Alyson Klein has a good write-up laying out the dynamics that brought down the Elementary and Secondary Act/No Child Left Behind reauthorization bill in the House on Friday. Here’s the basic math on the political log jam: First, House conservatives realized this bill really didn’t do what they want and in actually added to their angst over other pending bills unrelated to education, in particular the Department of Homeland Security funding bill. Meanwhile, any education bill that the House Republican caucus will support – a majority of that caucus, they’re unlikely to run an ESEA bill through absent that – is unlikely to be able to get through the Senate and even less likely to be signed by President Obama. Likewise, any bill that is a genuine bipartisan effort in the Senate is unlikely to appease House conservatives. Best hope at this point: Getting two vehicles of some kind to conference and then hoping it can get done and slipped through. Prognosis: More Department of Education waiver action, which is of course, ironically, the approach conservatives claim to hate.
Let’s stipulate that it would be better all around if Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker had finished college – especially because he apparently came close to graduating from Marquette. It would be better for his advisers, because issues besides Walker’s non-degree might get attention. (Although after Walker’s past week, the academic credential issue probably looks better all the time.) It would be better for Democrats because they wouldn’t come off as snobs talking about the issue. Who knows, it might even be better for Walker himself. Sure, he’s governor of a major state and a serious presidential contender, but with a degree, perhaps he could have found honest work?
But does a candidate’s college experience – especially if it is years in the past with a public record interceding – matter to their fitness for high office…
Bloombergtakes a look at some pushing and shoving over where teacher pension funds should be invested in New York. I have no idea if Joel Greenblatt* is the best money manager for public pension funds and how his investments compare with other options, but I do think that whether or not he’s into charter schools really shouldn’t be a factor in whether public entities use his services. Pension funds are supposed to provide for the retirement security of the current and future retirees they’re serving, not act as political slush funds to bully people around various education issues (or other issues for that matter).
Update II: Word is the teachers unions are outliers on this at yesterday’s meeting, other city pensions want to invest with Greenblatt who apparently delivers results. And here’s another article on this issue.
The issue of whether home school students should be able to play high school sports in the communities where they live is bubbling up again in Virgina. About 30 states offer some sort of access but fewer than 15 offer broad access. Virginia’s legislature passed a bill allowing access (with some conditions) and it’s now up to the governor to sign or veto.
I wrote about this issue a few years ago (here and here). With appropriate safeguards to ensure homeschooling isn’t used as a way to advance athletics I’m generally in favor of letting homeschoolers play. It’s a good way to tear down walls within education, bring people together, and broaden the pool of people with a stake in public schools. More importantly, while adults on all sides of this have their ideological issues – the kids just want to play. So if they’re good enough to make the team, why not let them? Not to put too fine a point on it but this is a classic case of adult baggage getting in the way of what’s best for young people.
Here are a few other wrinkles that don’t get as much attention but bear on the debate:
- The idea that the battle lines here are home school parents versus the education community is wrong. The education community is split on this and homeschoolers are as well. There are separate home school sports leagues and many in the home school world view the sports access issue as a camel’s nose under the tent toward more regulation of home schooling (Virginia has some of the most permissive home school laws in the country).
- The issue is not whether home school students get any guaranteed spot on a team, but rather whether they have an opportunity to try out.
- That’s why many coaches, especially in rural communities, are fine with allowing home schoolers to compete. Smaller schools and rural schools need every athletic kid they can get to be competitive. In suburban areas where there are more non-school based sports opportunities for kids and more players for coaches there is more opposition. That said, the politics around the issue in the education sports establishment are intense and when I was writing about this plenty of people expressed support – but were unwilling to go on the record. In Virginia opposition from powerful Northern Virginia education constituencies – where they don’t need home schooled kids to be competitive – could be a big factor in how the governor views the bill.
- The education community has strident debates about this but for everyone else it’s mostly a big yawn. According to VCU’s education poll 72 percent of Virginians supported allowing home schooled kids to play sports the last time the question was asked in early 2014. Only 24 percent were opposed. Not surprisingly, current and former school employees were less likely to be supportive than the public overall. But, parents were more supportive than non-parents. Something that should give proponents hope: Younger voters (44 and under) are a lot more likely to support. Like other issues with a big generational split if the bill isn’t enacted now look for everyone’s views to “evolve” in a few years.
- Under current law there is a local option for home schooled students to take classes in public schools and last time I looked about half of Virginia counties offer the option. So the idea that there is some sort of impenetrable high wall between homeschoolers and public schools is at odds with the reality. And in states that allow home schooled students to play sports the overall impact has been negligible but it’s been meaningful for impacted students.
America cannot go backwards to a time when educational equity was optional. It’s time to put aside the false arguments, ideologies, and political agendas. Local control is not at risk. Our children are.
The education reform world is increasingly obsessed with “diversity.” Organizations and individuals are struggling to ensure people with different racial, ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds have a place in the conversation about how to improve our schools. Although these efforts range from serious and thoughtful to plainly exhibitionist, it’s an important conversation – especially because public schools have never worked particularly well for minority students. Yet for all the attention to diversity, one perspective remains almost absent from the conversation about American education: The viewpoint of those who weren’t good at school in the first place.
