An excerpt from “The Every Student Succeeds Act: What It Means for Schools, Systems, and States”
Education Next talks with Joanne Weiss and Frederick M. Hess
In July 2009, it wasn’t just about the money. The $4 billion (to be spent over four years) amounted to less than 1 percent of what K‒12 schooling spends each year.
Excerpts from The Cage-Busting Teacher
Turning educators into learning engineers
The Edu-Scholar Rankings seek to recognize those university-based academics who are contributing most substantially to public debates about K–12 and higher education
When it comes to reforming American education, school officials have far more freedom to transform, reimagine, and invigorate teaching, learning, and schooling than is widely believed.
What explains the success of Teach For America?
The following essay is part of a forum, written in honor of Education Next’s 10th anniversary, in which the editors assessed the school reform movement’s victories and challenges to see just how successful reform efforts have been. For the other side of the debate, please see A Battle Begun, Not Won by Paul E. Peterson, […]
Video: Frederick Hess talks with Education Next about the best and worst ways to fund innovation.
Smarter, better ways to fund education innovators
What doesn’t get taught at ed schools?
In fact, most render the notion of proficiency meaningless
Video: Frederick Hess talks with Education Next about reading specialists, den mothers, and teacher pay in the 21st century.
Specialization would lead to better teaching and higher salaries
The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (known broadly as NCATE, pronounced “en kate”) was launched in 1954 by a coalition of professional organizations from across the education community. Previously, teacher-training programs had been accredited by states, regional accrediting bodies, or an association of teacher colleges, each equipped with its own benchmarks and methods […]
NCLB is driven by education politics
Squeezing into local markets and cutting deals
Does school choice push public schools to improve?
Eliminating the state-mandated licensure of principles and superintendents is the first step in recruiting and training a generation of leaders capable of transforming America’s schools
Information technology could help schools do more with less. If only educators knew how to use it
Johnny can’t read … in South Carolina. But if his folks move to Texas, he’ll be reading up a storm. What’s going on? It turns out that in complying with the requirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), some states have decided to be a whole lot more generous than others in determining whether students […]
School boards need to drive a harder bargain
A race to the bottom?
States and school districts may find it tricky to navigate what is required and how money can be spent, which can lead to funds being used in “safe” and “permissible” ways rather than the ways that educators deem most useful.
Education scholarship marginalizes itself when it seems to treat the more conservative half of the nation with casual contempt.
Direct Student Services gives states new leeway to use some of their federal Title I dollars to expand instructional choice for students.
The hard-and-fast lines we have drawn between “public” and “private” are a lot blurrier and a lot less useful than we pretend.
Belichick is doing the hard, unpleasant work of addressing ineptitude and setting a high bar for performance.
As someone who favors choice, I can’t think of anything less helpful than making this broad-based effort feel more like a creature of Washington.
An array of education leaders had a hard-hitting but remarkably civil conversation about race and school reform at AEI this week.
I don’t know what comes next, but we’ll all be well-served to keep our wits about us.
Among the Patriots, there’s a belief that excellence means focusing on what went wrong and how to do better.
Today we will report on the top ten finishers for five disciplinary categories, as well as the top ten junior faculty.
These rankings are a serious but inevitably imperfect attempt to nudge academe to do more to encourage and recognize scholarship that impacts the real world.
The attacks on Betsy DeVos feel like a natural but unfortunate extension of the overheated rhetoric around things like the Common Core and teacher accountability.
Here are the details on how the Edu-Scholar rankings are calculated.
On Wednesday in this space, I’ll be publishing the 2017 RHSU Edu-Scholar Public Influence Rankings. Today, I want to take a few moments to explain the purpose of those rankings.
Donald Trump’s political appointees at the U.S. Department of Education should keep these in mind.
Here are a few musings as I survey the school reform landscape at the dawn of a new year.
It seems a propitious time to take a moment and reflect on the year gone by.
Everyone would be well-served if they spent less time claiming this or that test result proved that a grand federal agenda was the right one.
For those readers willing to concede that the liberal tilt in the education space has perhaps created some blind spots, here are some thoughts that may be helpful in making sense of the political landscape and the implications of the election.
Here are some of the names I’d love to see considered for a dozen of the top jobs.
What does this mean for education? We’ll have to see who gets named to key policy positions in the White House and the Department of Education.
Many people who get presented as experts in education policy are not really “experts” in any substantive sense.
The areas of practice, demonstration, and feedback are where technology really supports learning.
Experts tend to forget just how much they’ve absorbed into long-term memory, so when they train novices, they tend to leave out a large amount of important information.
Experts at parallel parking, like experts at everything, have converted large chunks of critical, conscious mastery into their long-term memory.
Experts work fast, they get specific tasks right, they know how to improve, and they’re better than the rest of us at tackling new challenges in their area of expertise.
Cerf says that reforming a school system is difficult, but the evidence suggests that it can pay off.
The stakes seem to get higher and higher as presidents and their appointees tear away at the moorings meant to constrain them.
Seton Catholic Schools is helping schools in its network rethink leadership and tackle challenges like recruiting and technology.
Technologies today offer the promise of extending the impact of the instruction, tutoring, and mentoring of a terrific teacher so that she can coach, tutor, or instruct hundreds with the same energy she once expended reaching only five or twenty-five.
Higher education reform increasingly feels like a rerun of the past two decades of K-12 reform—only on a 15 year time delay.
Education has mostly stayed on the sidelines of this race. That hints at what’s ahead for education, but it also says even more about this race and the state of American politics today.
Education is clearly not a top-tier issue for the public right now, but it’s also nowhere near the bottom.
