Plenty has been said about Steve Jobs in general and about his views on education policy in particular.  And Apple’s role in education technology is substantial, to say the least.

This weekend I was sitting on the beach at a wedding and music was playing from a remote speaker with an iPod stuck in it.  When the service started the officiant read from an iPad.  Trivial, yes, but illustrative of the ways that Jobs changed how we live and genuinely changed industries.  You can’t say that about too many people and I do think over time we’ll think about him the same way we think about Edison or Ford.

Jay Greene posted some of Jobs views about education and schools – and Jobs didn’t mince words. Yet while Jobs was clearly frustrated with the state of education it’s worth nothing that his wife, Laurene Powell, has committed herself to improving things.  She’s on the boards of several education non-profits (including Teach For America, New Schools Venture Fund, and Stand For Children) and she co-founded College Track.

Disc – It’s a small world out there, Bellwether works with Stand, New Schools, and College Track (and we like Apple technology).

Big thanks to the team from the NYC Charter School Center for some great guestblogging last week.  If you missed it scroll the posts below.

In Ed Week Michele McNeill turns in a good look at the debate over federally-funded tutoring in No Child Left Behind. The tutoring industry has done a poor-job of self-regulating, states have done a lousy job policing quality, so quality is not surprisingly quite mixed.  But, the idea of giving extra services to kids in struggling schools has an obvious appeal.

In The Times Paul Krugman has a fiery column about the protests and inequality. Key line:

The way to understand all of this is to realize that it’s part of a broader syndrome, in which wealthy Americans who benefit hugely from a system rigged in their favor react with hysteria to anyone who points out just how rigged the system is.

True enough, but from this educorner of the world it would be great to hear more about how lousy public education for the poor contributes to structural inequality and limited social mobility. And it’s not the wealthy defending that system from change…

Roll Call’s Mort Kondracke doesn’t write on education a lot but when he does it’s always worth reading – his most recent column on what’s happening on federal education policy covers a lot of ground but is a smart summation.

By NYC Charter School Center

Thanks to Andy and the Bellwether team for the chance to sit in this week. We’ve enjoyed it, and we’ve tried to do our part to create a thoughtful and productive conversation about the sticky issues of public education. You can find us online, on our blog, or follow @Charter411 on Twitter. And one last plug: if you work in a NYC charter school, don’t miss our upcoming Special Education Conference on October 29th!

Now back to your regularly scheduled Eduwonk.

By James Merriman

The charter movement has created some truly terrific schools, but also some schools that chronically fail their students. The failures are supposed to be shut down by their authorizers, but after two decades we know the ugly truth: far, far too often low-quality charter schools are allowed to remain open.

Sometimes authorizers lack the capacity and standards they need, and NACSA is doing great work to change that. More often there’s a tougher problem: parents and public officials don’t want school closure, and authorizers lack the political will to say otherwise.

It wasn’t supposed to work that way.  In theory, closure by an authorizer would be a backstop option, since parents would tend to “vote with their feet” against a low-quality school. Instead, invested parents tend to persist at failing schools, calling on the authorizer to go in and fix them—exactly what authorizers are not equipped, empowered, or intended to do.

Unable to offer a fix, but fearing backlash from a closure, too many authorizers do nothing. The result: schools that fail children with little or no consequence. Could it be time to take another tack?

Here’s what we should try in states with weak authorizers: legislation to require any chronically low-performing charter school to be stripped of its status as a charter and renamed something else. (An “Option School,” let’s say.) The reasons for this change would be explained to parents, and all enrollment materials would carry the equivalent of a warning label: this school may be hazardous to your child’s educational health. In return, the school would be allowed to stay open (though monitored for safety, legal, fiscal, and operational problems).

The few people I have discussed this idea with over the years have uniformly hated it. They say, how could the government possibly allow and fund a school that it has declared is failing and bad for children?  I agree, but isn’t that what the government is doing now?  It just isn’t admitted, out loud, where parents can hear it.

