This American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten – Bill Gates dual interview in Newsweek is interesting on a few levels. But one part jumped out at me.  While discussing learning and constant feedback Weingarten says:

Football teams do this all the time. They look at the tape after every game. Sometimes they do it during the game. They’re constantly deconstructing what is working and what isn’t working. And they’re jettisoning what isn’t working and building up on what is working, and doing it in a teamlike approach.

At the Pee-wee level, perhaps. But Weingarten is presumably talking about the NFL, where the professionals play for money.  She’s exactly right in her emphasis on creating a more professional environment in schools, the lack of professional norms are a huge problem and unions and management contribute to that culture. But the NFL is probably not her best talking point on this score.

That’s because the NFL, on the field, is a ruthlessly meritocratic and management-heavy institution.  Performance matters more than anything else (Does anyone think that if Michael Vick had come out of prison without the skills to play at that level anymore we’d be hearing about second chances and all that? Instead, we’d be hearing about how the league takes a tough line on behavior like this…).  And the culture of accountability is high.  Although a popular email that makes the rounds in education asserts that NFL coaches are not expected to achieve great performance with just whomever shows up (ostensibly showing the absurdity of accountability rules based on student performance), in fact they basically are.   Four NFL coaches have already been fired this year, fairly or not, and you didn’t hear a lot from them about how their players were the problem.  It’s just how it works at that level.  And to the idea that this is all collaborative, the conventional wisdom right now is that New York Giants coach Tom Coughlin’s job depends on a win over the Washington Redskins on Sunday, despite the fact that the players, including quarterback Eli Manning, back him.

As to the players, it’s hard to find an institution more at odds with how schools are generally operated than the NFL – and the players are unionized.  The union rules cover basic protections but don’t guarantee players more than minimum salaries.  If, for instance, the NFL operated the way school districts generally do it would have been difficult for Washington Redskins coach Mike Shanahan to bench quarterback Donovan McNabb as he did a few weeks ago.  And, even if he succeeded, McNabb presumably could have “forced transfered” his way into another offense somewhere where he had more seniority than the existing quarterback.

Weingarten’s right that NFL teams dissect play during the games, the attention to details that escape the casual fan is amazing.  But those decisions are made quickly – just ask any player who has been benched during a game for poor play or a lousy decision – and not by consensus.  This is an especially relevant point because one of the big sticking points between high-performing charter schools and teachers’ unions is the ability to quickly remove and replace a struggling teacher, during the school year and without a lengthy process.  And, of course, within any locker room are players making wildly varying amounts of money and as we’ll soon see if there is a strike next season many NFL players are not cushioned millionaires with fat contracts.

So, if there is a lesson from the NFL it’s that a culture of high-performance and accountability is compatible with basic protections for workers.  But we shouldn’t take the NFL example too far.  A few weeks ago in a game against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers the Washington Redskins already slim playoff hopes slipped through the hands of holder Hunter Smith along with a wet football on what should have been a routine extra-point sending the game to overtime.  Smith was cut early the following week though it wasn’t clear the error was entirely his fault (it wasn’t a great snap to begin with and the weather conditions were horrendous).  Still, Smith publicly and privately took responsibility because it was his job to get the ball down for the kicker.  The Redskins had a new punter-holder by midweek even if many players on the team didn’t think Smith should be the fall guy.

Though we obviously need to change how schools operate in terms of personnel, do we want a culture in schools where people are fired for a single mistake – especially one of dubious provenance? I don’t think so.  Weingarten may want to pick her metaphors more carefully, it’s hard to square her gauzy view of the NFL with the reality.

If you didn’t get enough War on Christmas, NPR’s To the Point will be discussing issues raised by this column today.

Update: Here’s the show.

Hint:  It’s a cold war not the shout show drivel that gets headlines this time of year.  In this week’s School of Thought at TIME I look at the poor job we do teaching about religion in schools. And whether you’re a believer or not that’s a problem because religion shapes our world.  Public schools can teach about it, too, without doing violence to the First Amendment.

