Let’s face it, for a college having to manage and worry about an endowment, any endowment, is a high class problem.  Still, despite some eye-popping numbers endowments are not a ticket to easy street.  In this week’s TIME School of Thought I take a look at five reasons why:

It seems everyone has an opinion about what colleges and universities should do with their endowments. Use them to lower tuition! Let students attend for free! Improve facilities! Hire more professors! When the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) released its annual report on college endowments last week, the big numbers grabbed headlines — Harvard’s endowment, the nation’s largest, grew 15% to $31.7 billion. Less attention was directed to Southern Virginia University’s endowment of $574,000, which won’t provide too many scholarships at a place that costs more than $18,000 a year. I had lunch with a college president a few weeks ago whose school has an endowment of about $20 million, which may sound like a lot of money, but he was consumed with fundraising efforts just to make ends meet. So the next time you hear someone pitching an idea for what a college should do with its endowment, think about these five reasons why the reality of how college endowments work is different than the rhetoric…

Endowment leaders are always looking for good tips.  Here’s one – you can read the entire column and the five reasons via this link for free.

Some roles at the Department of Education working on RTT. They close this week.

Here’s a fun one – Chief Development Officer at WestEd. Great team, great organization, and pretty great place to live – the new National Geographic ranks San Fran ahead of D.C. as a globally influential city…

Shots fired! Tim Daly and Kati Haycock in NY Daily News calling for a new teacher evaluation law in New York – with a trigger for action – and clearly asking for more from Governor Cuomo.  Important op-ed given the role TNTP and Ed Trust play.

Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson’s school report card idea juxtaposed against report cards more generally in this Sac Bee editorial.

Here’s more on the MDRC small schools study.

Public Charter School Board in DC is looking for a communications director.

Marguerite Roza and Paul Hill say the conversation about school productivity is an essential one.

There are certainly some quite good ed tech products out there but I’m skeptical of what I’d say is a new ed tech bubble in education (I say new because it’s hardly the first).  Yet while accounts like this weekend’s LAT ed tech column may elicit cheers from the usual suspects, they leave me unsatisfied. The column trots out the usual assertion that it’s greedy companies fueling the drive for classroom technology.  But doesn’t this critique have the causal chain backwards? I’d argue ed tech companies are responding to education’s faddishness and lack of attention to quality, not driving it.  In other words, in a market-driven economy does it make a lot of sense to blame companies for taking advantage when a group of people find it impossible to resist shiny new things?  The companies can’t sell their stuff unilaterally – someone within a school system makes that decision.

NAPCS says forthcoming IRS regulations could cost some teachers their pensions. More background here.

Common Good is looking at obsolete law at a forum in DC tomorrow morning – featuring Senator Mark Warner.

A friend sent along this fun and quirky video about teaching.

Karim Ani of Mathalicious isn’t drinking the Khan-aid and asks some hard questions about Khan Academy. Important discussion.

Achievement First coming into Rhode Island, long tiresome debate about this.

Last year I did a TIME column on what education could learn from professional football featuring the Daly brothers – former teachers, one’s now an NFL coach and the other leads TNTP. The three of us will go deeper on that issue at an Askwith Forum at HGSE on April 2.

Today, as you get ready for Sunday’s game, here’s a guest post by Deanna Burney on the same issue:

What the Teaching Profession Can Learn from the NFL

When Tom Brady connects with Wes Welker, as he does most weeks, it is not luck or good intentions that yield touchdowns. Anyone who has played a sport knows wanting to succeed is important – but not enough. For a quarterback and receiver to work so well together, they must study the playbook, practice their plays, and benefit from the leadership of trusted coaches to hone and make the most of the players’ diverse natural talents. No successful NFL team is “winging it” or relying solely upon the innate skill of individual players to win. In this way, educational leaders have much to learn from professional sports teams. Recently, John Merrow opined that teaching is not a “team sport” as we typically understand the term when used in reference to athletics. He points out that schools’ structures – their governance, scheduling, and evaluation systems – are not designed for collaboration or “team play.” I agree and would add that the most glaring obstacle to teachers, and the teaching profession as a whole, functioning as a team is that educators lack a “playbook” – a common knowledge base uniting the “team” in its understanding of task and desired outcome.