Look, we know that failing charter schools aren’t being closed often enough. We go to conferences and earnestly deplore that fact. While we try to strengthen the authorizers, we should also strengthen parents to make informed choices. If that means using explicit warnings and even the stigma of a different name, that’s fine with me.

And if option schools would prompt weak authorizers to get serious about charter school quality control, that would be even better.

By Michael Regnier

The tentative moves toward longer school schedules in Houston, and less-short schedules in Chicago, suggest that charter schools’ habit of getting disadvantaged learners more hours in the classroom may be spreading. (Or not, time will tell.)

Much of the media coverage has mentioned the mixed research on the results of extended time, which makes sense; like any other resource, time can be used effectively or not.

I’ve seen less mention of two other key angles. First, more time for professional collaboration can also make a difference. Here in New York City, charter school teachers typically come back to work a week or two before the students, while district teachers only have a day or two together to get ready.

Also, a longer day eases the scheduling tradeoffs among subject areas. As many charter schools show, it is possible to spend more time on math and reading without squeezing out art, science, and social studies—but you literally need more hours in the day.

Last spring we asked a couple of charter school teachers about the kind of school-wide dedication that a longer schedule requires. Check out the video.

By Michael Regnier

RIP Steve Jobs, who had some views on education.

The Chicago teacher-blogger who blogged her school lunches went public. Too bad her kids can’t meet Chef Bennett.

Yesterday’s confab on college-ready data quality is viewable online. So is Ed Sector’s event about improving the ed schools.

If you’ve had enough football analogies, Michael Goldstein is ready for a high dose of basketball.

By James Merriman

Tennyson has his Ulysses say at one point, “I am become a name,” signaling his ascent from mere mortal to legend.  Something like that is happening to good old Finland, now a land of educational legend thanks to its stellar standing in international achievement comparisons. Except it has become a talking point.

As Diane, Randi, and company frequently remind us, Finland is a place where every teacher is unionized, students and teachers aren’t judged by student test results, and charter schools aren’t even in the picture.

That’s all well and good, but I’m confused. If Finland were an urban public school district or charter school in America, its relatively low poverty and high homogeneity, would make it quite an outlier. (Maybe not Scarsdale compared to Harlem, but more like Winnekta vs. Wichita.) So, too, would the scholastic achievement of its teachers, and the selectivity of the universities in which they did their training. Wouldn’t we be hearing then that its performance is therefore irrelevant?

Personally, I actually agree with charter critics when they insist on controlling for demographics when we compare academic outcomes between and among schools and sectors. Finn-mania makes me wonder if the charter critics believe it themselves.

(Neerav Kingsland of New Schools for New Orleans is thinking about the real question: how to create Finn-America?)

By Cara Volpe

I’m always amazed at the number of education-related things I read, see, and hear that don’t mention students in a meaningful way.  The number of articles and conversations that are full of contention and defensiveness over the same issues, resulting in a distorted lens through which to consider schools and the work they are doing – and the  promise that they hold more generally.  For sure, there’s some fighting to be done, but I wish we were fighting, in unison, for every kid to have the opportunity to attend an exemplary school, regardless of their particular life circumstances.

Last December, New York was one of nine cities to sign a District-Charter Collaboration Compact, as part of a national Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation initiative.  The big idea is exactly what it sounds like – getting district and charter schools to collaborate more, with the ultimate goal of raising student outcomes across the city.  The work itself is about addressing system-level issues of parity (including enrollment, funding, facilities, and data) and shifting the public dialogue, while also working directly with schools to create meaningful areas for collaboration and best-practice sharing.

There are certainly challenges in getting to this goal.   New York City is a behemoth of a school system.  More than just the sheer number of students, it’s a physically massive district, and one that in recent years has been purposefully designed to include a diversity of school models.  There are inherent structural differences between district and charter schools given their legal mandates, union frameworks, etc.  In addition to differences in available resources, schools are also contending with differences in student enrollment, achievement levels, and of course, philosophies.

