A politically astute education observer noted today that Common Core proponents should be thanking their lucky stars that immigration, guns, and now abortion are tying up the religious right.

Also, on Common Core, this story from Alabama about Common Core aligned tests outside of the two assessment consortia is what the literary standards might consider foreshadowing…

Eduirony Of The Day:  John Merrow’s Ahab-like obsession with Michelle Rhee is easy to understand but why is the American Federation of Teachers so feverishly joining him in trying to make the case (for instance here, and here) that some of its members in Washington, D.C. cheated? Even accepting the absolutely broadest allegations in D.C. as fact would still mean that most (95%) of the teachers in the city didn’t cheat – let’s hear more about them.  And don’t the ones who allegedly did deserve some due process here? From their union of all places?

Reminder: You can join a discussion today about what schools can learn from the Marine Corps with former Marine officers turned educators. Hosted by Harvard Graduate School of Education at 5pm.  Online, with opportunities to ask questions remotely, too.

Stephen Sawchuk is giving a tutorial on how to write about research and what it says and how it relates to other research (as opposed to the standard practice of focusing opinions about research, two “sides” etc…) – you can partake right here.

New Education Insider survey data out this morning (pdf).  A look at how Common Core might (or might not) affect the curriculum marketplace.  And, although just slightly, for the first time the wrong track numbers for PARCC assessment consortia are higher than SBAC consortia.  Pessimism still reigns on ESEA reauthorization prospects.

George Washington University ed school dean Michael Feuer with a serious take:

…shifting the blame for egregious mischief away from the perpetrators and onto the system strikes me as morally and politically bankrupt…

Read the entire thing.

Given the tone and polarization of the education debate false choices and overheated rhetoric often emerge around issues where multiple things can be true at once.  A current example is Atlanta. It seems quite likely there was a lot of cheating, but there was also some genuine improvement.  An emerging example is this issue of charter school waiting lists, it’s popping up in Chicago and now in Massachusetts.

The large numbers of students on waiting lists are undoubtedly inflated because students are on waiting lists for multiple schools, schools don’t always update lists in real-time so students are actually enrolled at a school of their parent’s choice even if they’re on a waiting list elsewhere…you get the idea. This seems like a no-brainer and I thought it was pretty common knowledge. But at the same time, even accounting for those issues, in places with caps and restrictions on growth – for instance Illinois and Massachusetts – there is also much more demand than there are seats.  Both the inflation and the demand are happening at the same time.

More generally, from where I sit I don’t get the fervor to deny parents options in the public sector anyway. I get the short term politics (special interests and all that) but longer term it seems like a self-defeating educational and political strategy.

Update: Michael Jonas with some good points on this.

Wash Post editorial board weighs-in on Texas and the debate over graduation requirements there.  Note the political alliances: Split business community, civil rights groups opposing the proposed changes.

The President was in Colorado yesterday to call attention to the gun issue at a time when political support for meaningful reforms seems to be ebbing (as an aside, it’s inexplicable to me why the NRA released their school safety report at the very moment they were close getting to winning, all it did was remind reasonable people how ridiculous they are). The President has signaled that he would take  a weak bill over no bill, never a good sign. Unfortunately, this evolution of the debate isn’t surprising.  What we’re seeing is a classic case of intensity of support for something, as distinct from overall levels of support for it, play out. (In the case of guns it’s why I think we need to fundamentally change gun politics in this country as a predicate for serious policy change. )

Consider this example on guns. In a recent Mayors Against Illegal Guns poll (pdf) 71 percent of NRA members said they thought that people on the terrorist watch list should be ineligible to buy firearms. This was hailed as evidence of how room for compromise was at hand.  But that’s exactly the wrong way to read a number like that. The real story is that 29 precent of NRA member didn’t think people on those lists should be banned from buying firearms. Inside the organization what group do you think is more active and holds more leverage? At town hall meetings other political events, which group of respondents do you think is more likely to show up and talk to elected officials?