Trump has spent at least half his adult life as a Democrat, has been on every side of every major issue, and seems wholly unacquainted with the Constitution.
Last week, the organizers of “XQ: The Super School Project” announced the ten winners of its competition to reimagine the American high school. Each winner took home $10 million to help turn its design into reality.
What HBO host John Oliver says about charter schools is not what education reformers should be worried about.
Last week was billed as the Trump campaign’s big “education week.” If you didn’t notice, that’s okay. I don’t think Trump did either.
As I watched the coverage and read the analysis, it did strike me that there are four cautions to pull from the fray that America’s school reformers would do well to heed.
For all the passion, though, I’m not sure that we actually have all that clear an idea of what it means to be a “reformer.”
Both communities are bound by a stifling orthodoxy so ingrained that it’s invisible to its adherents.
Given that the problems with Common Core were predictable, why did they catch so many advocates off-guard?
A new AEI study analyzes the 2015 charter school coverage from a number of influential media outlets.
On Monday, former Secretary of Education Arne Duncan returned to Washington DC to speak at a Georgetown University conference.
Courts are useful guardians of access to schooling but poorly suited to monitor the quality of policy or practice.
Over the past few days, nearly 20,000 education researchers descended on the nation’s capital for the American Educational Research Association’s (AERA) 100th annual conference.
Teachers of the Year offer the kind of practical advice from seasoned professionals that administrators and policymakers sorely need—and need to treat very seriously.
Schools should spend funds with an eye to providing the best possible teaching and learning for students. That’s not happening if schools are simply ignoring supply and demand when it comes to teacher pay.
The Obama administration’s Department of Labor is moving to revamp the “overtime rule” under the Fair Labor Standards Act. This could have a big impact on programs that depend on the passionate commitment of small staffs.
A new study looks at teacher evaluation results in 19 states that have adopted new evaluation systems since 2009.
One reason that Trump makes political veteran observers so nervous is that he could very well be elected President of the United States, and yet no one has any idea of what he’d attempt to do in office.
This list recognizes university-based scholars in the U.S. who are doing the most to influence educational policy and practice.
The new law retains NCLB’s federal framework for testing while getting the federal government out of the business of trying to judge teacher or school quality or how to “fix” schools.
D.C. Public Schools Chancellor Kaya Henderson has just finished her fifth year in the role. I recently had the chance to chat with her about the highlights of her tenure and the evolution of school reform.
ESSA doesn’t come close to getting it all right, but it’s a vast improvement on NCLB and the status quo.
We might see some significant education action in DC come 2017, but it’s unlikely to get much of a preview on the 2016 trail.
The odds of ESEA reauthorization weren’t good before Boehner’s announcement. After Boehner’s announcement, not a lot has changed.
Five good reasons federalism is so important in education
Yesterday the College Board released its newly revised version of the AP U.S. History framework.
Things are moving rapidly here in DC. Yesterday, on a 218-213 vote, the House narrowly passed the Student Success Act.
New superintendents routinely propose agendas that are full to bursting. As a result, local educators get deluged with new proposals.
The story of New Orleans’ success entails two parts: a disaster that created room to reinvent a deeply troubled urban school system and an energetic commitment to seize that opportunity.
Four ways for policymakers and reformers to create the conditions whereby cage-busting teachers can thrive
Both the pro- and the anti-school choice crowds tend to ignore what should be the central issue when it comes to markets, which is their immense creative potential and the way they can shatter comfortable cartels.
The reason education policy today feels more invasive is because policymakers have been convinced that the old rules and regulations weren’t getting the job done.
What works in one place, at one time, for a certain community, will often turn out differently elsewhere.
It’s looking increasingly like Secretary Duncan is going get to keep on enjoying his waivers through January 2017.
As Congress debates the reauthorization of ESEA, those arguing for keeping NCLB-style mandates claim that reform-minded leaders in the states require “political cover” from Washington.
Zhao’s writing flags the stifling nature of regulation and celebrates the creative power of entrepreneur-oriented education.
Given their steady revenues, credentialing authority, political relationships, and millions of alumni not much interested in major change, “blowing up” the existing schools of education is just not a viable option. It’s not even a desirable one.
Newark superintendent Cami Anderson came to AEI to give a talk, but the talk had to be relocated and the logistics modified because a busload of Anderson critics pledging to disrupt the event followed her from Newark.
What candidates running for governor and the U.S. Senate have to say on K-12, higher ed, and pre-K.
If the Republicans take the Senate, Senator Lamar Alexander would take the helm of the Senate HELP Committee, which is a big deal.
These measures help to offer a more holistic take on the quality of a state’s school system.
Leaders & Laggards grades each state on how it’s doing in 11 areas, using an A to F scale.
Left unchallenged, pat phrases allow wishful thinking to stand in for messy realities.
There’s little reason to expect that century-old assumptions about how to organize and deliver schooling are the smartest way forward.
What President Obama termed “the most meaningful education reform in a generation” has proven to be more a cautionary tale than a model.
Last summer, Tony Bennett resigned the Florida superintendency when slammed with alleged improprieties from his tenure as Indiana state chief. Last week, he was cleared of all but one very minor charge.
Why teachers unions and school reformers distrust each other and where they might find common ground.
Houston-based YES Prep charter schools has released a probing analysis of its graduates’ postsecondary performance and the strategies it’s using to improve that performance.
What matters in education is what actually happens in 100,000 schools educating 50 million kids. That’s all implementation, and that means it matters a lot that some reforms are much more likely to suffer bumps, distortions, and problems than are others.
A researcher and a skeptic engage in a candid discussion of what happens when value-added analysis is used to evaluate teachers.