In the NFL while variations exist from team to team, and approaches to the game continue to evolve, the strategy still boils down to the playbook. Every team has a plan for what to do on fourth and long; every NFL receiver and quarterback knows the fade, the slant, the post pattern. These terms may sound like jargon to us, but any pro football player would instantly recognize them because their livelihood depends upon it. And yet, the playbook must serve as a series of guidelines rather than hard and fast rules. Whether on the gridiron or in the classroom, the person “calling the plays” must have the flexibility and a firm knowledge of best practices in order to assess and appropriately react to unexpected circumstances.

In contrast to the NFL, education has little to no common language for creating or utilizing a professional knowledge for teaching – no “playbook” per se. Yes, it has its jargon – “differentiated instruction” for example. But if we are to use this example, found in the syllabi of many professional teacher preparation programs, there is little consensus about exactly what it is or how to make it happen effectively and consistently.

In sports, knowledge is gained and accumulated from experience, and every professional sport maintains careful records. Often they employ the kinds of statistics not taught until high school or college, but are discussed and debated by people of all levels of education in every sports bar in America. There are records of who scored the most points (Morten Anderson kicked for 2,544 during his 25-year career), which team scored the most two-point conversions in a season (6 by the 1994 Miami Dolphins), or who played in the most Pro Bowls (Randall McDaniel and Will Shields share a record 12 appearances). Of course, these stats are testament to the outstanding abilities of players and coaches, but they also provide insight into experiments, failures and successes of training techniques, leadership methods and the playbook. Current coaches and players have an endless well of information from which to draw in building their playbook. Cross reference this data with what is known about the skills of players and teammates, and coaches and players are well equipped to design smart, successful plays .

Education, by contrast, has no comparable wide-ranging, nationwide compendium of information or ideas about teaching and learning. The philosopher and science historian Karl Popper described three worlds of knowledge for teachers: interacting with students, accumulating knowledge for themselves, and – most importantly – treating ideas for teaching as objects to be shared publicly as well as stored and passed along to the next generation. Education is lacking that which Popper deems key to the success of education.

Such a knowledge base could, for example, assist a teacher from Los Angeles in addressing a challenge that has already been faced by a teacher in Detroit. We live in a society in which access to knowledge and usable information is only a few keystrokes away. A doctor can call up an X-ray of a patient from across the continent; your phone can find the nearest burger joint. Want to install an entertainment system in your Toyota Prius? Instructions are on YouTube. Fortunately, good teaching is going on in thousands of classrooms across the country every day. The very fact that teaching varies widely from school to school –and even from classroom to classroom – means there are bound to be innovations to be learned, and failures to be avoided. The challenge is in identifying those successful innovations, making that information more readily accessible, and integrating it into our daily practices as teachers and leaders of teachers.

Tom Brady and Wes Welker would no doubt say it’s not just about knowledge, it’s also about execution. Just as professional sports strategies evolve as a result of trial and error, innovation and equipment advances, so too must education.  The tenure of an NFL coach depends upon his creating new wrinkles in the playbook, practicing the plays extensively, having a contingency plan for when things do not go as expected, and trusting that when the lights go on and the whistle blows, the team is well prepared to successfully execute the plays.  As educators, students, parents, and business leaders, we all have a stake in the successful education of children – a much greater stake than in our Fantasy Football picks. We would benefit greatly by looking closely at those professions where a common language and knowledge base are at the core of practice, such as medicine, engineering, law, and yes, even sports.