Let’s say you’re in the leadership of a screwed up country where the quality of life for your citizens is not very good. Basic services are intermittent and life is chaotic or worse. One strategy to take their mind off of that, and the likelihood they’ll start to blame you for it, is to constantly villainize others. The U.S. and Israel play this part in the Middle East, for instance. It’s a tried and true strategy because…it works!
That’s pretty much what seems to be happening here in the education sector with regard to Pearson.* In case you’ve been living in a cave, Pearson is a large multinational publishing conglomerate that does a lot of work in the U.S. ed sector. You probably haven’t heard that they’re great, because only people paid to say so say that. But you may well have heard that they’re awful, venal, corrupt, greedy, mendacious, you name it. Actually, you can’t turn around in this sector, or turn on Twitter, without bumping into someone braying about how Pearson is doing this or that horrible thing. And, yes, sometimes these things are genuinely bad acts. Everyone is frustrated with testing errors**, for instance, and there are certainly some legitimate concerns around data privacy. But most of what you hear is overwrought if not downright ridiculous – you really can’t hang school finance on Pearson. No Child Left Behind, not really their doing. Common Core? The old system was actually better for them and other large vendors. Current push to maintain federal law on testing – civil rights groups are pushing that along with a broad coalition.
Pegged to the leadership turnover in Montgomery County* in the WaPo Jay Mathews comes down hard on superintendent searches. Boards often benefit from a consultant to help manage the process but I agree with him on the value – or more specifically the lack of – with full-blown school district superintendent searches. We don’t do them at Bellwether except in very unusual circumstances because you can do them well (customized/tailored) or you can do them in a way that is break-even or profitable (list of usual suspects). It’s hard to do both.
On the other hand, Jay makes a good case about candidates for this role, but I don’t find hard and fast lines about internal or external candidates especially useful. Leadership roles like this are situational and vary situation to situation.
*Jay’s greasing of Montgomery County is a little over the top though! These large suburban school systems are never as “world class” as their world class PR machines would have you believe.
After a couple of weeks of back and forth on the Hill the President used his weekly radio address to talk about Elementary And Secondary Education Act reauthorization. Suffice it to say it wasn’t a valentine for Republican leaders on the Hill. You can watch and read it here.
Two things jump out. First, the President does say:
That means cutting testing down to the bare minimum required to make sure parents and teachers know how our kids and schools are doing from year to year, and relative to schools statewide.
That’s not exactly an endorsement of annual statewide testing or Secretary Duncan’s position but it’s awfully close. The President of the United States is not going to split hairs over local testing versus statewide testing in a weekly radio address at this point. (Update: Senior administration officials confirm this is the intent, common annual statewide assessments as in current law).
There are not a lot of words to use in those addresses and he could have just said nothing – especially within the architecture of this particular one. The teachers unions, seeing the issue of annual testing slipping away from them, have now pivoted hard to arguing for local assessments as an alternative to statewide assessments. It’s a great idea except it’s inefficient from a financial and quality point of view, would undercut equity efforts, and in many places would likely end up working at cross-purposes with the goal of having less testing. Otherwise, good policy! This is an important signal from the White House.
The second theme is more important in terms of the politics of a possible ESEA bill. Class warfare in ESEA? It’s on! The president says:
At a time when we should invest more in our kids, their plan would lock in cuts to schools for the rest of this decade. We’d end up actually invest less in our kids in 2021 than we did in 2012.
At a time when we should give our teachers all the resources they need, their plan could let states and cities shuffle education dollars into things like sports stadiums or tax cuts for the wealthy.
At a time when we have to give every child, everywhere, a fair shot – this Congress would actually allow states to make even deeper cuts into school districts that need the most support, send even more money to some of the wealthiest school districts in America, and turn back the clock to a time when too many students were left behind in failing schools. Read the rest of this entry »
Mitch Pearlstein’s Broken Bonds (Rowman & Littlefield) looks at family structure but has education implications.
Hugh Price takes a look at what the military can teach schools in Strugglers Into Strivers (Small Batch Books).
Doug Lemov has updated Teach Like A Champion (Jossey-Bass) with a 2.0 version. It’s not just some new stuff, it goes deeper. One wag said recently that when your favorite band puts out a deep tracks album, of course you buy it. So if you’re a Lemov fan, there you go.
Dan Willingham is out soon with Raising Kids Who Read (Jossey-Bass). Classic Willingham deconstruction of the confusion around an important issue. For parents and teachers.
Liz Arney has a sensible and sober look at educational technology in Go Blended (Jossey-Bass). Based on her work at Aspire Public Schools it’s about the hard work of making ed tech pay off for students.
Jack Jennings takes a look at the history of federal policy and some new ideas for next steps in Presidents, Congress, and the Public Schools (Harvard Education Press). Worth it for the history alone.