Duncan is punishing Washington state and re-imposing provisions of a law that he has termed “broken” because its legislature failed to heed his mandate
It’s important to offer solutions, not just complaints.
In a crowded 2016 field, education could and should be a critical asset for a potential Bush candidacy. What happens with Common Core over the next 24 months will determine whether it is.
When we talk educational technology, there’s far too much excited talk about big purchases of tablets or assessment systems and far too little about just what educators and students are supposed to actually do with these.
It won’t be a huge issue in the fall, but it will have repercussions thereafter.
As implementation nears, they aren’t liking what they see.
Those who follow New York City schools have been witnessing a time-honored ritual — pro-testing school reformers have mightily overreached, inviting pushback that’s now poised to dismantle much of their useful handiwork.
Critics often accuse school reformers of “privatizing” public education. When for-profits enter the conversation, those same critics level more serious charges and often accuse those companies of having one motive: making money off of the backs of kids.
How did scholars fare when it comes to particular fields or disciplines?
These rankings recognize university-based scholars in the U.S. who are contributing most substantially to public debates about education.
Scholars who do policy-relevant research require a range of skills to excel, but university promotion, pay, and prestige tend to reward a very narrow range of activity and accomplishment
It’s vital that teachers help shape new systems that will give them opportunities for growth, impact, and professional responsibility
Teacher evaluation systems are nascent and fragile. Proponents need to do everything they can to show that these will be fair, reliable, and workable.
The one learning technology that has actually transformed teaching and learning is … the book!
The idea that the Common Core might be a “game-changer” has little to do with the Common Core standards themselves and everything to do with stuff attached to them, especially the adoption of common tests that make it possible to readily compare schools, programs, districts, and states.
ClassDojo has developed digital tools that can help teachers, parents, and students improve classroom behavior, develop good learning habits, and support character development.
The desire to more evenly distribute effective teachers is laudable, but the feds should take care not to accidentally undermine successful schools, compromise teacher effectiveness, or drive good teachers from the profession.
While Arne Duncan continues to champion ideas that enjoy bipartisan support, his methods have become increasingly imperious.
Douglas County suggests that the familiar paradigm of urban reform, which has driven so much of the K-12 agenda in the past decade, may be an uncomfortable or problematic fit in suburban districts.
It turns out that preschool programs are hard to replicate with fidelity or in such a way that each additional preschool student gets the anticipated benefit.
The new national charter school study by Stanford’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) has attracted enormous, well-deserved attention.
Five suggestions that can help Common Core advocates get their popular and political fortunes back on track
I”ve long said that the Common Core strikes me as an intriguing effort that could do much good. The past couple weeks, I”ve been struck by how fragile the effort is starting to seem and how clumsily the Common Core”ites seem to be responding to challenges. In the spirit of public service, here”s some advice.
A decision to focus NCLB reauthorization on promoting transparency, honest measurements of spending and achievement, and on ensuring that constitutional protections are respected ought not be seen as a retreat from NCLB but as an attempt to have the feds do what they can do sensibly and well.
We spend a lot on professional development, yet hardly any of it actually appears to make teachers better.
Putting the Poli Sci Back in the Politics of Ed … & Three New Books That Continue a Heartening Trend
Spurred by the experiences of No Child Left Behind and all that followed, there’s been a resurgence of political scientists studying education
My interview with Jason Zimba, Jazon Zimba, founding principal of Student Achievement Partners (SAP) and lead writer on the Common Core mathematics standards
Three new tools make it possible to tinker with the Edu-Scholar rankings in cool new ways.
Which professors topped the charts in different disciplines?
Which university-based academics are contributing most substantially to public debates about K-12 and higher education?
The metric described here is used to rank 168 university-based edu-scholars who are widely regarded as having some public presence.
Scholars who do policy-relevant research contribute most fully when they put a broad array of relevant skills to use.
Indiana’s loss turned out to be Florida’s gain, as the State Board voted unanimously last Wednesday to select Bennett as Florida’s new education commissioner.
In most sectors, technology has indeed yielded huge savings and delivered massive increases in productivity. In education, though, it’s been a different story.
This new book features an all-star lineup of experts shining a spotlight on civic education to help policymakers, educators, parents, and voters better understand the state of civic ed.
It’s a safe bet that an Obama victory will mean more federal funding for education than would a Romney victory. But, either way, federal edu-spending is going to be on a lean diet for a good, long while.
Romney would keep much of the same substantive agenda as Obama, but would do so with a lighter touch, less spending, and more emphasis on choice.
We’re rolling into the final sprint to the election; this makes it a good time to look back at what the Obama administration has done with its time in office.
Currently boasting more than four million teacher and student users, ClassDojo enables teachers to easily monitor and track student behaviors in real time.
The New York Daily News did an awful job of conveying what we know about School of One thus far.
Despite conventional assumptions that “choice” parents would be easier to mobilize, choice doesn’t necessarily equal activism.
Arguing that DC should only welcome charters that have the mission of boosting proficiency in reading and math seems a surefire way of shortchanging kids who are capable of much more.
If you explain how you can solve a problem by making smart use of existing tools, talent, and resources, you’ll be surprised at how helpful policymakers can be
If you’re wondering why people who aren’t experts on schooling get to make policy, it’s simple: they’re elected to do that.
The new head of the national organization for the country’s charter schools talks about her goals for the group and for charter schools.
Examining an effort that is generally recalled as a major Gates-Broad partnership that flopped, Alexander Russo argues that the whole exercise was more impactful, significant, and instructive than is widely recognized.
Given the news and heated debate around the Common Core, it seemed a good time to chat with David about the new job.
