If you’re interested in applying for the BW blogging seminar don’t delay – a lot of applications coming in and because of the interactive nature of writing coaching space is limited. More information here.
If you’re interested in interning at Bellwether be sure to get us a resume and letter of interest via this email. Slots for next summer filling up although we still have room for the spring semester.
At the Eduwonk Facebook page a job for Mayor Bloomberg?
It’s easy to have a little fun with this new teacher union charter school authorizer initiative in Minnesota. Turns out charters and non-profits are only bad when they don’t control them. It’s almost like this is about power or something. More seriously, at one level I’m all for this sort of pluralism and this particular venture is an interesting initiative that I’m excited to see come online.
But more generally I’m not sold on the plural charter authorizer model yet – meaning the idea that non-profits should start not only sponsoring or operating schools but authorizing them as well, an idea Minnesota is pioneering. Nationally we have a quality problem with charter school authorizing. Many school districts, ironically, have proven to be pretty bad at it. And some authorizers have consistently poor records and states don’t yet have in place accountability systems to hold them accountable and shift oversight for the schools they oversee. There are some independent authorizers with strong records, universities, mayor’s offices, and independent public boards. But as policymakers innovate with this idea the twin principles of public oversight and accountability for quality must be at the forefront and it’s too soon to tell yet f they will be as these initiatives play out.
Look ma! I’m reasonable! In The Times today Rick Hess and Linda Darling-Hammond lay out an odd-couple agenda for federal education policy.
Some of it is stuff that the federal government is already doing now, for instance they call for more research and development but don’t mention various administration initiatives (eg i3, ARPA-ED, etc…). And some of it is cheap shots. They write that, “The Obama administration’s $4.35 billion Race to the Top competition tried to do some of this, but it ended up demanding that winning states hire consultants to comply with a 19-point federal agenda, rather than truly innovate.” Really? Of all the critiques you can level at RTT that’s a pretty weak one.
But their two main points bear some discussion. They write that:
“Instead of the vague mandate of “adequate yearly progress,” federal financing should be conditioned on truth in advertising — on reliably describing achievement (or lack thereof) and spending. To track achievement, states should be required to link their assessments to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (or to adopt a similar multistate assessment). To shed light on equity and cost-effectiveness, states should be required to report school- and district-level spending; the resources students receive should be disclosed, not only their achievement.”
I’m all for transparency but “vague mandate?” I thought the problem with “adequate yearly progress” was that it is too prescriptive. Where did I read that? Oh right, it was in this 2009 article by Rick Hess and Mike Petrilli. Darling-Hammond also says – at least recently said – it’s too prescriptive.
They extend the thought in their second point writing:
Second is ensuring that basic constitutional protections are respected. No Child Left Behind required states to “disaggregate” assessment results to illuminate how disadvantaged or vulnerable populations — like black and Hispanic students and children from poor families — were doing. Enforcing civil rights laws and ensuring that dollars intended for low-income students and students with disabilities are spent accordingly have been parts of the Education Department’s mandate since its creation in 1979. But efforts to reduce inequities have too often led to onerous and counterproductive micromanagement.
Wait, wait, wait. I thought the thing to do was to “drop the racial subgroups and wishful-thinking accountability. If such changes offend civil rights advocates, who may clamor to keep race-conscious labels or want nclb to stick to goals more aspirational than actual, so be it. Their offence can only lead to a debate that conservatives should welcome.” Gosh, where did I read that? Wait, it was that exact same Rick Hess and Mike Petrilli article.
Rhetoric of the day inconsistencies aside, I think Rick and Linda are right that some accountability efforts have led to micromanagement but absent those federal prods there is no evidence that states systematically address these issues. It’s an evolving balancing act. So from where I sit in addition to civil rights enforcement a good civil rights policy is ensuring a floor for performance and expectations not merely rooting through the data looking for pervasive violations (which are awfully hard to make stick anyway).
Bigger picture: The right-left confluence on education reform marches on. That’s too bad.
Jay Mathews has been looking at the issue of parental visits to observe classrooms. I asked some teachers and others about this in a TIME column earlier this year. Here’s their take.
BW’s Sara Mead surveys federal early-childhood efforts for TNR. Her verdict? More please! In NY Daily News Willingham and Grissmer say structure and curriculum needs as much attention as personnel.
Elsewhere CRPE looks at charter schools and teachers’ unions. And teacher eval going to the voters in Massachusetts.
Shep Barbash has turned in a short book about reading pioneer Zig Engelmann and DI (pdf). It’s effusive in places but well worth checking out if you’re interested in reading or interested in how ideas travel (or don’t) in education.
Communities for Teaching Excellence is looking for a COO. Stand For Children is seeking a marketing director. And the Broad Center is seeking a communications director (LA based).
Did you know that there are six public colleges/universities in Virginia with more than 30 percent out-of-state undergrads? And Virginia is hardly the only state facing some resident/non-resident friction. That, and the larger issues it points up for higher ed finance (balancing access, quality, and mission) is the topic of this week’s TIME School of Thought column.
Are you pissed off that so many young people are slipping across borders and enrolling in America’s public universities, where they’re taking coveted slots away from local kids? You’re not alone. But don’t call Mitt Romney for help — this particular furor isn’t about illegal immigrants. It’s about public universities recruiting more and more out-of-state students, who often pay as much as three times what in-state residents do for the privilege of attending the same institution…
But admission to read at TIME is non-competitive, just click on this link and you can read the entire column.
 Collective Bargaining in Education: Negotiating Change in Today's Schools Edited by Jane Hannaway and Andrew J. Rotherham
|  Better Benefits: Reforming Teacher Pensions for a Changing Work Force By Chad Aldeman and Andrew J. Rotherham |
 A Qualified Teacher in Every Classroom Edited by Frederick M. Hess, Andrew J. Rotherham, and Kate Walsh |
 Conflicting Missions and Unclear Results: Lessons from the Education Stimulus Funds By Sara Mead, Anand Vaishnav, William Porter, and Andrew J. Rotherham |
 Rethinking Special Education For A New Century Edited by Chester E. Finn, Jr., Andrew J. Rotherham & Charles R. Hokanson, Jr. |
 Location, Location, Location: How Would a High-Performing Charter School Network Fare in Different States? By Chris Lozier & Andrew J. Rotherham |
 Changing the Game: The Federal Role in Supporting 21st Century Educational Innovation By Andrew J. Rotherham and Sara Mead |
 Achieving Teacher and Principal Excellence: A Guidebook for Donors By Andrew J. Rotherham |
Eduwonk is powered by
WordPress | © 2007 - Retrofitted by ArtyBlogs
|
Entries (RSS)
and Comments (RSS).
