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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now back to your regularly scheduled rhetoric.

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

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

The new OMB director was a social entrepreneur.

And Sara Mead plays doctor.

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

Here’s the budget (pdf).

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

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

Michael Alison Chandler looks at the self-esteem debate in schools.

Here’s Martin Luther King on education from the Morehouse College student paper in the late 1940s.

On Twitter they’re discussing the TIME 12 for 12 list with the hashtag #edactivists.

Chuck Edwards looks at the earmark hustle. And Mickey Kaus looks at how a grand bargain on the Hill might play out. Elsewhere Matt Ladner looks at NAEP scores in DC and he goes there – broom pic.

If you’re in Boston, some interesting Askwith Forums this year. Keep an eye on New York, Bloomberg throwing eduhaymakers.

And some noise on charters in Washington State, a place that’s been a dead zone.  Meanwhile, in Virginia the Governor’s education plans have some good ideas included but remain light on two big issues facing Virginia – creating meaningful choices for parents and fixing the state’s anemic school accountability system.

And if you like to judge AEP has an opportunity for you.

This year’s TIME list of 12 education activists to watch in 2012 is out. Agree with them or not all of last year’s 11 for 11 made a difference in ways public and private and this year’s will, too, as 2012 unfolds.  A few more behind the scenes but influential players this year (but also some stars), but that’s the kind of year it may be.

You can check out the entire gallery via this link.

Over the past week we’ve heard a lot about what everyone thinks about No Child Left Behind except from the man who signed it – George W. Bush.  In his only interview about the law’s 10 year anniversary I talked with the former President about No Child’s legacy and the current debate about it.  That’s this week’s School of Thought column at TIME:

No Child Left Behind turned 10 this week, and former President George W. Bush, who led the effort to enact the landmark federal education law, marked the anniversary with an exclusive interview with Time education columnist Andrew J. Rotherham. Bush discussed the law and its legacy, criticized both parties for trying to walk away from its hard-nosed accountability efforts, and called on President Obama to resist “the temptation to take the easy path.”

Mr. President, 10 years in, what’s your take on No Child Left Behind?

First of all, I am extremely proud of the effects of No Child Left Behind. For the first time, the federal government basically demanded results in return for money. It started by saying, We expect you to measure [student performance]. As a result, there has been a noticeable change in achievement, particularly among minority groups…

What will it take to rebuild a consensus on accountability?

Well, I think it’s going to take presidential leadership. The President is going to have to be very firm in resisting the temptation to take the easy path…

In your view, how much of the criticism of the law is about the specifics, and how much is just partisan politics?

In some circles, punching No Child Left Behind is a way to basically say, I’m against Big Government. In fact, No Child Left Behind is a way to promote efficient government. In a lot of these debates, you don’t hear real detail or analysis about how to improve the law…

Read the entire interview at TIME via this link. And a version of the interview will be in next week’s magazine.

Go ask a teacher! One of the great non-responses in education debates. But, OK, does this one count?

Elsewhere, RiShawn Biddle previews the Medicaid/education funding debate.

Jay Greene argues for efficiency in teacher evaluations (and goes after Gates MET).  He’s right that the predictive leverage of value-added is more powerful than is generally acknowledged or many people take the time to understand but there are compelling arguments that to move the profession you need to create buy-in and that there is a role for professional judgement in evaluation as well.  And there is the thorny issue of valid measures for non-tested subjects and grades, the work environment of the majority of teachers and a place where MET can really make a contribution.

Kevin Carey makes an out of the box case for solving the higher ed cost problem.

Trend worth watching: New degree programs emerging at several ed schools.

Harvard Graduate School of Education or HGSE in the parlance just announced the second cohort of students in its new leadership degree program. The program works with the Kennedy School and the Business School to create a practice-based doctoral program for education leaders.  It’s highly competitive – but cost-free for students.  The first cohort is a remarkable bunch, so much so that it may have led some to believe that it was a one-off vanity program.  It’s not, it’s a sustained effort to help address the leadership challenge in education today.  The second cohort is just as strong and diverse educationally with talented educational leaders like Morgan Camu, Christine DeLeon, Andrew Fishman, Paola Peacock Friedrich, Justin May, and Sarah Johnson. When you’re mixing alums from The Big Picture Company, TFA, and overseas education work you’re onto something powerful.  I’m on the visiting committee – basically a board -  for HGSE and helped with the program’s development and have subsequently been able to spend time with the students and it’s the kind of thing that makes you optimistic about the energy and capacity for change in this sector.