This isn’t just about guns. There are clear parallels in education where polls constantly show high levels of support for various issues but those preferences are translated into public policy much less frequently.  Why? Again, highly motivated factions can trump the will of larger but broader swaths of less motivated people. It’s an old story in American politics and, depending where you are on a particular issue, a hazard or benefit of a democracy such as ours.

But understanding support versus enthusiasm is key to understanding why, for instance, the positions of many teachers reflected in opinion surveys diverge from the positions of the teachers unions. It’s likewise key to understanding both organizational behavior in membership organizations and also why many local elections play out the way they do.

As a basic rule in American politics when it comes down to broad and diffuse support versus enthusiastic and motivated opposition, bet on the latter almost every time.

Just read Jon Chait in NY Mag, a dispatch from real life.

The new report from America Achieves today (pdf) is worth your time, it’s more granular than the usual international comparison debate.  It has salience for a few ongoing debates but what it fundamentally highlights is a key aspect of education in this country: High variance. Achievement, spending, teacher pay and so forth is all discussed in the language of averages. But the real story on all those issues is the variance.

This report shows that we have internationally competitive schools, good ones in all parts of the sector.  But we need more. The analysis also shows that if you’re a parent, don’t be complacent. If you don’t think your school could be a middling school, look at some of the ones profiled, then think again.

Yesterday’s Washington Post op-ed page provided a glimpse of what education might look like in a decade if today’s efforts to reform public schools fail.  Michael Gerson lauds the spread of choice and increasing chances that it could happen at scale.  On the same page Eugene Robinson announces that Atlanta shows the folly of incentives linked to testing. Both op-eds want for nuance (although Gerson’s prose is sufficiently smoother and elevated to hide it better). But both pieces also give voice to what’s likely on the other side of a collapse of the current crop of reform efforts. It’s not a return to the old days of benign neglect where the money flowed pretty freely and consequences were scarce.  Instead, it’s likely a return to a low-accountablity  environment coupled with much more choice, and all in a more constrained fiscal environment. Based on what we know now from various policy experiments over the last few decades its hard to see that as a formula for widespread improvement. Rather, the system needs more choice but the system – and choice schools – also need more accountability.  It’s not hard though to see  how the politics of that shift would work given the steady expansion of choice and the resistance to measures that create consequential accountability within the public system. In other words, the writing is on the wall as well as yesterday’s Wash Post op-ed page.

Here’s a quick encapsulation of the education debate today: Yesterday Matt DiCarlo posts an (amusing in my view) April Fools joke about all the crazy correlation/causation inferences people make from NAEP data and the way those data are abused.  Not everyone got the joke on Twitter yesterday and apparently it was too subtle – he’s since put a disclaimer in for the satirically challenged. And of course, today, here’s Diane Ravitch citing the post as a must-read because of what it purports to show.  “Don’t keep it a secret,” she tells the dittoheads.

It would be entertaining except that while it was just an April Fool’s prank this is exactly how bad information and urban myths (and study laundering) travel through the education world, are uncritically repeated, and often land in the mainstream media.

Don’t keep it a secret.

Few thoughts on all the indictments out of Atlanta at the end of last week. 

*First, the obligatory, but also important, note that they are just indictments not convictions. That said, other than about the scale, the bond, and so forth I don’t know anyone especially surprised by this sad turn of events.

*On the general issue, if you don’t think public educators can handle real accountability without resorting to cheating (e.g. the constant refrain of “Campbell’s Law) then you have a pretty low opinion of public school educators. In most walks of life there are high-stakes consequences attached to professional and behavioral decisions.  And yet most people are able to play by the rules.

*In the end this may turn out to be an old story about human and professional greed and desire for recognition and accolades more than a unique story about education or education policy. The cheating was largely about district goals and targets and contingent bonuses not broader state and federal school accountability requirements. There is some interrelation, of course, given the thrust of policy today but in the rush to prove one point or another what is alleged to have actually happened in Atlanta is being obscured.  And it’s worth noting it wasn’t happening like this statewide.