Walker is about to skyrocket to prominence in the conservative firmament, and several Republican governors are about to discover a new appetite for challenging public employee unions.
No matter how distracting and misguided the exercise, no matter how much energy is wasted on grant-writing and meetings, and no matter how trivial the actual dollar amounts, we’re going to see scores or hundreds of applicants spending hundreds of hours leaping through the requisite hoops.
New philanthropists are much more receptive to the notion that the problem is the inhospitable cultures, systems, and policy environments in which scale-ups were being attempted.
The Core is still with us, of course, but it remains a shadow of what its more optimistic proponents envisioned a decade ago.
The basic premise of Rice University’s Education Entrepreneurship Program is that key leadership and management skills are universal, regardless of one’s field of endeavor, and that aspiring K-12 leaders can actually become more adept at these skills by learning with and from peers and faculty who have diverse expertise and experiences.
Recently, Education Week’s “Living in Dialogue” blog featured a number of provocative posts on Teach For America. Phil Kovacs penned a guest post that offered a sharp critique of TFA and the research supporting its efforts.
The world is a complex place and adopting mechanistic, one-size-fits-all solutions, like so many of the statewide teacher evaluation and pay systems being championed today, make it likely that thousands of schools and millions of teachers and students will be snared by systems that are a poor match for their needs.
Leaders have far more freedom to transform, reimagine, and invigorate teaching, learning, and schooling than is widely believed.
We pay a lot of attention to urban school districts, but much less to high-performing suburbs–where there’s typically less interest in much of the current “reform” agenda. All of that makes Liz and Douglas County kind of unique. I thought it worth chatting with Liz a bit about what they’re up to.
Senator Michael Bennet (D-Colorado) has proposed an “Education-ARPA,” modeled on the famed Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The Obama administration has included a similar proposal, carving the dollars out of i3.
In January, 36-year-old John White took the reins as the state superintendent of education in Louisiana. He was appointed by the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education on a 9-1 vote, inheriting the ambitious reform legacy of his predecessor, Paul Pastorek. White had moved to Louisiana in 2011 to take over as head of […]
The Obama administration made its big NCLB “waiver” announcement last week , getting the predictable, fawning edu-coverage. Here are six things about this latest spin of the waiver saga that seemed particularly disconcerting.
This new book examines what we’ve learned about what Uncle Sam does and doesn’t do well when it comes to education innovation, accountability, equity, and research.
For the past year, Bob Sommers served as newly elected Ohio Governor John Kasich’s education advisor and helped to spearhead the Governor’s reform efforts.
Here are the 2012 Edu-Scholar Public Presence rankings, which are designed to recognize those university-based academics who are contributing most substantially to public debates about schools and schooling.
Tomorrow I’ll be publishing the 2012 RHSU Edu-Scholar Public Presence Rankings. Today, just like last year, I want to take a few moments to explain what those ratings are about and how they were generated.
Here’s my best guess at some of the key edu-headlines we’ll be reading in 2012.
Note: This week, I’m giving readers a look at my essay in Richard Elmore’s recent Harvard Education Press volume I Used to Think…And Now I Think. If you find this stuff at all interesting, I’d definitely encourage you to check the book out. For days one and two, see here and here. Say something smart […]
Note: This week, I’m giving readers a look at my essay in Richard Elmore’s recent Harvard Education Press volume I Used to Think…And Now I Think. If you find this stuff at all interesting, I’d definitely encourage you to check the book out. For day one, see here. Along my path through academia, I started […]
This summer, Harvard Education Press published Richard Elmore’s intriguing volume I Used to Think…And Now I Think. The volume’s title and theme draw from a professional development exercise in which participants reflect on how the experience has altered their thinking.
We’ve seen a couple noteworthy developments from the AFT and NEA in recent days.
On Tuesday, Linda Darling-Hammond and I published an op-ed “How to Rescue Education Reform” in the New York Times. (I take no responsibility for the immodest title; those of you who have written op-eds know how little control authors have on that score.) The piece has generated a number of notes, with several asking how the piece came about.
I fear that the value-added enthusiasts who imagine they’re right now gearing up to play moneyball in K-12 are actually going to find, to their chagrin, that they’re the potbellied scouts hoping to sign an overpriced free agent because the guy drove in 100 runs for the Yankees last year.
A recent series in The Atlantic has explored the “secrets of innovation” and asked which nations the U.S. ought to emulate in seeking to regain our competitive edge. As part of it, I was asked to offer my take on the K-12 question.
I’m much more interested in the broader issue of how we can rethink the profession, make fuller use of talented teachers, and wisely spend the dollars we do have than in debating what the “right” wage level should be.
For nearly two decades, one of the striking findings in school choice research is that parents are hugely positive about schools of choice even when the test results show only modest benefits for their kids. In some circles, particularly among education professors, this has led to various lamentations about what dopes parents are.
I’m frequently frustrated by our inability to talk sensibly about the role of for-profits in schooling. Most discussion amounts to reflexive demonization, occasionally interspersed with hired-gun salesmanship or protestations of good intentions. Nearly absent is thinking about the role for-profits can play in promoting quality and cost-effectiveness at scale, or what it’ll take to make that happen.
Last week, RiShawn Biddle penned an energetic critique of “Our Achievement Gap Mania” for his e-newsletter Dropout Nation. The impassioned attack echoed some of the more visceral reactions that the article has generated. I’m a fan of robust debate, but I do want to make sure that critics understand what I’m arguing and why I’m arguing it.
As I noted earlier, my National Affairs essay “Our Achievement Gap Mania” has stirred some conversation. Let’s take a moment to address those who’ve asked, “Rick, why are you trying to stir up trouble? There are no losers here!”
