Remember, read to your sons and daughters.

“We’re going to stop lying to children and lying to families [about curriculum quality]… We have to challenge the status quo on when schools are failing… We think it is unacceptable” — U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan on Common Core State Standards and overhauling failing schools at the Military Child Education Coalition’s annual conference, via Dropout Nation’s Twitter feed (go ahead and follow).

“What’s frustrating is that there is a real issue here demanding attention. The trade-off between flexibility and prescriptiveness in federal school turnaround policy is a complicated one without a lot of good answers.  Too much flexibility and districts and states take the easy way out and do nothing meaningful for students stuck in lousy schools. Too prescriptive and you get meaningless box-checking (as we may be seeing overall with the current dollop of school improvement funds), perverse consequences, or you stifle innovative approaches that might work if educators could try them.” – Andy Rotherham responding to Michael Winerip’s claptrap of an article on the consequences of federal education policy.

“We need to push school districts to frame summer school as a good thing, something extra — not a punishment. There is a cultural barrier that we have to overcome.” – Ron Fairchild of the National Summer Learning Association on the need for summer learning (and ultimately, for year-round schooling), in Time.

“But why are we more willing to overlook lackluster test scores in middle class schools?” Mike Petrilli on laggard middle class schools (traditional and charter).

“My hope is that many of them improve, but at the same time, we need to make sure the bar is high. I’ve got two children in the system, and I don’t want a ‘minimally effective teacher’ and I don’t think anyone else does, either.” — D.C. Public Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee on her decision to dismiss 241 laggard teachers.

“Each year we visit the teachers at least twice – once in the beginning and ten again towards the end of the year. It’s a great opportunity to understand how our kids are progressing and to brainstorm areas of concern or ask questions. But the one thing that always surprised me is that no one from the school has ever asked us to review the teachers. Ever… I think the current model doesn’t give enough credit to our great teachers and doesn’t shine a bright enough light on the teachers that aren’t delivering the goods.” — Tech investor Bijan Sabat on the need to evaluate teachers.

“While you argue about Duncan and standardized testing and charters…teach little keisha, tyrone, twon how to read, ok?” — Nikolai Pizarro (@iwantwealth) on the complaining of defenders of traditional public education over school reform.

Check out Dropout Nation this week for news and commentary on the reform of American public education. And listen to this week’s Dropout Nation Podcast on recruiting, developing and rewarding more good-to-great teachers.

On this week’s Dropout Nation Podcast, I examine the debate between congressional Democrats, President Barack Obama and centrist Democrat school reformers over the edujobs bill. The proposed $10 billion school bailout bill will do little to advance school reform or stem (ever-dwindling) teacher and school employee bailout numbers. Instead of another bailout, President Obama, outgoing House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey and his fellow congressional Democrats should focus on building parent power and making families true decision-makers in education.

You can listen to the Podcast at RiShawn Biddle’s radio page or download directly to your iPod, MP3 player or smartphone. Also, subscribe to the podcast series. It is also available on iTunes, Blubrry, Podcast Alley, the Education Podcast Network,  Zune Marketplace and PodBean. Also, add the podcast on Viigo, if you have a BlackBerry, iPhone or Android phone.

Gut check time.

As I have pointed out since the beginning of the year, the efforts by congressional Democrats and President Barack Obama to keep control of Congress may be the most-immediate problem for the school reform efforts being orchestrated by Obama and U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. As Republicans continue to gain momentum — and are likely to capture seats in Indiana, Arkansas and perhaps, even Connecticut — Democratic leaders will need all their activists on the ground to bring out the votes — especially the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, the single-biggest donors in Democratic (and general election) politics. But NEA and AFT support won’t come without a price — or without conflict with centrist Democrats who are driving Race to the Top and other Obama initiatives.

This was exemplified yesterday when outgoing Rep. David Obey proposed to use $500 million in dollars slated for Race to the Top to fund a $10 billion package to stave off an ever-dwindling wave of teacher and school staff layoffs. School reformers such as the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Congressman Jared Polis and the Education Trust went on the warpath, wrangling support against Obey’s effort, while the NEA and AFT reminded other congressional Democrats that they better pay to play.

As Education Trust communications czar Amy Wilkins rightly points out, Obama and Duncan can’t afford to let Obey succeed — and not just because the administration will lose credibility among states and the school reform movement. The reality is that the Obama administration has little in the way of concrete achievements (at least those that don’t involve the controversial and still-likely-to get-partly-overturned health care reform plan). Education reform is one of those sparse achievements and anything that renders it a failure may lead to Obama going the way of Jimmy Carter in the re-election department.