It’s a holiday ritual as predictable as Santa showing up at your local mall: overheated rhetoric about the “War on Christmas.” A lowlight this year was a feature on The O’Reilly Factor about a letter from the Tennessee chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union urging school districts to make holiday celebrations inclusive. Through O’Reilly’s prism, the letter — quoted selectively — was an attempt to squelch Christmas. In reality, the letter just asked school districts to avoid celebrations focusing exclusively on a single religion. It was more common sense than state-coerced atheism.

Unfortunately, once you cut through the blather on cable news, there is a real, if much less discussed, problem in that public schools are skittish about teaching much about religion…

Read the entire thing here.

And if you want even more ‘war on Christmas’ in your stocking Kevin Huffman has more here.

If you’re interested in what the next iterations of the charter school idea might look like then once place to keep an eye on is Cleveland where three of the city’s high-performing charter organizations are banding together. It’s an idea being kicked around elsewhere but this is going to be an early road test of all the operational and school cultural issues bound up in a move like this.

Here’s Joel Klein’s final memo to principals in New York City (pdf).  Looks back and forward, brings in T.S. Eliot, waves the bloody shirt on the ongoing ATR problem, and discusses turnarounds/restarts and layoffs.  If you follow education in New York City, it’s a must-read.

The AFT comes out hard for Common Core in the new American Educator. John McWhorter comes out hard for direct instruction from NPR/The Root. Last line as true as it is depressing.   And my partner Kim Smith on education investing and social investing.

Want an edujob? Here is a great one at Teach Plus working with teachers on policy issues:  National Policy Director (pdf).

On her Ed Week blog Deb Meier makes a good but incomplete point:

P.S. Breaking News: The Sunday New York Times headline—”A Secretive Banking Elite Rules Trade in Derivatives”—intrigues me. How come the business community is so supportive of increasing regulation in the educational system and against increased regulation of banking, while pretending that schools would be better if only they were more like “us” (bankers)? …

Leave aside for a moment that neither educators nor bankers are monolithic in their views on these things, it’s still worth discussing the general point.  But isn’t the inverse true as well?  Why is the education community so enamored with ideas like self-regulation that haven’t worked very well in fields like finance?  We don’t trust bankers when they say ‘trust us,’ but why should we trust our field more? Are we somehow better?  I doubt it. Perhaps it would be more useful to stop ascribing different degrees of goodness (or badness) to people in different fields and just acknowledge that human nature is what it is and all fields need at least some sensible regulation?

Also, it is worth noting that most of the conversation in education is really about re-regulating rather than increasing  or decreasing regulation per se.  Education is highly-regulated and as a public market will continue to be for the foreseeable future.  The underlying issue today is whether the focus of that regulatory burden should shift toward performance and away from compliance and, if so, how?

On 60 Minutes last night Steve Croft took a look at the state fiscal crisis, including some attention to pensions. Well worth checking out and some obvious eduimplications.

Along those lines here’s a short look at the education pension issue.  Here’s a longer one (pdf). Here’s a look at the spending issue from a few weeks ago and here’s one from a few years ago looking at some of the bigger picture drivers.

You also can’t do much better than this book by Marguerite Roza.

Miller-McCune usually produces smart and often offbeat looks at education issues so people, including this reader, were surprised by a remarkably slanted piece a few weeks ago looking at the integration issue and charter schools.   Nelson Smith responds in M2 here. Smith points out the rampant misuse of comparison points in this debate.  One issue Smith alludes to, but doesn’t get into, is the changing demographics of public schools in many communities.  That also impacts the numbers in a way that the segregation mythmakers generally ignore.   That said, I’m less sanguine on the special education question than Nelson is – although he’s exactly right that one must look below the overall numbers to see what’s happening there.   Lost in all this, however, is the question of how much charter school special education problems are or are not distinct from larger capacity and fiscal challenges facing special education overall.  Of course, you can ask the same thing about the “segregation” issue, too…

Also, in Minneapolis tongues have been wagging and a few tempers flaring about the appropriateness of four incoming school board members who sent a letter to the current board on Minneapolis Federation of Teachers letterhead.  Although it’s arguably an efficiency reform – cut out the middleman in these lean times – it certainly is eyebrow raising.  For a look at the issues you can’t do much better than this letter from an incoming member, Hussein Samatar, who declined to sign.