*Don’t lose sight of all the educators in Atlanta who didn’t cheat, aren’t accused of doing so, and are getting an undeserved black-eye here. Progress was made on other measures besides the state tests and including NAEP.  It’s akin to baseball’s steroid era.  There are bad apples, sure, but don’t forget everyone who played clean, or in this case taught clean.

*In the rush to score points it’s worth remembering that this is a sad episode and some young people lost something here that they can’t get back – their time. That this turn of events (like others that bolster or discredit reform efforts) is being met in some quarters of our hyper-polarized education debate with glee because it’s a perceived strike against “school reform” is depraved.

Learn about and work on education policy – in Hawaii.  Summer fellowships with the state of Hawaii.

The Times writes-up a new study about job satisfaction in different fields.  Surprise! Teachers like their jobs.  That’s a result you get when you ask the questions in a straight-forward manner. It’s challenging work but being with kids is, you know, fun, despite how much time people spend talking the job down.

2013 Broad Prize* Finalists announced this morning (pdf).

ACT on importance of early-learning.  Barry Garelick on ability grouping.

Keep an eye on Texas, backlash on accountability happening there, shows how much this issue is not partisan.  But a coalition of anti-accountability types and companies that are not interested in a skilled workforce are attacking the state’s graduation policies.

Rocketship is expanding and seeks a Managing Director for Milwaukee  (a place that remains one of the most fascinating education locales in the nation).

Jackie Lain, a true gem, (Clinton White House, S&P, Texas School Boards Association) is launching a start-up. And they are hiring (and closing dates extended so you can still apply).

TN Score is hiring an analyst.

*I’m on the review board for the prize.

BW’s Chad Aldeman takes a look at educator evaluation in Washington State for ES.  Stephen Sawchuk checks in with the MATCH teacher residency (BW client) program. Danny Rosenthal analyzes public sector collective bargaining.  Great Peter Sipe column about lockdowns and life.  Jal Mehta and Joe Doctor step up to the bar (exam). And Michael Barber on schools in Pakistan.

There is some really interesting stuff in this survey about Chicago schools.

If states don’t use Common Core as an opportunity to distill the sprawl that passes for curriculum now, not much will change.

Edujobs at New Schools for New Orleans working on human capital.  And an analyst slot covering education at CRS.

Checker Finn turns in an interesting look  at  (building on some of the questions BW’s Andy Smarick has asked) quantitative versus qualitative considerations when it comes to closing schools.  It’s something of a parallel to the BW “Hangover” paper on teacher evaluations.  Based on a lot of ongoing conversations it seems like there is a constituency with great urgency for reform, but also leery of some aspects of what’s happening. That’s natural (and positive) in any change effort like this, but given the tenor and alignment of the education debate there is really nowhere for this constituency to get traction right now.

Hang around the education debates long enough and you’ll hear many times that schools are basically doing all they can to meet the needs of students, especially high-poverty students, so we should ease up on the pressure to do more.  I don’t think that’s the case and you see a lot of variance in how well schools do with similar students.

In that spirit, here are three examples of ideas, some more more substantial than others – happening in some places but far from commonplace – that we could do to reach more students and families.  It’s hardly an exhaustive list but it makes the point.

24-hour school: Many of our cities, and not just Las Vegas and New York, are 24-hour towns these days. Yet other than night school we still don’t engage students or parents that are on a 24-hour schedule.  It would be absurd to make every school a 24-hour option but providing that option in places where many older students are, especially those who have left school, are working alternative schedules would help reach kids who are disconnected today.  They are doing this in Vegas. And in this case what happens in Vegas, shouldn’t stay there.