The real problem has been the unwillingness of gap-closers to acknowledge the costs of their agenda or its implications.
Turnarounds are all the rage. Under the guiding hand of its stellar state chief, Tony Bennett, Indiana has recently tried out an interesting spin in its approach to tackling consistently low-performing schools.
University of Missouri economist Cory Koedel has provided some new, clear, and pretty troubling evidence about the lack of rigor in teacher preparation.
With Texas Governor Rick Perry now drawing attention as the newly installed favorite in the Republican presidential field, including some harsh words from the Secretary of Education, I thought it’d be a good time to chat with Robert Scott about his take on things.
Over the past three months, we’ve now asked six individuals involved in the Common Core math standards to pen a piece making the case for their rigor and quality, and each has declined in turn. This is, quite literally, unprecedented.
I’ve long griped that the Obama administration has talked too often about more school spending and not enough about smarter school spending, and I was particularly disenchanted to hear the President go back to talking this week about pumping more borrowed federal funds into school facilities and salaries.
You can judge for yourself, but I’d like to think that Randi and I managed to have a serious but civil debate about whether teachers are under attack, teacher pensions and health care, the new unionism, teacher evaluation, teacher pay, and the rest.
Phi Delta Kappan released its 43rd annual poll on public schools. As always, there’s much to chew on.
As he returns to Hunter College, I thought it timely to chat with David Steiner about a few of his takeaways and lessons learned from his time running the New York state education agency.
Last week the President and Congress topped off months of increasing rancor by cobbling together a last minute debt deal. There are several key edu-world takeaways that can too easily get lost amidst the languid summer heat. So, let’s take a moment to flag them.
I see two ways this can play out: Hard-pressed states are thankful for any relief, and Congress is too distracted to pay attention or frustrated governors or irate Tea Partiers start to raise a fuss about this novel strategy for extending Uncle Sam’s reach, and it becomes a talking point for Bachmann and Perry during the GOP primaries.
Mike Petrilli has been conducting a series of provocative audio interviews for Education Next with authors of hot edu-books. The interviewees are a who’s who of edu-authors. Edu-geeks and grad students will find ’em full of insights and insider tidbits, and a great way to catch up on noteworthy volumes.
Some of the ins and outs of teacher evaluation and what cautions or advice she might have for practitioners or policymakers.
NCEE is hustling, alongside McKinsey, to corner the market on “big” ideas that can still be peddled as safe. That’s their right. I just wish the press and policy community would evince a little more independence or skepticism when reacting to and reporting on this stuff.
I had the chance to chat with Richard about what KIPP is learning about getting its kids through college and the risks and rewards of this kind of transparency.
In studying the simple and immensely practical question of how charter schools handle teacher retirement when state law allows them to opt out of the state’s pension system, Podgursky and Olberg examine just how much rethinking charters are doing when it comes to the familiar, expensive, and binding routines of schooling.
Districts are struggling to stretch the school dollar as they deal with current and looming budget shortfalls. Yet, while they know it’s a huge cost center, few district leaders know how to effectively or legally pursue cost savings in special ed provision.
Two key fault lines ran through the lively panel discussion of Terry Moe’s new book, Special Interest: Teachers Unions and America’s Public Schools. One was the notion of “reform unionism” and professional voice. The second was how to judge whether schools or teachers were doing well.
I’ve frequently given a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s LEADs seminar for local and state business leaders titled “Has Business Been Bold Enough?” The answer has been straightforward: Nope.
While leading perhaps the nation’s largest high-performing system, Jack Dale has pushed to get serious about teacher leadership and the oft-watery notion of teacher “collaboration.”
The Common Core standards are, for better or worse, pretty dramatically different from what states have in place.
For the first four months of 2011, we tallied the average monthly page visits to each of the Ed Week subject matter blogs. Here are the results.
I had the privilege of visiting with Rhode Island’s superintendents and district business officers the other day to discuss how to stretch the school dollar. One of the things we touched on was the recent Phi Delta Kappan piece “Leading Through a Fiscal Nightmare.” I used it to suggest how not to respond to a budget crunch.
As part of our ongoing effort to explore and promote citizenship education at AEI, we had the pleasure of convening an array of terrific charter school leaders and teachers. The topic: how they approach citizenship education and gauge their performance, and what steps might help to encourage or support such efforts. A bunch of intriguing issues arose. For the moment, five particular points stuck with me.
The insistence of ed school cognoscenti that I’ve nothing much to say, despite some occasional evidence to the contrary, has long puzzled me. I’m not sure what to make of it, but there it is.
The Common Core battle has been officially joined. The anti-Common Core-ites fired their first organized response, in a manifesto titled, “Closing the Door on Innovation.”
First, teachers vary widely in ability and performance, and many people teaching today probably shouldn’t be. Second, teaching is complex, and no simple score or algorithm usefully captures that variation in ability and performance, or reveals which teachers shouldn’t be teaching.
Last week Brookings released “Passing Muster: Evaluating Teacher Evaluation Systems.” The aim is to tell state and federal officials how to “achieve a uniform standard for dispensing funds to school districts for the recognition of exceptional teachers without imposing a uniform evaluation system.” The paper is clever, and fine as far as it goes, but leaves me concerned about the direction of teacher evaluation policy.
While a new bit of jargon – the term “turnaround” – and $3.5 billion in designated federal funding for School Improvement Grants is enough to push many an edu-reformer to the brink of hubris, it’s fairly clear that no one actually knows what to do. More to the point, it’s clear they’ve mostly ignored what we’ve learned from previous go-rounds.