At UVA, meanwhile, they just announced a new M.B.A./M.Ed. degree program. I’m on the board of the ed school there as well. These programs have been in and out of fashion and are of mixed quality but the new generation seems to be more serious about actually building the capacity of future education leaders to drive change.  And at UVA there are some genuine collaborations already underway between the university’s b-school and the ed school, most notably the school turnaround initiative.  Given the sorry state of education reform in Virginia the outstanding question there, however, is whether the new UVA program will be fueling efforts within the commonwealth or exporting talent elsewhere.

Later this month what promises to be a good event on literacy at AEI*, some thorny issues and should be fun conversation.

And from ES a new report by Craig Jerald on how the school inspection process in the UK works and possible strategies to make it work here.  I find the US parallels – eg accreditation – less than convincing but it’s a smart look at a method that does have some implications for accountability here in the United States.

*By which I mean a discussion about literacy issues being held at AEI.

Some interesting charter action in Oregon.

At The Times’ campaign blog Charles Blow takes a look at some over-the-top Rick Santorum rhetoric about college and the Obama Administration. If Santorum is serious about social mobility he should be talking college and ideas to help more low-income students complete college up not down.

And, speaking of virtual schools and costs…a useful look at the costs of online learning from Fordham. Important as states start to think about changing their policies to better account for online schools.

New York is now on double-secret Race to the Top probation, too!  The Times has more including the wonderful allegation that the state commissioner there, John King, is a “bully.” Anyone who knows John will appreciate the absurdity of that.

You can read about how all the RTT states – not only the Delta House of Hawaii, New York and Florida -are doing in these new Department of Education status reports.

Last year’s CMO report is now updated to include data on high school and post-secondary. TIME column on original report here.

Hewlett Foundation sponsoring a $100K prize for online assessment scoring.

New report last week from the Gates MET project, check it out here.

Marketing/comms role at Mass Insight.

Whiteboard Advisors has a cheat sheet of state legislative action for you.

As the orgy of attacking government continues in New Hampshire and South Carolina here’s a fun brief from CAP about some national investments that turned out OK. Also, here’s a new report from the Commerce Department and NEC on the competitiveness issue and strategy.

Give credit where it’s due: New study on MN’s dual-credit initiative for high school students.  MPR here. Dual credit has a few solid benefits for students overall – but some complicated turf issues!

Following the latest TFA silliness – Wendy Kopp’s response is worth reading. The NEA puts out an olive branch and gets whacked by the clown parade, pathetic.

Grant strategy opportunity at Knowledge Universe – based in Portland or in DC.

This new paper on teacher effects that’s been making the rounds, it’s kind of a big deal.  New York Times writes it up. Two cautions on how far this is ready to go here and here.

My take on what the law did and didn’t do is this week’s School of Thought at TIME:

Bashing the No Child Left Behind Act has become so politically popular that it’s easy to forget how overwhelmingly bipartisan it was — the legislation passed the House with 384 votes and the Senate with 91. As the law marks its 10-year anniversary on Jan. 8, it’s important to look at both its successes and its failures. Did NCLB solve all of our public education problems? No. But it set a lot of good things in motion and was specifically designed to be revised after five or six years (in a reauthorization that has yet to happen and is unlikely to before this year’s election.) The No Child law didn’t get everything right the first time, but that’s the wrong yardstick. If we held other policy areas — think food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security — to the same standard No Child is held to these days, i.e., flawlessness, then we would have jettisoned those and many other worthy programs long ago.

You don’t need to make it to a diamond anniversary to read the entire column at TIME by clicking here.

Just when you think it can’t get any more ridiculous…

Wash Post writes up the Virginia Education Report.

Reminder – today is the last day (deadline EOD today) to apply for the BW blogging workshop on February 3.  Loads of great applications already in and a terrific line-up of writing coaches and social media experts so it’s going to be a fun and productive day.