If you’re following the spending debate in the final days of Congress here’s the latest, including the Pell fix, via Politico.

And some great internship opportunities through the Southern Education Foundation at a host of non-profits.

Tyler Hester’s book drive (background here) is in full swing.  Check out this video.

Per the post below the omnibus bill looks like a bust this morning. Not a good sign for funding in the next Congress either.

#1 - The pending Senate omnibus spending bill is a beast.  I haven’t been able to get through all of it yet. But a few policy changes on education buried inside.   Alyson Klein points writes-up some proposed turnaround changes and also Teacher Incentive Fund changes.   Mike Petrilli writes-up a proposed change to the federal Charter Schools Program requiring states to do more on accountability for charter authorizers.  Petrilli fits the charter language into the Washington “micro-managing” drum he’s been  beating of late.  I don’t think that’s the issue, it’s good language and the CSP program should be revamped to better incent quality.  Rather, it’s the timing of it.   States can’t change their policies in time to comply so only a handful of states would even be eligible for funding if the law passes.  So in my view it shows two problems:  First, this is the sort of problem  you get when Congress can’t do its authorizing work so appropriations bills become the only vehicle for policy changes.   Second, it shows the disconnect between how people in Washington think about state policy and the actual realities of state policymaking.

#2 - In the last day or two it seems the media and political tide is turning more favorable for Philly Superintendent and Council of Great City Schools Superintendent of the Year Arlene Ackerman.  The issue is a no-bid contract and the city’s arcane and political procurement process.  Still, a lot of chatter about where this leads and because the funds federal dollars whether the Department of Education will become involved.  Also, five alleged whisteblowers were fired, some of whom are senior, so insiders in Pennsylvania say this could still have legs.

#3 - For the last few months there has been speculation about what a deal the Department of Education gave to Virginia on “adequate yearly progress” or AYP targets might mean more generally.  Essentially Virginia was given flexibility to set the targets retroactively and an uncertain process for future years.  Now the deal is apparently off.   Title I Monitor takes a look at all that. This is a big deal because forget the silliness about 100 percent (the law doesn’t require it), when you start to have  accountability targets that require four in five students to be passing state tests even states with low-cut scores on their tests start to have a lot of schools not making AYP because of overall low-performance and/or achievement gaps.  So a lot of states seeking relief on that issue right now. Remember, it’s all about the kids!

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger takes to the WaPo to write about the “parent trigger.”

This week the TIME School of Thought column goes in a musical direction.  I interview Jackson Browne about his new role as a school board member for LA-based pubic charter school network ICEF and his thoughts on education.

Jackson Browne is a commercially successful and critically acclaimed musician. (When he was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Bruce Springsteen did the honors.) He is also a longtime activist on causes ranging from Tibetan independence to opposing nuclear power. And now he has added school board member to his résumé. In November, Browne, 62, joined the board of the Inner City Education Foundation (ICEF), a high-performing network of publicly funded charter schools in South Central Los Angeles. With 15 campuses and 4,600 students, ICEF’s schools are among the best in the city; 100% of its graduating seniors get into college and 91% are still enrolled three years later. This is no fairy-tale operation, however. The school made news this fall when fiscal problems prompted management changes, and just this week ICEF announced a new $10.5 million infusion of funds from individuals and foundations.