School of One honcho Joel Rose announced that he’s departing the New York City Department of Education to launch an independent effort to take the School of One to scale.
Last Friday I co-hosted a conference on “Tightening Up Title I.” The papers waded into the regulatory and operational questions of NCLB (aka ESEA) that too often get overlooked.
As Michele McNeil reported, a few of us wandered over to 400 Maryland yesterday morning for croissants and chit-chat with the Secretary of Education. I thought I’d just briefly offer a few Duncan comments that might be of particular interest to Education Next readers.
Yesterday, I noted a few worrisome signs that the Common Core effort is moving forward with a lack of attention to how it may clash with other practical considerations or improvement strategies. A particularly compelling example is posed by the looming collision that might occur when the unfolding effort comes to the attention of charter schoolers and school choice enthusiasts.
I’ve mixed feelings on the whole Common Core enterprise–largely because I find it easy to envision scenarios where it fails in ways that undermine promising improvement efforts. But the effort also has real promise, which is why I trust my friends on the Common Core train will take the following not as reflecting ill wishes but as a big ol’ yellow caution flag.
New York City Chancellor Joel Klein announced late last year that he’d be stepping down from his post and taking up a newly created position as CEO of the Education Division at News Corp. Last week I had the chance to chat with Joel about his new job and the promise of educational innovation.
Last summer, the Los Angeles Times created a furor with its hotly debated decision to post the value-added scores for thousands of Los Angeles teachers and to identify individual teachers, by name, as more or less effective. This week, the situation roared back to life.
Advocates drive good ideas to extremes when they oversell their promise and undermine their integrity. Unfortunately, this pattern is all too common.
The rankings are now bigger and badder than ever (or at least bigger and badder than they were on Tuesday), with 35 additional scholars rated.
My hope is that this exercise helps spur conversation about which university-based academics are contributing most substantially to public debates over education and ed policy, and how they do so.
Later today I’ll be publishing the first annual RHSU Edu-Scholar Public Presence Rankings. First, I want to take a few moments to explain what those ratings are about and how they were generated.
I’m going to miss Joel Klein. Love him or hate him (and I love him, especially when we disagree on something), the New York City chancellor has cut a huge swath in K-12 schooling for nearly a decade.
I remember my own long-ago days in high school, when we could manage the tricky feat of talking on the phone for hours while playing Atari. Yet, happily, nobody mistook these happy pursuits for learning or thought we had mastered new, invaluable skills.
The movie is now finishing its theatrical run, dribbling out of the last few theaters. How big a splash did it make?
Last week, Mike Petrilli posted an amusing Twitter debate between him and Diane Ravitch. I quite liked it. But, since I don’t Tweet, I couldn’t go there. And I doubt I’d have the patience anyway. Happily, I realized I could pen a fake Twitter debate–which seems an easy alternative.
The over-the-top hosannas for RTT have given way to serious doubts about how it will ultimately play out.
Yesterday, the Gates Foundation announced that district and charter school leaders in nine cities have embraced a “District-Charter Collaboration Compact.” How significant is this? And what do these compacts actually mean? I put those questions to Don Shalvey, Deputy Director of States, Districts, and Networks for the Gates Foundation.
The week before Thanksgiving, Secretary Duncan sang the praises of productivity in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute titled “The New Normal: Doing More With Less.” We’re not sure if the Secretary of Education had a conversion experience, had a secret plan to woo the ed establishment and then hit it with tough love, or is simply reading the Tea Party leaves.
The event will feature Indiana state chief Tony Bennett, Louisiana chief Paul Pastorek, Gates Foundation policy chieftain Stephanie Sanford, and yours truly tussling over what “reformers” are getting right, what they’re getting wrong, and how to avoid repeating a half-century’s worth of familiar missteps.
I’ve gotten a number of questions and comments regarding NCATE’s big Blue Ribbon Panel report, both after my remarks at the National Press Club and in response to yesterday’s post. Thought it worth taking a couple moments to expand and explain a bit, especially because teacher residencies are one of our current “everybody loves ’em” enthusiasms.
NCATE’s big report is out today. It’s scheduled for a morning event, where the Blue Ribbon Panel’s call for “radically” revising teacher prep to focus on practical training and residencies will be hailed as a transformative moment. I’m not sold.
The new Phi Delta Kappan features a five-article special section on “unbundled schooling.” Featuring contributions by Paul Hill, Jim Spillane, Colorado state senator Mike Johnston, Harvard’s Jal Mehta and Liz City, and UPenn’s Doug Lynch, and a piece that I penned with Teachers College’s Jeff Henig.
For all the energetic rhetoric, there’s just not that much money in corrections. We could slash corrections spending by half and put all those dollars into K-12 and it just wouldn’t much matter.
Many friends in the charter school world figure that Congressional Republicans and the administration will be looking for places they can do business, that education will be a natural fit–and that charter schooling is the easiest piece of that puzzle. I think these folks ought to avoid getting their hopes up overmuch.
I’d vastly prefer that Duncan spent less time talking tough and more time showing some steel when it counts.
Yesterday, Gwinnett County, Georgia, claimed the Broad Prize in a classy awards ceremony at New York City’s Museum of Modern Art. The event featured New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and NBC anchor Brian Williams talking about the vital role of school reform, and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan naming the winner. Unmentioned by all, and for good reason, was that Gwinnett is in the middle of a very unreformish attempt to prohibit the Georgia Charter Schools Commission from approving or funding charter schools.
The power of price-sensitive consumers to squeeze costs is untapped in K-12. Parents currently gain nothing from choosing a more cost-effective district school or charter school. K-12 Spending Accounts would leverage the insights of school choice in a way that begins to foster cost-awareness and widens the applicability of choice in a world of home schooling and online learning.
