On Saturday, the Washington Post advised Barack and Michelle Obama that as they think about the pros and cons of various schools here in D.C., they might also want to keep in mind the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, which gives District parents the same power of choice for their own kids. The Post won’t weigh in on the whole public vs. private debate, of course. But the piece muses:

Let’s hope the experience of moving his girls and finding the place where they will flourish resonates with Mr. Obama so that he reexamines his stance on the District’s voucher program. How is it right to take away what little choice there is for needy D.C. children?

Interesting thoughts—in fact, very similar to thoughts offered up by our own Mike Petrilli not too long ago! Mike unabashedly admitted he is pulling for Georgetown Day, specifically because it participates in the D.C. voucher program.

It’s one thing for Candidate Obama to oppose publicly funded vouchers on principle. It’s quite another thing for a President Obama to eliminate an existing program and kick his daughters’ classmates out of their beloved school.

The Post piece today echoes that sentiment. It notes that both Georgetown Day as well as Sidwell Friends—two schools Michelle Obama visited recently—participate in the voucher program.

That means classmates of Malia and Sasha might lose the ability to attend their chosen school if the vouchers were eliminated. That wouldn’t seem fair.

As the country decides who’ll be the next president, Marylanders may take a gamble for even more “change” – quite literally. They’re deciding whether to legalize slot machines! Supporters, of course, argue that there’s a direct link to education — that the infusion of revenue the machines would create is critically needed in the state, especially for schools. I’m very curious as to whether the majority of Marylanders will agree. And what about the rest of the country – do you think it’s generally a “win-win” situation for a state to use revenues from slots (among other uses) to help educate their children? From previous posts, it seems our own Mike Petrilli (a Marylander!) leans towards a yes, though I refuse to ask him how he voted. Privacy is important, you know – that’s why the booths have curtains!

Photograph from Playslots.org.uk

Fordham’s Mike Petrilli is participating in an online discussion where panelists—even as I type this—are attempting to answer the question “Do we need a new deal for teachers?”  Moderator Steve Farkas, of the Farkas Duffett Research Group, kicked things off by wondering which groups are truly interested in a new deal and who will lead the effort to change the status quo. Will it be teacher unions, new teachers, district administrators or legislators?

Mike took an immediate bite at that apple. He argued that “harsh fiscal realities will be the true impetus” for making a new deal for teachers that looks something like higher pay in return for less job security and more modest retirement benefits.  With baby-boomers’ retirement burdening social security and Medicare, competition for public funds will become fierce, the era of ballooning school budgets will end and policymakers will realize that teachers’ retirement benefits are unsustainable, he wrote. Eventually, the conversation will turn, he said, to a new system of teacher pay—”one that relies more on ‘front-loading’ teacher pay and moving to a 401(k) style retirement system.”

The ongoing discussion runs today, tomorrow and Thursday and is hosted at www.NewTalk.org. Other participants include Philip Howard of Common Good—the non-profit organization that created the NewTalk chat site; Bob Wise of Alliance for Excellent Education; Michael Mulgrew of United Federation of Teachers and Frederick Hess of American Enterprise Institute.

That’s one heck of a tough question that the next president - whether McCain or Obama - will eventually have to answer. Fordham’s Mike Petrilli is trying to help out with a few suggestions. In an op-ed in the Washington Times today he tells leaders to “turn NCLB on its head.” He suggests they loosen parts of the law that are excessively tight and tighten parts that are way too loose. Sound like a bad prom dress from the 80s? Not exactly. He lays out a very interesting solution. Mike writes:

Right now, NCLB micromanages the formula and timelines by which schools are labeled and sanctioned, yet it allows states total discretion over the academic standards and tests used to judge schools (and kids) in the first place. These should be flipped. Provide incentives for states to sign up for rigorous nationwide (not federal) standards and tests. Make the results of this testing publicly available, sliced every which way by school and group. But then allow states and districts (or private entities, such as GreatSchools.net) to devise their own school labels and ratings - and let them decide what to do with schools that need help.

Read more of the op-ed here.

Wide-ranging presentations and lively discussion today at the AEI/Fordham conference on judicial involvement in education!