But the money issues haven’t stopped Browne from describing ICEF’s founder, Mike Piscal, as an incredible example of rolling up your sleeves to solve a social problem. I spoke with the Hall of Famer turned school board member about his sympathy for parents who opt out of traditional public schools, why he never went to college and what qualifies him to help bring education reform to inner-city students.

Read the entire thing here.

Seniority-based layoffs on the ropes in LA in a case that will reverberate nationally.

TIME makes Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg its Person of the Year. Here’s the entire package and here’s a video about what he wants to do on education in Newark. And from a few months ago in TIME here’s my take on the challenges he’ll face in Newark, and challenges for education philanthropy more generally.

Here’s a great opportunity at Excel Academy, high-performing middle schools in the Boston-area. They need a COO.  If you’ve got turnaround experience, they want you down on the bayou.  Very interesting turnaround job in Louisiana.

Richard Whitmire manages to link Michelle Rhee, sports, the Turkey Bowl, and the boy crisis into one commentary!

New D.C. teachers union head Nathan Saunders discusses what’s next on education there on the Kojo show. Worth a listen.

Also, Mike Antonucci, unofficial newspaperman of education’s Potemkin Villages, seems to have done his homework on the NEA’s new “independent” teaching commission. Sawchuk, WTF?

Fans and foes of Cathie Black can probably both find things in her sit down with NY Daily News editors to bolster their case.

Last week’s TIME column about the prospects for school spending occasioned some interesting responses.  A common one, though, was the idea that the public is just clamoring to spend more on schools.  You hear this a lot.  Unfortunately, there are three problems with this argument:

Structural: The money just isn’t there (and annual increases are largely spoken for).   The current trajectory of spending is simply not sustainable unless we’re prepared to made radical changes in policies, for example, affecting health care, senior citizens, or prisons.  Whether or not we should make those changes is debatable.  In many states all senior citizens get a break on property taxes, which are a key revenue source for schools.  As the population ages this will ripple through public education budgets.  Should these measures be means-tested for ability to pay?  Perhaps.  Given how politics works are they likely to be?  Doubtful.  Likewise, our correctional policies are a mess but most politicians are not lining up to fix them.  So sure, today’s fiscal choices are just that, choices, but the implications of those decisions and prospects for change must be considered with an eye toward political and other realities realities.  A second, related, structural constraint is how little discretionary money there is annually because of how much is tacked down for ongoing obligations.   In practice this means that there are annual increases (excepting the last few years where in some places you’ve seen genuine reductions), which consume new money.

Experiential: Despite what people tell pollsters about spending when it becomes time to act they behave differently.  Many of these people who apparently can’t wait to spend more on schools often forget that when it comes time to vote for school bonds, levies, or other taxes. You have the outlier examples.  For instance Stand for Children* was instrumental in helping raise revenue through a referendum in Oregon in the midst of the recession.   But those examples are the exception not the rule.   Besides, you have an incredible array of interest groups advocating for more money for schools so if the public really wants it, too, we’d be seeing more action, no?  That’s a disconnect that tells you something about how politicians (most of whom are vote maximizing creatures) view the actual public mood relative to tax increases or spending trade-offs.

Informational: To the extent the public wants more spending on schools, it’s unclear they actually know what they’re talking about in the first place.  When William Howell and Marty West probed  not only opinions about spending but also knowledge about the issue they found that, “Americans dramatically underestimate the amount spent on the public schools in their district, even when prompted to consider the full range of uses to which school spending is devoted. They also think that teachers earn, on average, far less than is actually the case. The public’s strong preference that more be spent on public schools is based, at least in part, on faulty information.” Howell and West also found that views change when the public learns the facts about spending.

Viewed collectively these issues, which in practice interact with each other in the policy and political discussion about education spending in the states and in Washington, it’s not surprising that the spending picture looks the way it does.  This is another one of those education issues where one can spend a lot of time bitching about the rain or can spend time and energy making sure there are enough umbrellas.   In education, though, we’re generally predisposed to do the former.

*Bellwether works with SFC.