The Gold Star program offers teachers who are at least reasonably effective the opportunity, should they so choose, to teach more kids per class and to be rewarded for taking on a larger workload. Such a state-level program would offer a chance to reshuffle the incentives and create a productivity-enhancing dynamic.
I think this challenge is evident even in many of the schools and districts regarded today as exemplary, and especially in those often lauded precisely for their emphasis on achievement-oriented “citizenship.”
Remarkably little has been written about the state of citizenship education in our schools. Pollsters/analysts Steve Farkas and Ann Duffett have delivered an invaluable service in their new study “High Schools, Civics, and Citizenship: What Social Studies Teachers Think and Do.”
Last spring, I agreed to tackle the question of “does school choice ‘work’?” for National Affairs. My essay, published yesterday, offers my take on what we know and where advocates have gone off the rails in debating, researching, and designing choice-based reforms. Bottom line: the key is to stop fixating on “choice” and start talking about “deregulation.
In response to my post on the Nashville merit pay study, Gates Foundation research honcho and Harvard professor Tom Kane sent me a really thoughtful, incisive take on the study’s limitations. I thought his take so razor-sharp and succinct that I asked if I could share it, and he genially agreed.
It’s Friday and it’s been a long week, so I’ll cut to the chase. Four things worth noting about the aftermath of Mayor Adrian Fenty’s defeat in D.C. on Tuesday.
Word on the street is that a cool new venture is rising in New Orleans. The newest effort involves taking the Big Easy’s “Leading Educators” program national. To take the reins, they’ve recruited Jonas Chartock, executive director of the SUNY Charter Schools Institute, my fellow NACSA board member, former executive director of TFA Houston, and all-around good guy.
The problem is we’ve a sector full of educational experts who claim to love kids, are sure that everyone wants to do the right thing, and can’t imagine that buy-in and consensus won’t yield solutions. Unfortunately, the kumbaya approach only works in schools or systems that are already doing fairly well–and where, therefore, change won’t involve too much disruption or produce too many losers. When it comes to troubled systems, even a thousand meetings, get-to-know-me sessions, and stakeholder buy-in roundtables won’t suffice.
I know, I know. I’m always kvetching that schools need to do more with less. When folks press me for specific details or suggestions, they want something more than broad discussions of staffing levels or analogies from other sectors. They want concrete ideas. Stretching the School Dollar represents the best efforts of coeditor Eric Osberg and myself to craft a book packed with practical ideas for cutting school spending, in both the short- and long-term.
I’m always surprised at how often teacher unions claiming to be agents of professionalism reflexively slash at measures that are part and parcel of most professions. Even so, it’s not every day that you see a union savaging an effort to promote professional growth as an anti-teacher conspiracy.
Last Tuesday, Secretary Duncan announced round-two winners in the Race to the Top program. By Tuesday night, there was outrage that admired reform states had lost while won. By Thursday, there was grumbling that some judges had savaged Colorado for failing to attach a copy of Senate Bill 10-191. By Friday, the big story was not the contest but New Jersey Governor Christie’s decision to fire his commissioner of education. It all brings to mind something I noted last winter: that RTT was a good idea that could all-too-easily go south.
Faced with bizarre round two RTT results that identified New York as the second-most accomplished reform state and Hawaii as the third–and that found Louisiana and Colorado out of the money altogether–Duncan had two bad choices. He could either take the scores at face value or he could override them and deal with an ensuing firestorm. This is what we call a lose-lose proposition.
The answer: New Orleans, Washington, D.C., New York City, Denver, and Jacksonville. The question: Which cities are in the mix when it comes to being the “Silicon Valley” of K-12 schooling? Or, more simply: If you’re a problem-solver with some successes under your belt, where will you be most welcome?
On Sunday, the L.A. Times ran its controversial analysis of teacher value-added scores in L.A. Unified School District. Given my taste for mean-spirited measures, and the impressive journalistic moxie it showed, I really wanted to endorse the LAT’s effort. But I can’t. Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m all for using student achievement to evaluate and reward teachers and for using transparency to recognize excellence and shame mediocrity. But I have three serious problems with what the LAT did.
I want to be crystal clear. I think that Edujobs was not just wasteful but was positively harmful. And, yes, I think this even though ED promised to streamline its normal processes so that states will “receive funding as quickly as possible” and whipped up some calculations touting the number of jobs it’s claiming to save in each state.
I was struck recently by the degree to which we’re having two distinct, contrary conversations about technology and schooling. The romanticist camp traces its roots to Rousseau’s Emile and its radical “progressive” vision of the unchained learner. The productivity camp has more faith in pedestrian notions of essential knowledge and the teacher’s central role.
I’m very sympathetic to the argument that mayoral control, done smart, can be a useful step in turning around troubled school systems. But I’ve been concerned about the tendency to romanticize its promise and to overlook its potential problems.
In its inimitable style, the New York Times yesterday featured a page one ed story celebrating an aimless new district policy and the superintendent responsible.
In response to the mail I’ve received since Monday’s column critiquing Aaron Pallas’s attack on the DCPS teacher firings, I think it’s useful for me to weigh in on the live-wire question of value-added systems.
Last week, Aaron Pallas savaged the DC Public Schools IMPACT teacher evaluation system in the Washington Post’s “The Answer Sheet” blog, attacking the teacher evaluation system as “idiotic” and based on “preposterous” assumptions. There are three egregious problems with Pallas’s critique.