Then there is the reality that this latest version of the education bailout plan (originally planned for $23 billion) is not even needed. A few months ago, it was assumed that as much as five percent of the 6.2 million teachers and school staffers would be laid off due to fiscal problems. Since then, as Mike Antonucci points out almost daily, those layoff numbers have dwindled further as school districts and states use furloughs, tighten belts and attempt to divert federal special education funding to keep teachers and staff on payrolls. That this comes after a previous $100 billion bailout (as part of the federal stimulus plan passed at the beginning of Obama’s term as president) — along with news that education spending hasn’t exactly been flatlined in the past decade — makes school districts and states look downright spendthrifty.

Obama and Duncan probably realize that ARRA II, as I call it, won’t force states to deal with the long-term causes of their fiscal woes: Pension deficits, overly generous benefits such as nearly-free healthcare for teachers, and the traditional system of compensating teachers, which has been costly to taxpayers and students alike. Even if ARRA II forced school districts to abandon the use of reverse seniority (or last hired-first fired) in layoff decisions, it wouldn’t mean much without the acquiescence of NEA and AFT locals, who oppose any change in the status quo.

But for the Democrats, other considerations matter. This includes bolstering the re-election prospects of vulnerable candidates and setting the table for Obama’s re-election effort two years beyond. For the Democrats to overcome the odds of a Republican victory in November, they need lots and lots of bodies. And money. The NEA and AFT offer plenty of that — including $66 million during the 2007-2008 election cycle alone — and far more campaigners on the ground than what school reformers can muster.

Which has always been the problem for the school reform movement. Sure, they have succeeded in winning over most of the policymakers within the Beltway and the nation’s statehouses. But the NEA and AFT have the advantage of strength in numbers. Until now, that intimidation power — the combination of teachers working the corridors of Congress and state capitals and the soft lobbying of parents in schoolhouses — is why the two unions have dominated education policy. Although teachers unions have fewer supporters and can no longer count on unquestioned support from Democrats, they can still whip up enough money and bodies to stave off the most-pathbreaking of reforms, and win over support for bailout schemes that benefit their rank-and-file.

School reformers need to pay attention to what is happening now and build stronger ties to grassroots advocates and parents on the ground; and challenge politicians opposed to school reform at the ballot box and in the hallways. Without them, Race to the Top will become crawl back to the past. The 1.3 million kids destined to drop out in the next year need more than that.

UPDATE (10:54 p.m., July 1): Proving my point, Obey rallied all but 15 Democrats to approve the Race to the Top cuts 239-182 [note: link still says vote not yet available). All but three Republican voted against it.

Sometimes schools and prisons seem the same thing. But they aren't. Let's keep our kids out of them.

As discussions of another K-12 bailout — much of it motivated by Democratic Party fears of congressional election losses — gets underway, there is plenty of questions as to whether America spends too much on education spending, is the money being spent too inefficiently and whether another bailout is needed anyway. This reprint of a Dropout Nation report written earlier this year offers another perspective on spending, especially in light of what is spent on the nation’s criminal justice system. To wit: Why do we spend $214 billion on criminal justice (and badly)? Because we spend $528 billion on schools (and atrociously):

An argument used by some in education, most recently by a writer in the Edurati Review, is that America spends far too much money on criminal justice — including prisons — at the expense of schools. And at first, it seems valid. From the vast numbers of young black, white and Latino dropouts landing in prison to the scandals within the juvenile justice system, it is clear that improving the educational destinies of students can make it less likely for them to land behind bars. Figuring out which crimes are truly crimes worth prison time (rape, for example) and which ones are consensual acts that hurt no one but the person (physically and emotionally) and her immediate family, would also help.

But do we actually spend too much on prisons at the expense of education. Here are a few

• Amount spent on operating and building prisons in fiscal year 2005-2006: $70 billion. Total amount on criminal justice, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics $214 billion.
• Amount spent on K-12 by districts, states and the federal government in the same fiscal year: $528.7 billion, according to the U.S. Department of Education.
• Amount spent on prison construction in 2006: $2 billion.
• School construction spending that same year: $45 billion.

The reality isn’t so much that the America doesn’t spend too much on prisons, at least not per se; nor is it that the U.S spends too much on education. It’s that the country spends far too much on both inefficiently. This is especially true with the latter. Too much spending is caught up in a politically-driven system of teacher compensation that fails to reward high-performing teachers and pays laggards far too much. Defined-benefit pensions and unfunded retirement liabilities are sopping up much of the increases in K-12 spending. Younger teachers don’t reap the full rewards of their work until late in their careers; the high level of attrition in the teacher ranks before fifth year of service is far too high.