Back-to-school day: I recently heard a school superintendent, a generally progressive guy concerned about equity, congratulating all the parents taking part in a “Back-to-School Night” style event in his community for being the kind of involved parents the school system needs to be successful.  Problem was, the event was at 8pm and a not-small proportion of parents in that community were beginning their work days around that time, not wrapping them up.   Back to School nights are an evergreen feature of our schools, and necessary for many parents who work a traditional 9-5 schedule. But for many parents, and not just those working nights, a chance to visit during the day would make school engagement more accessible. If we were really serious about meeting more parents where they are, “Back to School Days” (in addition to ‘back to school nights’) would be a lot more common than they are.  And even easier thing to jettison would be policies that limit parent-teacher conferences to just a few minutes in some places.

Responding to parents: One thing that’s pretty common at high-performing schools is some expectation, guidance, or even requirements about how quickly  teachers and other staff should respond to parental inquiries (and student emails). At other schools, even plenty of good ones, emails languish for days without even an acknowledgement. And like long lines at the DMV it’s one of those little things that really aggravates people and subtly turns them off.  At In-N-Out Burger they make a point of reminding everyone on the team that they are there thanks to the customers – and that’s a burger joint!  A little more of that ethos with regard to students, parents, and taxpayers is key to the long-term success of publicly funded education. Right now, any school or school district that doesn’t have clear expectations on fast-turnaround for emails and calls is leaving an easy and important one on the table.

Other ideas?

A favorite education movie character? Dean Wormer.
National Poetry Month is just around the corner…

Anyway….as part of the month the Academy of American Poets is setting up an opportunity for students to interact in writing with poets.  Check it out here.

Revealing article in The New York Times today about diversity and teacher training.  Several of education’s pathologies on full display.

First, there is this:

It is particularly difficult to recruit qualified mathematicians and scientists as teachers because they can earn much higher salaries in other professions.

“In their first year as an engineer, they’ll earn more than a teacher will ever earn over a 30-year career,” said Rick Ginsberg, the dean of the School of Education at the University of Kansas.  

The irony of complaining about recruiting problems while saying things like this….Anyway that “statistic” is not even in the ballpark of being true *(see note below about wording of this).  To see how ridiculous it is just, for example, assume that a teacher only makes $25K a year (far below national averages and most starting salaries) for 30 years.  They’d earn $750K.  You have to be quite a special engineer to land a starting salary like that.  Here in the real world the median starting salary for an engineer is about $59K.  For teachers it’s about $30K.  And, of course, there are other issues to consider including salary growth over time, days worked annually, or benefits and job security, that further cloud comparisons like this.

A more straightforward point is that we have a shortage of teachers in some subjects – especially some STEM disciplines – and it’s pretty plausible that how and how much teachers are paid are part of the problem. You don’t need bogus assertions to make that point.

Then there is this:

Ms. Robinson said she feared that recent changes in public education policy as well as statements about failing schools could deter candidates. “We’ve been through a phase where all the target for fixing everything is to change out the teachers,” Ms. Robinson said. “So we are finding recruitment is down in educator preparation programs.”

Well, perhaps, but there is no evidence of this.  In fact, among actual teachers those saying they’re dissatisfied with the job is actually declining.  And overall the nation produces more teachers than it needs so a decline is only a problem to the extent that it’s coming in subjects or geographies where there are shortages.  And it’s equally plausible that some of the changes would make teaching more attractive to new candidates.

In practice, the diversity problem is driven by a few issues.  First, as the article notes college completion rates for minority students are a national scandal.  Second, students who do complete thankfully have a variety of options open to them.  This is the same challenge education faced (and continues to face) as women have more opportunities in the workforce.  As Sharon Robinson notes in the article, education needs to step up its game on recruiting.  Obvious, but true and important.

How to do that?  Well, the villainous Teach For America offers a set of ideas about how to aggressively recruit students into teaching but you won’t hear many ed school deans talking about that.  TFA’s minority recruitment (34% of their teaching corps last year and 27 percent in 2005) outpaces what traditional education schools are doing, 18 percent according to the analysis The Times is writing up.  A bunch of other ventures from Math For America to UTeach offer other ideas. You can add turning an ideological blind eye to useful examples to the pathology list, alongside talking down the profession.