Deanna Burney is an educational researcher and consultant. She has served as a teacher, counselor, and principal in the School District of Philadelphia, assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction in the Camden City, NJ, school district, and Chief School Administrator for a charter school in Camden As a researcher, Burney has worked in collaboration with Richard Elmore on the High Performance Learning Communities study, and was a senior researcher at the Consortium for Policy Research in Education at the University of Pennsylvania.

National Alliance for Public Charter Schools is launching its search for a new CEO today. Big role, big impact potential for the right person.

CAP takes issue with the recent House education bills. The new NACSA report on charter authorizing has some important data, particularly around closure rates.

Kudos to Gotham Schools for highlighting some important context/backstory on Pedro Noguera’s resignation from SUNY board in New York. Inside baseball – it’s probably the clearest signal yet that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is serious about education even if it means ruffling feathers.  And, speaking of NACSA, some folks close to SUNY’s charter work have grumbled that Nogurea hasn’t been helpful on closing some low-performing charters.  Time will tell on that one.

Speaking of New York, more charter school teaching jobs, in the Bronx.

School of Thought column at TIME this week takes a look at this morning’s big GE announcement – and it is big, $18 million is a lot – and why it’s significant.  For all the talk about “corporate education reform,” it’s actually pretty rare. Can GE bring Common Core to Life?

This morning the GE Foundation, the philanthropic arm of the multinational General Electric Company, announced a landmark $18 million investment to support state implementation of the new Common Core standards and train teachers how to use them. It is sure to set off alarm bells among critics of education reform who worry that too many companies are trying to treat school productivity like a business problem. But the truth is the GE gift is a reminder of how rare meaningful corporate involvement actually is.

Want to give yourself a free gift?  Then click on this link and you can read the entire column for nothing!

Richard Whitmire’s “The Bee Eater” in Korean for your viewing pleasure.

You or someone close to you making a college choice? Jay Mathews offers some sound advice. My thoughts on the same here.

Next time you’re tempted to think Randi Weingarten has an easy job, read this.

Ying-yang and Linn-Laine.  Dane is off to the College Board, Richard is joining NGA.

Partnership for Public Service is seeking a research director. And a bunch of teaching jobs at charter schools in Tennessee.

In the Richmond Times Dispatch civil rights attorney Angela Ciolfi and I ask for a more meaningful NCLB wavier request from Virginia:

Low-income and minority students in Virginia shouldn’t have to look to the federal government for a school accountability system protecting their interests. But because Virginia has so far failed to design a method for holding schools accountable that actually includes all students, the federal law is their last resort. Virginia policymakers control the solution to this problem. They could start designing a more rigorous state system today and then rightly tell Washington to bow out. Instead, this request for a federal education waiver would further obscure the reality of educational performance in the commonwealth and undermine a commitment to the success of our most vulnerable students.

I have a column at TIME this morning about why Obama’s college plans matter and why even though it’s an election year it’s worth paying attention:

Let’s cut right to the chase — I have about the same chance of being picked up by the Boston Red Sox as a utility player as President Obama does of having his proposals to control college costs get through Congress this year. But looking at what the President proposed on Friday (in a raucous speech at the University of Michigan) through the lens of short-term Capitol Hill feasibility misses the significance of what Obama is up to. Just a few years ago, the ideas the President hinted at in last week’s State of the Union and is now describing in more depth were considered fringe topics, basically the province of a few wonks and reform-minded policymakers. Talk of improving productivity in higher education bordered on blasphemy. Now the President of the United States is on board.

It’s cost-free to read the entire column at TIME via this link.

There was a lot of education news this week but still surprised this MDRC analysis on NYC small schools didn’t get more attention.

Smart paper from Craig Jerald about the improve/eval debate. And IES interviews Jane Hannaway.

New organization seeking to help address various kinds of abuse of athletes – maintains a banned coaches list.

Over at NJ they’re talking civics, good entry from Civic Education Chairman David Feith. But seriously, if you asked Fair Test a question about the weather outside, you’d get an answer about No Child Left Behind.

Future Is Now schools are looking for a leader in New Orleans.  Interesting high school turnaround opportunity.