And here’s the other thing – truly productive, result-yielding collaboration is hard.  It requires so much more than just physically bringing people together in a room.  But truth be told, that’s hard enough.  As a former teacher who was fully focused on her students, I can attest to the fact that I barely had enough time to talk to the 6^th grade science teacher next door, to say nothing about travelling to another school for professional development or a conversation.

But no matter the challenges, educators on both sides are full of ideas about how to actually begin doing this. They’re filled with incredible energy, hope, and urgency about not accepting the fact that our system continues to fail thousands of students.  And, perhaps most importantly, they are committed to thinking beyond the walls of their own school, the needs of their own child, and the circumstances of their specific community to focus on lifting up the entire system.

We, at the Charter Center, are serious about supporting schools’ efforts to do just this. We’re working with the district to put the finishing touches on our action plan – a plan focused on alleviating the negative rhetoric, spurring dialogues and encouraging best practice sharing.

In the meantime, we’d love to hear about your collaborations. You can reach me at cvolpe@nyccharterschools.org.

Cara Volpe is the District-Charter Collaborations Manager at the New York City Charter School Center

by Michael Regnier

A candid Julie Greenberg: “Teacher prep value-added models aren’t even at stage 1.0.”

Matt Di Carlo cares about civility more than he cares about children.

Is the Harlem Children’s Zone a “little Finland”? First in a series.  (Disc: HCZ’s Geoffrey Canada is a Charter Center board member.)

A paper from Jobs for the Future argues for “Adding College-Course Completion to K-12 Accountability Systems,” a hot topic in this NCLB waiver season. Ah, but there are different ways to “complete” an AP or IB course, some of them easily gamed.

Classroom tools: Achievement First’s online resource library is open to anyone.

by Michael Regnier

Since we’re here at Eduwonk and our host is a good sport, I’d like revisit a topic that Andy raised in his Time column back in May: the so-called “college bubble.” His takeaway:

Assuming you don’t pile up mountains of debt that constrain your career options (and that outcome is avoidable) or go to a school where just fogging a mirror is good enough to get a diploma, there are not a lot of downsides to going to college.

True enough. But as Glenn Reynolds points out, this “kind of assumes away the problem” since a low-debt, useful degree is precisely what too many college students are failing to obtain.

One would think that the chorus of concern about college value and consumer expectations would be unsettling to a movement that sets the audacious goal of college-readiness for many thousands of students from low-income families. Yet, except when it comes to for-profit colleges, I don’t hear much about this in education reform circles.

That’s not to say that “just go to college” is the operative slogan. More than ever, college prep schools and programs are monitoring college completion and building supports for college-enrolled alumni. They’re also on guard against pre-college mistakes such as failing to apply for financial aid, or choosing less-rigorous colleges than students are qualified for.

But those are still strategies to maximize college investment. They aren’t about mitigating risk, to educate and protect the investors. At minimum, first-generation college applicants from low-income families need to understand some basic truths:

-          A college that is poorly regarded will never tell you that.

-          The more expensive college is not always better, let alone the better value.

-          At a large state college, you may have to plan fastidiously to graduate on time (i.e. on budget).

-          Your choice of major matters a lot to your future earnings.

-          A student loan feels like free money, but it will follow you until you pay it, or you die.

And most importantly:

-          A college degree does not guarantee a job or a high-paying job, no matter how many times we told you about the extra million dollars.

I know there are schools, teachers, and counselors who add these messages to the college-prep conversation. Last week I sat in on a college-bound class at Renaissance Charter HS for Innovation, a four-year course where high school students—including those with a range of disabilities—explore a wide range of postsecondary options and analyze the tradeoffs.

As teacher Art Samuels told me, making college seem an immediate possibility (that requires immediate hard work) is vital throughout high school. But he also wants to prevent the poor financial choices he’s seen graduating seniors make at other charter schools. This is less of worry for students entering top-tier schools, which can often afford to give scholarships, than for those heading to commuter colleges, where a slight upgrade in reputation is not worth a six-figure debt.