*A few readers note that the statement might have just been poorly constructed (something we all do at times) and the word “ever” meant to convey that a first-year engineer makes more than a teacher ever will make in a single year.  That’s a more plausible assertion, and a plausible explanation, but also not a correct one substantively. Even discounting all the issues around comparing pay, many teachers make more than $59K annually. As I’ve noted here before, the averages are also not where the analytic action is on teacher pay, the issue is the variance — especially on the low-end in some communities.

The other day I pointed out something we’re noticing in our work researching Common Core implementation:  In the past the largest states had disproportionate influence, now it’s the states moving the fastest that may end up setting the agenda.

Here’s another, related, question.  One of the promises of Common Core is to break-away from the homogenized textbook and move toward more customized (and primary source) texts and materials for students.  Will Common Core create an entry point for smaller publishers or will the big ones just reposition and take advantage of the scale Common Core offers and continue to dominate the market?

There’s been prayer in public schools for as long as there have been tests. So goes the old joke.

But for religious minorities it’s not so funny as the the school prayer issue reemerges with proposals in various states, most recently Mississippi, to test just what is permissible.  It’s complicated legal terrain, for sure, and everyone’s rights should be respected.  But, the issue is frequently approached as though there isn’t prayer in school now and these proposals will introduce it.  Anyone who spends time in schools in many parts of this country – especially the South – gets that there is a lot of religious activity now. So while the people pushing these various laws are obviously trying to foist one version of religion into the public square – are they inadvertently setting in motion something that those favoring a church-state divide in education will come to appreciate? If every prayer before an event or every holiday Christmas concert needs a laborious and clumsy set of disclaimers ahead of it (something more robust than a notation in a printed program), then might these proposals actually lessen rather than increase the amount of organized and quasi-organized religious expression in public schools?

Worth remembering: The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (which seems likely to find a rich set of converts among high school students) isn’t yet engaged on this issue.

New data out from the Insider survey: ESEA & HEA, Common Core assessments, and sequestration.

Wrap-up of the 2013 Intel Science Competition here (pdf).  Winners announced last night. This really is one of the most fun education events of the year.  The students are great, their research fascinating, and it’s a great reminder of all the innovation happening right here.  Plus, this year, a Virginia student, Alexa Victoria Dantzler, won the Seaborg Prize as well as being a semifinalist.

Old M.O.  Largest states drove many textbook, curriculum, and assessment decisions because of their size and the desire of publishers to cater to them to achieve economies of scale.

New M.O? With everyone scrambling to design Common Core aligned curriculum the fastest states rather than the largest may end up setting the agenda because they’re out in front with materials that teachers can use.

If that proves to be the case, then keep an eye on New York, which is leading the pack on curriculum development.

Interesting look at the evolution of charter schooling in a community in Florida via redefinED, and also a look at one of the players behind it.

Jane Pauley looks at charter schools in Indy.  And Elizabeth Neale and Jonas Chartock pick up on the Metlife survey to pivot and make some points on school leadership.

New AFT American Educator out, takes a timely look at standards and equity as well as misconceptions about intelligence.

House of Flash Cards? Latest Mission Hill segment is now posted.

The Washington Post (Chandler and Kunkle) take a look at Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell’s education record in Virginia.  Worth reading as several comments send a strong signal of the dismay among some conservatives about McDonnell’s education record, something that will have political ramifications going forward.  I’ve heard prominent Republicans, including serious presidential contenders, poor mouth Virginia on this score.

Ultimately, given the nature of the changes, the only fair grade is “incomplete.” In a few years we’ll be able to better assess if what the Governor set in motion drives real change and improvement. My take is that on the plus side of the ledger McDonnell reignited a dormant conversation about education reform in Virginia, that’s no small thing given that the state is one of the hardest for school improvement. And the Governor got a few things done that could have lasting impact, including ending the state’s embarrassing status as a net exporter Teach For America teachers. Over time that could fuel innovation here as well as more immediately help address acute problems in pockets of Virginia.