I think there is one effect of educational technology that is indisputable – it can make otherwise sensible people loose their healthy skepticism.  Are the bells and whistles blinding us to more basic educational issues – for instance instructional quality? That’s the subject of this week’s TIME School of Thought.

Steve Jobs didn’t think that technology alone could fix what ails American education. It’s worth remembering that in the wake of last week’s breathless coverage of Apple’s new iBooks platform, which the company promises will radically change how students use and experience textbooks. Under Apple’s plan, companies and individuals will be able to self-publish textbooks, ideally creating a wider array of content. Students will be able to download and use these books on their iPad much like they would use a regular textbook — including highlighting passages, making notes and pulling out passages or chapters that are especially important to them. Apple says it also plans to cap the price of textbooks available through iBooks at $14.99, a significant departure from the price of many textbooks now.

Critics were quick to pounce that Apple wasn’t being revolutionary enough…

You’re reading this on a computer, right?  Then click here to read the entire column.

This year’s Hopes, Fears, and Reality from CRPE* is well-worth checking out.  And keep an eye on Neerav Kingsland, who is guest blogging over at Rick Hess’ blog all week. *I have an affiliation there.

Education gets a cameo in Washington Post Ombudsman Patrick Pexton’s much chattered about column urging Post reporters to apply more scrutiny to the Obama administration in advance of this fall’s election. He writes,

Has [President Obama's] Race to the Top education initiative worked?

It’s a question that’s at once obvious but also illustrative of a common problem with these exercises.  Race to the Top was a competitive program spending $5 billion encouraging states to make dramatic changes to their policies in an effort to win a share of the money.  It also includes a parallel competition for a new generation of student assessments. I’m all for scrutiny of something like this but “has it “worked?” will lead to summary judgments divorced from the reality of the program.

As of right now you’d have to say that – despite the problems in some states – Race to the Top worked incredibly well.  It catalyzed an unprecedented amount of change in state education policies across a range of issues.  And both testing consortia are working away at their tasks.  But will those changes be durable? Will they lead to improvements in student outcomes? Will states actually implement the assessments in a meaningful way? Too soon to tell and it’ll be too soon to tell in November, too. We’ll know in a few years just not by the election. To be clear, this isn’t an argument that it’s all unknowable for the election. There are plenty things that the Administration has done on education that lend themselves to judgements this year – efforts to rein in for-profits in higher education, their blueprint for No Child Left Behind reauthorization and failure to get Congress to consider it, or the school turnaround program, for example – my point is merely that not everything does and Race to the Top is a good example of something that doesn’t.

So I’d suggest a more useful approach would be to admit where the grade is honestly an incomplete and instead describe the strategy the Administration is pursuing and it’s advantages and drawbacks and contrast that with the strategy the Republican nominee will pursue and it’s advantages and drawbacks. That won’t give you a convenient verdict but will highlight the big differences between the various theories of action right now and inform chioces.

More generally, this highlights the tension between social science and journalism (pdf). The latter is more concerned with time-bound judgements, that’s the inherent nature of the business, and the former with ensuring the most accurate answer possible – even if that means waiting an – often inconvenient – while to figure that out.  In different ways both are unsatisfying, politics and policy move in the present but short-term treatments of larger issues can be wrong, sometimes seriously so.

Roanoke Times pushes back on Virginia’s NCLB waiver request, which is one to watch.

Ed policy analyst slot open at Mass DOE. And here’s a senior VP role with Junior Achievement.

RiShawn Biddle takes issue with my TIME column yesterday about choosing teachers because of this line:

But don’t expect too much help from schools [when it comes to choosing teachers]. There are few formal policies, and in most places parents have little information to go on. Some misguided efforts, such as publishing teachers’ value-added scores in the newspaper, don’t do much more than confuse and scare people.