Given that three out of every 10 American children fail to graduate from high school, the costs of the system are far greater than the results. It’s both tragedy and travesty.

Essentially, criminal justice spending isn’t a problem. Nor is education spending a problem. Spending education funding efficiently for results is. We must do better by our children.

For the vast majority of us who work in sectors outside of education (and outside of the public sector), a few things are simple, brutal and clear. When businesses are going through periods of economic distress, positions are cut.  If your performance is below satisfactory, only charm and systemic apathy will keep you in the job. You won’t get a raise if the firm is losing money. Money from benefactors come with strings attached. No one gets excited about And your job isn’t likely to be protected because of your long tenure with an employer.

Education, unfortunately, is different. Teachers and school districts have gotten so used to decades of pay increases and expanding payrolls that the very thought of adjusting to economic reality.

When teachers such as Jane Jorgensen of the Elgin school district in Illinois complain that the world isn’t “freaking out” about the loss of as many as 300,000 education jobs this year, they fail to realize that 1) it is just the high end of the U.S. Department of Education’s estimate and 2) given that 6.2 million people are employed in education, a loss of 300,000 jobs pales in comparison to job losses in the private sector (and even some segment of the public sphere). As I have known in my own life, all job losses are a tragedy. But not every job is crucial to the life of a school. Considering that the quality of education — and the dropout crisis — hasn’t subsided despite a 50 percent increase in education payrolls in the past four decades, it is clear that there is some fat (and laggard, uncaring teachers) to trim.

When other educators such as Frank Orfei in Pelham, N.Y. , complain about the lack of pay raises and argue that they feel like they’ve been scapegoated, they seemingly forget that at least they have jobs. So many families — including the ones who attend the schools in which they work — have spent the past two years either adjusting to pay cuts, living on one income (because a parent lost a job) or subsisting on welfare and unemployment benefits. I have seen those families. In fact, I know some of those families. While some of them didn’t plan responsibly for these periods of financial adjustment, I know plenty who have — and still ended up struggling.

Most of the people I know who are in their jobs also didn’t get a raise; those of us who are fortunate to get one sit down, shut up, get to work and remain grateful for the income. The last thing any of us want to hear is complaints about having to make due without a raise when tough economic times demand that we all have to live within our means.

And you can only laugh when the Sherman Dorns of the world incessantly argue that requiring states to reform teacher layoff and dismissal policies in exchange for a $23 billion bailout — the second in two years — only guarantees that “thousands of new teacher careers die in the next year.” If  they can ignore the reality that such a string would actually force states and school systems to change the very reason why those careers will be ended — laws that force districts to lay off teachers based on reverse seniority (“or last hired-first fired”) rules instead of on quality of instruction — then there is little reasoning with them. They have been so used to taxpayers funding education to the tune of $528 billion without so much as requirements for engaging parents, measuring teacher quality, and improving curricula that they are intellectually obsolete.

Certainly education is important to the future of this country. We should invest as much as we can. But given that schools often spend as much as 50 percent of local property tax and state tax dollars, it cannot be insulated from recessionary periods. The fact that states and school districts are finally reckoning with the costs of decades of expensive compensation deals with the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers — which has resulted in teaching being the best-compensated profession in the public sector — means that teachers will have to adjust to a future in which performance pay, teacher evaluations and the end of tenure is a reality, not a nightmare.

This is the perfect time to restructure education spending so that the money being spent is efficiently used to improve the educational (and economic) destinies of our children and assure that they are all taught by the highest-quality teachers. It means ending reverse seniority layoffs. This means ending tenure. It must also include improving how teachers are compensated so that great instructors are rewarded for great work and the laggards leave the classroom in order to limit the damage on student learning. This means restructuring public school bureaucracies and procedures that have been far too wasteful for everyone involved and complicate the work teachers should do. We owe our children far more than delusions.

As I have opined numerous times here and elsewhere, one of Race to the Top’s biggest flaws is that it isn’t ambitious enough. There aren’t enough players in education competing for the $3.4 billion in remaining funding; it is only a nudge toward reform not a truly bold step; and it doesn’t take advantage of the clever competition approach that has succeeded so far in getting states to take on the reforms they should have been pursuing in the first place.