The more a school invests in college-bound culture, the more of this kind of sophistication we need in the oldest grades. Yes, it’s wonderful to help students “climb the mountain to college.” We can’t let them tumble down the other side.

by James Merriman

Yesterday I was at the ribbon-cutting for a new high school building for Hyde Leadership Charter School, the first new high school building in decades for Hunts Point in the South Bronx.  Kudos to the school, which also got big assists from Civic Builders and Low Income Investment Fund, among others.

While it certainly helps to be making a huge investment in an underresourced community—yet another argument for charter school facility funding —it was still remarkable how the school had wooed and won the support of virtually every local elected official. I mean everyone, from the people who sit on the community board to the assemblyman, council person, state senator, and borough president.

We never want charter schools to be politicized, and we have to remember that student achievement is the ultimate measure of success when it comes to schools.  But Hyde’s diligent work underscores the need for charter schools to come correct when they enter a community, visiting and listening even as they work to create new educational options.

When you’re shaking things up in a community, even for the sake of student achievement, a little respectful outreach goes a long way.

More Coverage:

Daily News

NYT SchoolBook

By Michael Regnier

Are construction costs putting Chicago charter schools’ finances at risk?

How many reporting requirements apply to public schools in New York State? This many.

Paul Gross looks at state science standards for the Fordham Institute. He’s generally impressed.

The East Harlem Tutorial Program, which now runs an exciting neighborhood-focused charter school, is up for a big prize from Chase. You should vote for them.

By James Merriman

Of the 136 charter schools operating in New York City, 88 are located in district school space.  Because charter schools in New York State do not generally receive any capital/facility funding, the district has had a policy of not charging rent.*

It is hard to exaggerate the effect of this policy. More than any other factor, it has allowed the charter school sector to expand in a city where real estate is both its lifeblood and a blood sport.  Without district space, charter schools face daunting hurdles, including carving out up to 20% of their operating funds to pay the rent. Even then, facilities can be far from ideal; I’ve often seen a charter leader in private space marvel at the luxuries the most neglected and old public school buildings provide.

Access to district space has fueled the rapid growth of charter schools in NYC. But it isn’t truly rent-free. What charter schools in district space don’t pay in money, they pay in the autonomy they give up.

This loss of autonomy comes in two flavors. First and most obviously, charter schools “co-located” in district space must live by the district’s building rules. Security and maintenance services are delivered through the district; if they fall short, good luck trying to change anything. Other rules constrain space use when the district is out of session.  And then there are the thousand little annoyances, like the class-interrupting loud-speaker announcements that some district schools tolerate. (“Teachers, remember to stop by the office before you file your leave forms.”)

The second kind of lost autonomy is equally important but almost never discussed.  Reliance on the district for space has kept charter schools silent about the problems they see in the district, whether due to negotiations inherent in obtaining this free space, the fear of losing it, or the sheer exhaustion of pursuing it. No matter what type of decisions district officials make, charter schools and their supporters (including us) often remain too quiet.

When the district’s system of school “progress reports” stumbled through years of changing methodology, charter school voices were muted. We didn’t say much when the district officials began closing district schools for poor performance before it established an accountability framework. Imagine if a charter school authorizer had tried the same thing! Nor did we point out that, until very recently, the district gave tenure to almost every teacher (despite having the full legal power to be far more selective).

Charter schools have a critical role to play in challenging the practices of the public school system when they are not working.  An illustration of this can perhaps be found in the public personae of Eva Moskowitz.   Prior to her becoming a charter operator, whose schools are dependent on the district for space, Eva regularly challenged the district as Chair of the City Council’s Education Committee.  Her actions became the stuff of NYC political legend, including calling attention to systemic malaise and neglect by holding a hearing on the lack of toilet paper in school buildings.  And while her zeal has not mellowed, her target is narrower.  Rather than using her successes, in the form of six schools with world-class test scores, as a prod for reform, she and her staff spend way too much of their time being pre-occupied with getting space for her schools.  The pressing necessity of having a roof over one’s head is not just Eva’s concern, but an urgent priority for all charter school leaders.