The new Gates work out today is a big deal. There are two conversations in education right now about teachers.  One is not especially serious and revolves around a set of unprovable accusations – people hate teachers, want to blame them for school failure, etc… and is basically a lot of noise from people who either don’t know or should know better.   The other one is quieter but also a lot more important.  It’s about how to move the field forward to better select, support, and evaluate teachers.  Not because teachers can transform education alone – they system matters — but rather because even though other things matter teachers are pretty damn important.  The Gates work is an early entrant in that second sweepstakes.  A lot more to do and learn there but there is a lot riding on that second conversation.   Disc – Gates funding helps support BW’s work.

Connor Williams, winner of the Washington Post’s pundit contest, is all over education these days.  He looks at the what’s good for teachers is always good for kids issue here and looks at the recent TFA data from TN here.

This is a NY issue but this fight within organized labor has big eduimplications nationally….the hard hat union – public sector union issues are complicated and there are some basic differences between the two types of unions that today’s fiscal situation is exacerbating.  Layer over that concern about education quality and you’ve got an interesting set of issues.  See also Ben Smith @ Politico.

Hard to believe it was just six months ago we were publicly launching Bellwether Education at an event moderated by Jane Pauley (two memories that seem to stay with people because they keep mentioning them: In addition to asking great questions Jane apparently had enviable shoes and Cami Anderson as education rock star).

It’s been a fast run since then and today the core team at Bellwether is twelve working on some incredible projects from helping network news shows to helping states implement Race to the Top plans and a host of interesting and impactful things in between including some great work with schools.  We published our first paper last week and have several more on the way.  Last week Philanthropedia’s survey of experts named Bellwether Education (along with Teach Plus and Blue Engine) as one of the three most promising education start-ups.

And I’m especially pleased to report that Rachael Brown is joining Bellwether’s Thought Leadership team. Most recently Rachael was associate editor at The Atlantic but she previously taught in Washington, D.C. and worked on education issues during the 2008 campaign.   We’re really excited to have her on board and selected her from among 225 candidates for the position, all of whom we want to thank for their interest and participation in the process.  Look for cool stuff from her soon.

Tyler Hester, the California teacher who has been featured on the blog before (here and here) as he seeks to get books for his students is still working it.  And again you can help.  Now there is a website — with a video, too!

For the second time this week CRPE has a new paper out.  This time on what more flexibility around school district benefits might look like – and save. Earlier this week it was portfolio districts. Disc - I do a few things with CRPE.

And Michael Chandler, always a solid ed reporter, is on leave from the Washington Post and she’s blogging from Korea.  It’s a cool project, check it out.  Nearby longtime ed advocate Laurie Westley is blogging from China for a few weeks while she teaches there.

Also, next Friday at the Aspen Institute they’re talkin’ testin’! Good chance to learn about the two state consortia from folks in the middle of it.

And did you like the RSD?  Then you’ll love the ASD and it needs its first superintendent. Great chance to be in the middle of RTT in Tennessee.

There is a pretty amazing comment thread going in Gotham…

The news bounced around yesterday and this is what folks are chattering about today.

This week’s School of Thought column at TIME.com looks at education spending.  While it’s impossible to accurately estimate our fiscal recklessness these days it does seem that the best days for ed spending may be behind us.   That means – gasp – we’d better think about productivity!

As America starts to grapple with its out-of-control spending habits, we as a nation really should reckon with our education costs. Few federal education programs were targeted by President Obama’s deficit-reduction commission, but that’s because most school funding comes from the state and local levels. And that’s where the big-time money problem is. According to a report issued jointly last week by the National Governors Association and the National Association of State Budget Officers, when federal stimulus funds run out in 2011, states — and, by extension, schools — will tumble off a fiscal cliff, and even an economic upturn won’t bring state funding back up to where it was a few years ago.

Read the entire thing here.

By my informal count based on news clippings we’re going to see big debates about teacher tenure next year in Florida, New Jersey, and Illinois, where else?