Rishawn’s all for publishing value-add scores, he’s hardly alone and I can understand the impulse.  And I do think parents should be made aware if their child is being taught by a teacher with multiple years of unsatisfactory evaluations.  But, as I wrote at the time the LA Times went down this road there are a few reasons I don’t support this approach of publishing individual value-add scores.  Most notably it’s an incomplete piece of information.  Yes, the predictive leverage of value-added is better than you’re led to believe by much of the rhetoric but it’s not an entire evaluation nor is it available for all teachers.  It would basically be like publishing the error rates of journalists without context about their beat or output or doctors without regard to what they do. And, yes, value-add can address many of the variables – that’s the point – but it’s not a substitute for an overall evaluation that includes other elements and professional judgement.

I find it inconsistent when value-add advocates say that, ‘of course a teacher’s evaluation shouldn’t be based just on test scores’ but then are fine with publishing a statistic derived from test scores that – because it’s being published – by default becomes a summative judgement.  In my view a more constructive approach would be for newspapers to report in a descriptive way about what the value-add data in their community shows – overall quality, variance, where high and low-performing teachers are concentrated, etc…without linking it to individuals.   And to the point I was trying to make in the column that information would help parents ask the important questions they should be asking.

Brendan Daly, a defensive coach in the NFL, is heading back to the Minnesota Vikings after being with St. Louis since 2009.  Why do you care if you’re not a Vikings fan?  Because the former teacher is thoughtful on some of the lessons the NFL offers schools. And he’ll be talking about that later this spring at an Askwith Forum at HGSE.

Good take on what’s happening at Apple around textbooks. Can’t we all get along? CRPE looks at collaboration and charter schools.

Here’s a fun edujob at Whiteboard Advisors. Among other roles you’d be helping me and John Bailey on Education Insider.

I’m not opposed to many kinds of school choice but it’s not a panacea – as they say.  Yet lost under that cliche is the more important point that even having choice among schools isn’t enough – parents have to drill down more because teachers matter more.  It’s especially true if you don’t enjoy school choice.  That issue is the topic of this week’s TIME School of Thought.

The most important decision you will make about your children’s education is picking their school, right? That’s the conventional wisdom, but it’s actually wrong — or at best it’s only half-correct. Teacher effectiveness varies a lot within schools, even within good schools, which means that just choosing the right school for your kid is not a proxy for choosing great teachers. So while “school choice” is hotly debated (next week is National School Choice Week, complete with Bill Cosby’s blessing and events galore,) there are few rallies being held for giving parents the right to choose a particular teacher. That’s because the whole system is stacked against empowering families in this way. In fact, because of how seniority rules generally work, it’s a lot more common for teachers to choose their students than for students to choose their teachers.

You can choose to read the entire column at TIME via this link.

Quick thought experiment – if you were to substitute “needs improvement” for every instance where the word “failing” is used in the public conversation to describe school accountability efforts wouldn’t the dialogue sound a lot different?  Eg – “Under No Child Left Behind 48 percent of schools have been identified as failing” or “Under No Child Left Behind 48 percent of schools have been identified as needing improvement” are two very different things in practice and also sound different.  One sounds intuitively implausible and the other quite reasonable given our educational outcomes.  It’s not an academic point because federal law doesn’t use the term failing for schools and does actually use the phrase needing improvement…

Now back to your regularly scheduled rhetoric.

Sawchuk turns in a great bit of reporting on the comparability issue in federal policy.

Cuomo is not the only governor on education this week.   Jindal rolling out some ideas in Louisiana. More here. Plus more on Washington State.

The new OMB director was a social entrepreneur.

And Sara Mead plays doctor.

More action in New York, the governor wants to tie state aid to reform. People have been looking for a signal from the governor about how serious he is about this issue – I think this counts as one.

Here’s the budget (pdf).

Politico looks at five issues that could defy gridlock in Washington this year.  Not on the list?  Education!

NYT slideshow on cross-border students, an interesting issue in the border areas of the country.  And if you enjoyed the 60 Minutes segment on Jake Barnett, the math prodigy, here is additional footage about him.