On the minus side, however, he waited until the end of his term to really launch his boldest education ideas.  Given the climate in Virginia education reform should have been a four year effort, not a fourth year effort.  Virginia clutches measures of performance that show good news but you don’t hear a lot about the nationally comparative outcomes measures, for example the National Assessment of Educational Progress, that don’t.  A genuine college and career ready standard would be an enormous shock to the Commonwealth.  The Governor should have talked about those issues from day one.  Instead you could never shake the sense that he was more interested in tax credits and private school choice than a full-on revamp of how Virginia thinks about school performance and accountability. The irony, of course, is that conservatives think he didn’t do enough on those issues, which many care about most, so in the end it may be a poorly considered political dice roll.

McDonnell also didn’t use dollars to leverage reform. The issue isn’t just the overall spending issues around Virginia, several of his proposals – charter schools, teacher quality, and school turnarounds for instance – could have been more ambitious and politically attractive with more money attached to them.  You can’t do reform on the cheap.

You can’t do reform on the light either. That’s the big thing to watch going forward.  Much of what McDonnell accomplished (school report cards, turnarounds, charter schools, teacher evaluations) can fairly be characterized as a light touch version of what leading states are doing. The risk is that good ideas, weakly implemented, end up being seen as weak ideas.  Given the tenor in Virginia a lot of players are hoping for exactly that and the Governor may have inadvertently played into their hands.

Deborah Kenny is back with another op-ed, this time on pre-K kindergarten in The Washington Post.  Same format as last the time: A criticism that causes reform critics to swoon (she even cites Matt Damon’s mom!) then a pivot to a solution that leaves them aghast….the audio version sounds like this.

Kenny makes the point that in early ed (and this is true in education generally) standards don’t inexorably lead to the kind of practices that everyone thinks are counterproductive and bad for kids. They are the result of other issues (teacher quality, support for teachers, curriculum, training, etc…). There are plenty of evidence proofs for this idea, as well as research showing not surprisingly that richer teaching produces better outcomes on standardized tests than drilling. If you’re in D.C., go have a look at Appletree’s early-childhood work for one compelling example in the pre-K space. You’ll see kids learning a lot, and having a lot of fun doing it and it’s the kind of place most parents would be excited for their child to spend time. Charles Chieppo takes a look at what they’re up to for Governing.

Two bigger takeaways.  First, the capacity issues here are huge, and that’s going to come to a head with Common Core and the temptation to shoot the messenger could prove – again – irresistible.  Second, this field has a disconcerting fetish for false choices.  As Kenny argues, the right over standards in early-childhood is a phony one.  It’s also an incredibly poorly timed one coming at the very time the country is about to debate a landmark investment in early-education – and investment that faces an uphill fight for many reasons, including concerns about program quality.

Debate over former state/federal official Hanna Skandera’s nomination to be state education chief in New Mexico heating up.  People lobbying on her behalf.  And her hearings resume today.

Short version of my take, via Twitter, here.

Slightly longer take:

1) Assuming a nominee is qualified, and Skandera obviously is,  Governors should have wide discretion here (just as president’s should), this is one reason why we have elections.  If the nominations dysfunction that plagues Washington spreads to the states it will be costly for policymaking.  I don’t agree with Hanna on everything – who does with anyone? – but politicizing education nominations like this is a bad road to go down.

2) The issue about her out-of-state travel seems like politics. Reasonable people can disagree, but my view is that we want people to travel and learn about things around the country and the world. So, within the bounds of reasonableness (you don’t need a week in Paris to learn about a math curriculum), as long as there is strong and meaningful real-time disclosure so all the facts around any relevant decision are known, then I don’t see a big issue with third party payments for trips. And everyone up in arms about Skandera’s travel should be equally outraged about all the public money that supports teacher’ union activities and all the teachers’ union money that supports educational trips and activities.  The outrage here seems pretty selective…and if we create an environment where people don’t cross-pollinate it’s going to make education policy-making even more insular than it already is.