I really like the tone of the release they sent and am modestly hopeful (perhaps foolishly so) that it reflects a more serious tenor brought about by pinched pocketbooks and an awareness that grand plans can backfire.
In their terrific new article, teacher quality savants Emily Cohen and Kate Walsh instruct would-be reformers intent on boosting teacher quality not to fixate on contracts or nifty new data analysis techniques. Why? Because, they argue, the first order of business should be fixing state legislation that stifles creative efforts to adopt smarter practices when it comes to pay, evaluation, and dismissal.
Congressional Quarterly reported yesterday that House Democratic leaders will accept the Senate’s plan to pass a stripped-down supplemental spending bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and seek another way to funnel $10 billion in edu-aid to the states. Before turning the page on the Obey-Obama defense supplemental imbroglio, however, a postmortem is in order–especially given some worrisome portents for the administration’s school reform agenda.
I’ve now had the experience several times in the past few months of having one or another friend of long standing ask me something along the lines of, “What the hell?” The “what” in question is me being critical of or asking questions about proposals and programs that “reformers” are supposed to support.
One big lesson of the D.C. contract is that context matters.
Consider that the $23 billion is being touted for its ability to save as many as 300,000 education jobs and then do the math. That works out to $76,700 per job preserved.
Now, analogies are always a tricky business because they depend on one’s angle of vision. But, if you’re standing where I am, this looks like a disheartening parallel to the world of school spending.
The success of the Central Falls deal rested significantly on Rhode Island super-chief Deb Gist’s aggressive moves last fall, in which she interpreted the basic education program to mean that seniority would no longer be a factor in school staffing. Yesterday, Gist took a little time to answer a few questions about what to make of the deal.
Edutopia’s doing some neat stuff. And I’m all in favor of anyone who’s pushing forward on thinking about how to better use technology. But there’s a difference between creative minds at work and claiming to have discovered “what works.”
Between the National Journal debate over Senator Tom Harkin’s $23 billion bailout, the European Union ponying up a cool $1 trillion to stanch the bleeding in Greece, Mike Petrilli getting frisky on teacher firing, and my own dalliances in NYC teacher policy, this is turning out to be quite the week for bailout mania.
The lifeblood of efforts to rethink schooling or devise new solutions is the money it takes to make them work. These dollars can come from three sources: profit-seeking investors, philanthropy, or government. To date, the lion’s share of the bucks have come from philanthropy.
Video: Frederick Hess talks with Education Next about the best and worst ways to fund innovation.
Tomorrow, the nation’s education researchers, professors, and such will convene in Denver for the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association. For those folks, I’m happy to provide the following cheat sheet to help flag the must-see sessions for Friday, AERA’s first day.
Yesterday, I suggested that reflexive efforts to shift “effective” teachers from high-performing schools and classrooms to others may actually reduce the pool of effective teachers. This would turn strip mining from an effort to redistribute the pie into a strategy that would actually shrink the size of the “good teaching” piece. Why might that be?
In a new forum in Education Next, Education Trust honcho Kati Haycock and Stanford economist Rick Hanushek address the issue of whether and how to more “equitably” distribute teachers. With characteristic passion, Haycock calls for efforts to focus on attracting good teachers to high-poverty, low-performing schools. I strongly support what Haycock has to say in the exchange, but I worry about the possibility that some of her allies may take her suggestions too far.
Whereas greenfield-style measures tend to be cut-and-dry–states either did or did not enact certain legislation–the prescriptive bulk of RTT is about promising to do things. Since this kind of compliance is about plans and intentions rather than actions, it’s harder to demonstrate. The usual result: proving commitment by piling up consultant-provided buzzwords and jargon. And the RTT apps are no exception.
Secretary Duncan has repeatedly told us to watch what he does, not what he says. So, I’m watching, but so far I’m not impressed.
So, the announcement of the round one Race to the Top finalists is upon us. In the run-up, a pernicious parlor game in edu-policy circles has been “name the RTT finalists.” Thankfully, it’s about to come to a close. Unfortunately, it’ll be followed by “name the RTT winners.”
If Congress reauthorizes No Child Left Behind this year and does so “consistent with the President’s plan,” the Obama administration announced this week that it is going to make an extra $1 billion available for edu-spending. The problem with this clever carrot? If you’ll recall your high school civics, it’s the legislative branch that writes the federal budget.
Yesterday, on his Eduwonk blog, Andy Rotherham weighed in on the brewing controversy over the Race to the Top review process. Rotherham suggests that Duncan try a variation of the “it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is” defense, explaining, “‘Transparent’ is not synonymous with contemporaneous. In other words, a process can be transparent while it is going on or it can be transparent after the fact.” It’ll be amusing to see whether Duncan tries that defense; somehow, I don’t think it’ll play that well.
Late last week, Education Week’s Michele McNeil reported that the Obama administration has secretly selected the reviewers for state grant applications to its $4.35 billion Race to the Top (RTT) fund, but has no intention of publicly revealing who these 60 judges are. Whether the department delivered 60 “disinterested superstars,” as Secretary of Education Arne Duncan promised last September, is unclear.
For awhile now, there has been some cause for concern that the famously tough-minded Wall Street Journal editorial page seemed to be drinking the Kool-Aid when it came to the much-discussed Race to the Top (RTT) grant program. So, it gives much satisfaction to note that this week’s WSJ featured perhaps the savviest editorial yet penned by any major newspaper on RTT.
Testing impresario W. James Popham has penned a volume that mixes anecdote, personal experience, and scholarly analysis to ask why American schooling has had such a terrible time designing, adopting, or employing good assessment.
Video: Frederick Hess talks with Education Next about reading specialists, den mothers, and teacher pay in the 21st century.