During this afternoon’s panel on discipline, special education and district management, Richard Arum of NY University told us that school discipline litigation has been increasing over time and that 11 percent of teachers, 55 percent of administrators and 73 percent of administrators with 15 years of experience have been threatened with lawsuits. About 14 percent of administrators have actually faced one, he said. Samuel Bagenstos of the Washington University School of Law took issue with the notion that litigation is exploding however—noting that there’s actually “shockingly little” litigation surrounding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Meanwhile, Fordham’s Mike Petrilli, who was moderating the panel, wondered aloud whether schools can fix discipline problems without court involvement. Alan Bersin, California State Board of Education member and former California Education Secretary, told us that court decisions actually leave educators with a lot of flexibility in this area but school leaders remain cautious.

Earlier in the day, other distinguished panelists discussed No Child Left Behind, school funding and school desegregation issues. All of their papers are available here, along with more information about the daylong event (which was recorded and will eventually be posted on AEI’s website).

Fordham staff received an email this afternoon from D.C. parent Jean Hoff and decided to post it (in part, and with her permission):

I am a very upset parent with children in the D.C. Public Schools.  My daughters attend Shepherd Elementary School.  I learned today that Michelle Rhee has just fired our principal, Dr. Galeet BenZion.  Dr. BenZion was appointed in July of this year, and has from my perspective as a parent, made great inroads at Shepherd in a short time.  One thing she has not been shy about is sticking up for our children when it comes to getting resources from downtown.  Ms. Rhee has not yet released any justification for the firing, but is scheduling a meeting to discuss next week.[...]  My immediate goal is to see Dr. BenZion reinstated.

We’re awaiting Ms. Rhee’s response...

Seems the election is really heating up. Check out this story about a Kansas City charter school teacher who was suspended Monday after a video of his students chanting pro-Obama cheers in fatigues became a sensation on YouTube.

Let’s face it—the college application process is competitive. From extracurricular activities and volunteer work to AP courses and SAT scores, students have a lot to think about as they try to convince college admissions officers to say “yes.” Now, there’s a new wrinkle. It seems some schools will leave it up to students to report their own high school grades. According to the Star Ledger and the Record, thousands of students applying this fall to Rutgers University will submit their grades online in an effort to reduce costs and streamline the admissions process. It seems like a lot of trust and responsibility to place in the applicants. But apparently, Rutgers handled transcripts from a whopping 43,000 applicants last year and the new process will allow applicants to find out whether they were admitted a month sooner than in past years. States like Pennsylvania and Indiana have already moved to such systems. Check out the stories here and here.

Oklahoma is trying an education venture some say will help kids stay in school and do better: removing one or perhaps two critical grades and creating separate schools for them. Ninth-graders in Coweta this year are the first to occupy a campus that’s just for freshmen and Cache Public Schools plans something similar. Sand Springs Public Schools in Tulsa County placed prekindergarten, sixth-grade and ninth-grade students all in their own buildings, with the aim of focusing on the years that are the “biggest hurdles in the schooling process,” said Superintendent Lloyd Snow.  Supporters say such setups can help ease difficult transition periods, cut down on discipline problems and prevent kids from falling through the cracks or dropping out. Seems like it could be a worthy endeavor, though supporters didn’t offer any hard evidence (at least in the article) of their claims. Coweta Superintendent Jeff Holmes said he expects to see results this year. You can check it out for yourself here.

On Wed. September 3, Fordham hosted a lively panel discussion of the David Whitman’s new book, “Sweating the Small Stuff: Inner-City Schools and the New Paternalism.” On hand were Jay Mathews of The Washington Post, and Charles Adams, head of school at the SEED School in D.C. For your viewing pleasure, we’ve posted a video of their discussion online.

“Sweating the Small Stuff: Inner-City Schools and the New Paternalism” book talk from Education Gadfly on Vimeo.

The accolades keep comin’! We see that George Will has written yet ANOTHER column citing David Whitman’s new book (published by Fordham) “Sweating the Small Stuff: Inner-City Schools and the New Paternalism“. Will focuses his praise this time on Cristo Rey Jesuit High School—one of the six highly effective, “no excuse” schools Whitman profiles in his book.