Thus, one result of charter schools’ need for space is that 1.1 million children in New York City have lost some of their loudest and best voices for pushing district reform.  Instead of calling out the district when it does something off-target, we generally keep our heads down and talk quietly amongst ourselves.  Third-party organizations like the Charter Center can help change that, and we do.  But the distortion will probably continue as long as charters lack a legal right to district space or funding to replace it.

To be clear: I believe charter schools should continue to have access to district space, and we will advocate for it with everything we’ve got.  But they also need facility funding, so they can judge for themselves whether free rent comes at too high a cost.

*The district also has a policy of not giving leases, meaning charters have few legal rights to stay for the long term.

by New York City Charter School Center

Good morning Wonkland! Andy was foolish enough to give us the run of the blog this week, and we intend to fully exploit his hospitality.

We’re the New York City Charter School Center, an independent nonprofit organization that works to ensure a high quality charter sector in NYC. Through our citywide strategy, we help new schools get started, provide sector-wide supports to existing schools and build community support in order to ensure charter schools can continue to flourish.

We think the energy and innovation that is present in the best charter schools can help create more great public schools, both charter and district. We are also painfully aware that both the tenor and substance of much of the present debate (Eduwonk excluded, naturally) is a dead-end. We’re trying to do something about that—we hope that comes through in our work and our blogs.

According to stereotype, New Yorkers think it’s not just the best place to be but the only place.  And while we would like to play against stereotype, fair warning, we are going to talk about New York a lot.  It’s not just that we think New York City is the most fascinating hotbed of educational reform, experimentation, debate, and hope in the country, it’s also what we know.

Thanks for reading, and we hope you’ll stick with us through the week.

General disclosures: our major funders are listed here, and two of our seven board members are from the NYC Department of Education, including Chancellor Dennis Walcott.

I’m going to be out of pocket a lot this week so I asked James Merriman of the New York City Charter School Center and some of his colleagues to step in and do some guestblogging.  Merriman is a proponent of public charters but also a strong voice for quality.  When he was the authorizer at SUNY in New York he made some tough and interesting calls and has been a national leader in the charter debate and is one of the most thoughtful voices out there. His colleagues are a diverse and interesting bunch and like James are committed to the goal of a great school for every child.  Enjoy.

Couple of interesting things went down recently setting up some interesting conflicts and worth keeping an eye on.

In New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has been lauding Common Core standards. That’s an anti-Perry position to be sure and not the kind of thing you’re going to hear right now in the Republican primary debate. Regardless of whether he decides to run for president or not, worth keeping an eye on – the state v. federal split in the Republican ranks is a real issue.

In D.C. the Council of Great City Schools – representing the nation’s largest school districts – endorsed (pdf) the Alexander-Isaskon-Burr-Kirk No Child Left Behind overhaul bill when it was introduced.  A lot of Hill Dem staffers are pissed-off about that move.  CGCS clearly likes the flexibility in the bill and made some deals but it’s a noteworthy shift because they’ve traditionally been resistant to moves that would shift the accountability burden off of suburban schools while maintaining it for urbans – and that would be the practical effect of the Alexander bill. If Republicans do take control of the Senate in next year’s elections – but that’s not a done deal as Kyle Kyrgstad reports in Roll Call – the move makes political sense.

Also in D.C. the United Farm Workers has come out against Secretary Duncan using waiver authority to undo the free tutoring requirements under No Child Left Behind (pdf). They argue that doing so violates the restrictions in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act on the secretary’s authority to waive provisions of the law dealing with parental participation and involvement.  Meanwhile Senator McCain (R-AZ) is introducing legislation aimed at protecting the tutoring requirements.  That could set up a conflict with Alexander et al as legislation moves forward because the Alexander approach gets rid of the free-tutoring rules along with a variety of other mandates.

Fran Tarkenton has discovered education reform!  In the WSJ he wonders what would happen if quarterbacks played under teachers contracts.  Good question!  Here’s an NFL coach and the president of TNTP discussing some broader issues and lessons from the NFL.