation, it has been fascinating to see how the law has played out so far, both in ways we anticipated and in ways we did not anticipate.

I have been impressed by the momentum in winning states as well as the resolve to move forward in states that barely missed the mark in their peer reviews. Leaders and stakeholders in a handful of states that did not win have made it clear that their application will be treated as their strategic plan to move forward—even without the federal money. It appears that the possibility of winning Race to the Top funds helped to break longstanding logjams that stood in the way of policy reforms. It has become clear that this is not just about money—many stakeholders are pushing forward with this process because they believe it is the right thing to do for both children and teachers.

Across the country, I have witnessed initial skepticism for evaluation reform replaced by enthusiasm when teachers see evaluation as a tool that will give them information they need to help them improve their practice in ways that will help their students succeed. Evaluation, done right – which includes not just better tools, but better training and alignment to professional development – can transform professional development into a fair and meaningful examination of how to improve practice, yielding a stronger team of educators for teachers across their schools. With state-led evaluation reforms spurred by Race to the Top, the country will finally be on the path to transforming teaching into a truly iconic profession.

Through Hope Street Group’s work on the ground in the states winning in round one, I have witnessed impressive progress through collaboration. It has been exciting to see hundreds of teachers roll up their sleeves and actively participate in the implementation of Race to the Top. For example, over 500 educators from across Delaware are actively contributing to the state’s plans to reinvent its evaluation system through in-person workshops and participation in an online community tasked with determining how to best incorporate measures of growth into the evaluation system. In Tennessee, nearly 200 teachers spent a Saturday sharing their ideas and expertise around questions that included how to measure growth in untested grades and subjects. These teachers will also provide feedback to the state committee charged with developing guidelines for Tennessee’s new evaluation system.

Delaware and Tennessee’s teachers, principals, superintendents, union leaders, school board members, parents, business and philanthropic leaders are rolling up their sleeves and working together to deliver on the promise of reinventing teacher evaluation. I have seen cooperation and collaboration among stakeholders at a level we could only dream of when I worked in Washington DC.

While Race to the Top was intended to be a model for policy reform, leading states are also charting new and better models for effective stakeholder collaboration. Children, teachers, parents, and other stakeholders are the real winners in the states that are poised to continue along this path.

Alice Johnson Cain worked from 2004 – 2009 as Senior Education Advisor to Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, and is currently the Education Director at Hope Street Group.

Rare Sunday post but this tweet says it all.

Here’s the kind of opportunity that doesn’t come along often – assistant to Norman Atkins, CEO of TeacherU (pdf). Great role on a few levels, not the least of which is the chance to work with Atkins and on a very leading-edge project.  Only a rock couldn’t learn a lot in this role.

In Memphis the Hyde Family Foundation does a lot of interesting reform work.   They need an Education Program Officer. And, as you may have heard, a few things going on around education down there right now.

A lot of striped bass the last few weeks, and of course PPI’s Will Marshall from earlier in the summer.  So, with fall upon us, here’s one more: Dutko Worldwide’s Ben Wallerstein (runs the education practice there) with a nice one.  He’s been here before. All your past edutypes with fish via this link.

I wish it were easier to find the guidebook for teachers about D.C.s new “Impact Plus” pay-for-performance initiative. That’s because while there will be the predictable hysterics, the booklet makes clear what a groundbreaking initiative this is in terms of structure and the amounts teachers can earn.

Also, on the pay-for-performance issue, keep an eye out next week for an evaluation of the initiative in Nashville.

Update: More 411 on the initiative up now and the actual guidebook (pdf).