What are the five steps President Barack Obama and U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan should undertake in future rounds? Here are some thoughts:

• Allow school districts, charter school networks and grassroots organizations to compete in future rounds: Obama and Duncan have already said they want to allow districts to apply for Race to the Top funding. They should. Expanding the pool of Race to the Top applicants to include school districts—including reform-minded systems such as New York City and Los Angeles Unified—would force school districts to seriously change their own practices and restructure their relationships with teachers unions. Allowing districts, along with charter school organizations such as KIPP, grassroots activists and even PTAs, would also place pressure on states participating in the competition to embrace bolder reforms.
• Increase the rewards for embracing reform: Temporary funding isn’t enough. School districts must also gain additional rewards from participating and winning funding. One possible reward: Allowing winning districts to become enterprise zones of sorts, freeing them from state laws governing collective bargaining agreements and teacher dismissals.
• Parental engagement must factor into the equation: The fact that California’s Parent Trigger law, along with the expansion of charter schools, is the only tool for parental engagement emerging from Race to the Top is shameful. For the next round, the Department of Education should require applicants to enact policies and laws that place parents in their proper place as consumers and kings in education decision-making.
• Use Race funding to scale up alternative teacher training programs: Teach For America and other alternative training programs have proven they can do as good job — and particularly, with TFA, even better — than university schools of education. But there aren’t enough of them to improve the quality of school district teacher corps. Encouraging districts and charter schools to work more-closely with alternative programs (and also focus on boosting the number of men and minorities in the teaching ranks)
• Forget consensus: Contrary to proclamations from Jon Schnur and others, consensus among stakeholders is critical element of winning Race to the Top funding. It shouldn’t be. True leadership often involves breaking with those groups that refuse to move away from a crippling status quo. More importantly, school districts and state education leaders must take a more-assertive stance in their relationships with teachers unions, revamping an oft-servile relationship that yields little for students, schools and even individual teachers. Rewarding states such as Florida for taking aggressive reform measures — even if the state needs work on other elements of its application — is crucial to making Race to the Top a truly bold reform measure.

At this moment, Race to the Top is more of a nudge toward school reform that a bold leap. Considering the dropout crisis — and that 1.2 million children drop out every year into poverty and prison — nudges aren’t enough.

As U.S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan has taken on one of the nation’s most-pressing challenges: Improving the quality of public education — especially for the poorest students. And so far, through the Race to the Top effort and the proposed revamp of the No Child Left Behind Act, he has (imperfectly) forced many Americans to finally pay attention to the reasons why the overhauls are needed.

In this video excerpt from his speech earlier this year, the former Chicago Public Schools chief executive offers another reason why reform is so important: Fulfilling the dream of the Civil Rights Movement to assure that all children have equal opportunity to a high-quality education. Listen, think, consider, then take action.

Also, read my report in The American Spectator on how Duncan’s efforts are also complicating the political choices (and career) of Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, who must now decide whether to support or veto a teacher quality reform (and tenure elimination) measure.

On this week’s Dropout Nation Podcast, I offer six steps for school reformers and grassroots activists to expand the role of parents in education decisionmaking. The expansion of charter schools and other forms of school choice, along with initiatives borne out of the No Child Left Behind Act and Race to the Top such as Parent Trigger, offer great opportunities to truly put children and families at the center of education (and improve the lives of even the poorest children). But only if an infrastructure is built to help parents make the best decisions.

You can listen to the Podcast at RiShawn Biddle’s radio page or download directly to your iPod or MP3 player. Also, subscribe to the podcast series. It is also available on iTunes, Blubrry, Podcast Alley, the Education Podcast Network and Zune Marketplace.

Photo courtesy of AP

Seven delayed thoughts on Race to the Top so far:

1. At the very least, Race to the Top’s competition model is clever and has potential to work. I’ll explain more later this month in my report in the May edition of The American Spectator‘s print edition. Let’s just say if George W. Bush embraced this approach, the No Child Left Behind Act– which successfully shed light on gamesmanship by states and school districts, exposed the reality that even suburban districts are mediocre in academic quality, and revealed the nation’s dropout crisis in stark terms — would have been even more effective.
2. The two states selected out of Round 1 — Delaware and Tennessee — aren’t the worst of possible choices. Tennessee actually took some huge steps such as eliminating most of its restrictions on the growth of charter schools and allow for the use of standardized tests in evaluating newly-hired teachers for tenure.
3. But this means that strong school reform states may not gain funding because they won’t gain support from NEA and AFT affiliates. The good news is that the Obama administration (led by U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan) didn’t select undeserving states that happened to be politically vulnerable from the Democratic National Committee perspective (Illinois for one). But in rejecting Florida (the leading school reform and teacher quality reform state in the nation) in the final leg and dismissing Indiana out of hand, the administration signals it prefers systemic consensus over strong reform.
4. For school reform to actually work, it means aggressively taking on the status quo. Race to the Top, in selecting Tennessee and Delaware, for the moment, seems to lean towards muddle and half-measures. Not a good thing. If school reform is to work, it will only come after reformers admit that sometimes consensus won’t happen. It means digging in, taking on systems of compensation and instruction that are failures, and upsetting a few constituencies (who may deserve being afflicted) along the way.
5. The hope lies in the possible Round III. If Obama gets his wish, reform-minded school districts will be able to submit applications. It will be hard for the administration to reject D.C. (home to the biggest experiment in teacher quality reform and evaluation) or a New York City (the most reform-minded district in the nation), then argue that it supports school reform. The administration must walk the walk on this.
6. Meanwhile Race to the Top could be so much more. But in order for this to happen, the administration must make parental engagement a much-bigger part of the game; this means encouraging Parent Trigger measures and even engaging parent-centered grassroots organizations into the competition. Allowing for winning school districts to become educational enterprise zones — an approach similar to the Reagan-era reform measures for local cities to spur economic growth — would also help. This means exempting them from the state laws governing teacher-district labor activity — including collective bargaining, tenure and dismissal — that often hinder their reform efforts.
7. And make school choice an even higher priority in Race. This would likely mean embracing voucher programs, and requiring districts and states to allow students from all schools — not just the worst districts — to attend any school within a district or state. The Obama administration certainly won’t consider this. But they should. And then go into action.

Photo courtesy of the New York Times

What’s happening today in the dropout nation:

1. As Stephen Sawchuk reported Wednesday in Education Week, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers were none too pleased with the Obama administration’s effort to transform Title I funding from formula-based funding to competitive grants similar to the Race to the Top reform effort. But don’t think it’s just all about the money. The NEA and the AFT (along with local school districts) have already been the beneficiaries of $100 billion in federal stimulus dollars (along with the prospect of more billions in the 2010-2011 fiscal year budget courtesy of another possible stimulus being pitched around Congress). What it is really about is that the NEA and AFT are slowly being relegated to side players in education decision-making. Even though the Adequate Yearly Progress provisions within the No Child Left Behind Act that the unions oppose are being ditched, the two unions are facing the reality that the traditional system of teachers compensation — degree- and seniority-based pay scales, near-lifetime employment through tenure and pensions that pay out as much as $2 million to a teacher over the course of her retirement — is being relegated to history’s ash-bin. No Child, along with Race to the Top (and various efforts by school districts and states to right-size their finances), will likely further spur this transformation.
2. Meanwhile in Central Falls, R.I., one of the 93 teachers at the local high school fired by the district last month after refusing to support a school turnaround plan decided to hang Obama in effigy, according to USA Today. Why? Because of Obama’s own support for the district in this imbroglio. This teacher has a right to free speech. He also deserves our scorn.
3. At Gotham Schools, Matthew Levey argues that teacher quality is just side of the school reform equation. Revamping the curricula taught in New York City’s schools (and other school systems throughout the nation) is also critical to improving how children learn. Writes Levey: “The content we want our kids to learn is the fraternal twin of teacher quality, and it is high time we stopped treating it like a redheaded stepchild.” I agree with his point, but doesn’t the Common Core standards effort (along with the entire history of the standards and accountability movement) undermine his argument?
4. The Brookings Institution calls for a new federal program to recruit, train and bring teachers to the poorest school systems. All nice and all. But don’t we already have AmeriCorps? Don’t we have Teach for America, which started out as an offshoot of AmeriCorps? Didn’t Martin Haberman start a similar program five decades ago that became the National Teacher Corps? My my my, Brookings, offering old ideas yet again. And, save for TFA (which is fully in the nonprofit sector), the concept has never really worked.
5. And the Heritage Foundation’s Lindsay Burke takes aim at Obama and Duncan for watering down some of the oft-sabotaged school choice provision within No Child, which allowed for poor students to leave the worst schools for better schools within their district (if available). From where I sit, the provision was often not used because traditional school districts almost never informed parents in time to exercise their choice. Sadly, even when available, the school districts were often so atrocious that there were no high quality schools from which parents can choose. The better solution should have been to allow for vouchers. But Obama isn’t going to ever go there.

Check out this week’s Dropout Nation Podcast on improving teacher quality, along with this week’s report on low high school promotion rates for boys within Kansas City, K.S.’s school district. And read my report in The American Spectator on efforts by the AFT and NEA to start their own charter schools (and take control of existing traditional schools). Apparently, one AFT effort in New York City isn’t going so hot.

By the way: Next week’s Dropout Nation Podcast, which will focus more on improving urban and rural schools, will hit the Internet this weekend.