Great opportunity in an interesting city. The Cincinnati Schools Accelerator is seeking a CEO. If you are interested in city-based education reform strategies and have the background this is a tremendous opportunity. This new organization is a nonprofit that will dramatically change educational outcomes in Cincinnati by focusing resources on attracting and growing proven school models and building the talent pipeline needed to fuel a local system of high-performing schools. More information and specs through the link.
Important op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today about the issue of backfilling seats in charter schools. Princess Lyles and Dan Clark – two charter school supporters – argue that because charters can decide whether or not to admit students throughout the school year or in every grade (some schools start cohorts of students in a particular grade, say only 5th, 7th, or 9th for instance) thousands of students are being denied access to good schools.* Authorizers and charter laws should require backfilling throughout the year and in every grade Lyles and Clark argue.
Reaction was swift. As soon as the article hit Twitter Fordham’s Mike Petrilli responded that, “I’m sorry …but requiring #charterschools to backfill seats is a terrible idea.” I’m not so sure and would file this under the broader bucket of issues facing the charter school sector as its share of students grows overall and especially in communities where charters educate a third of the students or more. Read the rest of this entry »
During last night’s Super Bowl Nationwide Insurance ran an ad as part of its #makesafehappen campaign. It definitely was not puppies and horses. Instead, Nationwide portrayed all the life events a child killed in a childhood accident would miss. Here’s the ad:
Those watching the game hated it and lit up social media in response. OK, no one likes to get a big sad when they’re eating dip and watching men concuss themselves. But bravo to Nationwide for putting the issue of preventable childhood accidents front and center in a high visibility way. It’s not a contrived issue. Preventable injuries kill a lot of children, even accounting for car accidents.
Conservatives saw the ad as an extension of a soft nanny state society. But the ad wasn’t about things like letting your kids run free outside (I do that) or letting them go sledding (I do that, too), or rope swings (that, too!) or biking (yes) or climbing up things (constantly). Rather, it was about preventable accidents involving household items, burns, cleaners, tubs, and so forth. If conservatives want government out of people’s lives they can’t then protest ads (from the private sector no less) reminding people not to be idiots or even just inattentive – especially where children are involved.
The left, meanwhile, is obsessed by guns. But while you frequently get asked if you keep a firearm in your home (by babysitting co-ops, play groups, and so forth) rarely does anyone ask if you leave deadly chemicals where toddlers can get into them or whether you have secured heavy items to the wall so they can’t topple on curious little ones. And while sharpshooting toddlers are apparently a problem, for most kids it is a household cleaner, appliance, or falling bank of shelves posing a greater risk.* Not to be too glib about it, but while you’re obsessing about keeping your children in close proximity to kale, the Nationwide ad was a good reminder to be mindful of their proximity to a lot of stuff more likely to seriously harm them than a Twinkie.
Bottom line: Accidents affecting kids are a real issue. That’s why it’s not Nationwide being soft, it’s people who can’t be distracted from a football game and funny ads about chips for a 45-second dose of real life that just might save lives.
*Firearm accidents for young people make news but are relatively rare, more so than poison, burns, suffocation, and other accidents that get less attention. Homicides involving guns are a different story.
"Least influential of education's most influential information sources." -- Education Week Research Center
"unexpectedly entertaining"..."tackle[s] a potentially mindfogging subject with cutting clarity... they're reading those mushy, brain-numbing education stories so you don't have to!"
-- Mickey Kaus
-- Education Week's Alyson Klein
"a very smart blog... [if] you're trying to separate the demagogic attacks on NCLB from the serious criticism, this is the site to read"
-- Ryan Lizza
"everyone who's anyone reads Eduwonk"
-- Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media's Richard Colvin
"full of very lively short items and is always on top of the news...He gets extra points for skewering my
high school rating system"
-- Jay Mathews, The Washington Post
"a daily dose of information from the education policy world, blended with a shot of attitude and a dash of humor"
-- Education Week
"designed to cut through the fog and direct specialists and non-specialists alike to the center of the liveliest and most politically relevant debates on the future of our schools"
-- The New Dem Daily
"peppered with smart and witty comments on the education news of the day"
-- Education Gadfly
"don't hate Eduwonk cuz it's so good"
-- Alexander Russo, This Week In Education
"the morning's first stop for education bomb-throwers everywhere"
-- Mike Antonucci, Intercepts
"…the big dog on the ed policy blog-ck…"
-- Michele McLaughlin
"I check Eduwonk several times a day, especially since I cut back on caffeine"
-- Joe Williams, fallen journalist, Executive Director, Democrats for Education Reform
"...one of the few bloggers who isn't completely nuts"
-- Mike Petrilli, Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
"I have just three 'go to' websites: The Texas Legislature, Texas Longhorn sports, and Eduwonk"
-- Sandy Kress, former education advisor to President Bush and former chairman, Dallas Board of
"penetrating analysis in a lively style on a wide range of issues"
-- Walt Gardner, champion letter-to-the-editor writer and retired teacher
-- Susan Ohanian
2007 Winner, Editor's Choice Best Education Blog
2006 Winner, Best K-12 Administration Blog -- "Best of the Education Blog Awards"
-- eSchool News and Discovery Education
2006 Finalist, Best Education Blog
-- Weblog Awards