Researcher Terry Moe holds forth on merit pay.  The column is behind the WSJ’s subscription firewall, but here’s an important excerpt:

But public schools, unlike most government organizations, do have a quantifiable bottom line — namely, student achievement, which can be measured quite reliably through standardized tests. Under NCLB and state accountability systems, students are already being tested regularly. It is a natural next step to connect the dots to teachers: measuring the learning that takes place in each classroom, and creating an incentive system that rewards teachers on that basis.

There are many ways to design such a system, and districts have a great deal of flexibility — about the portion of pay devoted to merit, about adjustments for student background, about how teachers of nonacademic subjects (like music and art) are to be evaluated, about the use of school-wide measures of performance (to encourage teamwork), and so on. It is a framework that is readily adapted to local circumstances and concerns. The idea is not to impose a "one best system," but simply to take reasonable steps, based on objective data, to see that good teachers are rewarded and mediocre ones aren’t.

I think points like these are going to be raised during NCLB reauthorization.  But as he also says, the devil is in the details.  Maybe the union will actually engage these points rather than try to dismiss them–because, as Moe says later in the article, merit pay is getting traction. 

After nine years and $35 billion, maybe New Jerseyans have finally had enough with the Abbott system.  While I noted this in a prior post, here’s a quick primer for the uninitiated.  In 1981, lawyers in New Jersey filed Abbott v. Burke, charging that the state had failed to provide an adequate education for poorer school districts.  After the lawsuit wound its way through the system, in 1997 the state Supreme Court sided with the plaintiffs, requiring the state to increase funding to those districts (three more were added later by legislators). 

It’s unfortunate the justices didn’t take a minute to observe Kansas City, where a similar experiment was ending just they issued their ruling in Abbott.  It seems a similar result has been discovered, just on a much bigger scale:

Now a growing number of New Jersey elected officials, educators and parents are calling for sweeping changes to this school financing system, saying that it has wasted millions of taxpayer dollars in the Abbott districts. For every success story like Garfield, where fourth-grade test scores have risen to the state average, there are chronic problems, like those in Newark, Camden and Asbury Park.

Today, the Abbott districts serve 286,500 children in kindergarten through 12th grade — about 21 percent of the state’s students — but get $4.2 billion a year in state aid, slightly more than half of all the state money given to New Jersey’s 616 school districts. The Abbotts are among the highest-spending school districts in the state, averaging $14,038 per student compared with $10,509 statewide. The vast majority of districts that fall between richest and poorest say they are increasingly bearing the burden of the Abbotts’ getting so much of the money.

Kansas City spent $2 billion over 12 years.  The Abbott districts spent more than double that each year. In return, Abbott districts are still well behind their non-Abbott counterparts.  (And, of course, New Jersey is the state that gave you Camden.)  But I also see some commonality with the Kansas City experiment–namely, the top-down, external approach to fixing the problem:

For their part, the Abbott districts have criticized what they see as a bureaucratic system that undermines local authority and forces them to adopt programs that they do not need. For instance, Patrick Gagliardi, the Hoboken superintendent, said that he is required to provide full-day preschool to every 3- and 4-year-old child in his district, regardless of income, a mandate that now benefits many affluent families. “The court intended to help poor people, not the wealthy,” he said. “Now it’s costing the state more money, and it’s inefficient and flawed.”

Lack of local authority.  Hostility from other school districts within the state, who find themselves strapped for cash due to the beneficiaries’ sky-high spending required by a court decision–a decision that went above and beyond pretty much anything done anywhere else.  Yeah, sounds a lot like Kansas City. 

I could wrap up this post with yet another call for parental choice in the Garden State (which would, of course, be closely tied to our lawsuit in Camden).  But it’s also worth pointing out that increased accountability–which we in the school choice movement have long advocated and worked for in school choice programs–is just now starting to become a concern for the Abbott districts.  If anything approaching the kind of money in the Abbott districts had been spent on school choice programs that had generated the mediocre results seen in even the best of the Abbott districts, I can only imagine the shrieking that would ensue, the demands to shut the program down. 

Being realistic, Abbott is going nowhere for a while; it’s too big, too entrenched, and the Abbott districts have promised to sue if anybody touches the program, meaning the state will have to endure another round of court battles to bring this to a conclusion.  But once the dust finally settles, maybe the state will turn to folks like E3 for a different way of doing things. 

After nine years and $35 billion, maybe New Jerseyans have finally had enough with the Abbott system.  While I noted this in a prior post, here’s a quick primer for the uninitiated.  In 1981, lawyers in New Jersey filed Abbott v. Burke, charging that the state had failed to provide an adequate education for poorer school districts.  After the lawsuit wound its way through the system, in 1997 the state Supreme Court sided with the plaintiffs, requiring the state to increase funding to those districts (three more were added later by legislators). 

It’s unfortunate the justices didn’t take a minute to observe Kansas City, where a similar experiment was ending just they issued their ruling in Abbott.  It seems a similar result has been discovered, just on a much bigger scale:

Now a growing number of New Jersey elected officials, educators and parents are calling for sweeping changes to this school financing system, saying that it has wasted millions of taxpayer dollars in the Abbott districts. For every success story like Garfield, where fourth-grade test scores have risen to the state average, there are chronic problems, like those in Newark, Camden and Asbury Park.

Today, the Abbott districts serve 286,500 children in kindergarten through 12th grade — about 21 percent of the state’s students — but get $4.2 billion a year in state aid, slightly more than half of all the state money given to New Jersey’s 616 school districts. The Abbotts are among the highest-spending school districts in the state, averaging $14,038 per student compared with $10,509 statewide. The vast majority of districts that fall between richest and poorest say they are increasingly bearing the burden of the Abbotts’ getting so much of the money.

Kansas City spent $2 billion over 12 years.  The Abbott districts spent more than double that each year. In return, Abbott districts are still well behind their non-Abbott counterparts.  (And, of course, New Jersey is the state that gave you Camden.)  But I also see some commonality with the Kansas City experiment–namely, the top-down, external approach to fixing the problem:

For their part, the Abbott districts have criticized what they see as a bureaucratic system that undermines local authority and forces them to adopt programs that they do not need. For instance, Patrick Gagliardi, the Hoboken superintendent, said that he is required to provide full-day preschool to every 3- and 4-year-old child in his district, regardless of income, a mandate that now benefits many affluent families. “The court intended to help poor people, not the wealthy,” he said. “Now it’s costing the state more money, and it’s inefficient and flawed.”

Lack of local authority.  Hostility from other school districts within the state, who find themselves strapped for cash due to the beneficiaries’ sky-high spending required by a court decision–a decision that went above and beyond pretty much anything done anywhere else.  Yeah, sounds a lot like Kansas City. 

I could wrap up this post with yet another call for parental choice in the Garden State (which would, of course, be closely tied to our lawsuit in Camden).  But it’s also worth pointing out that increased accountability–which we in the school choice movement have long advocated and worked for in school choice programs–is just now starting to become a concern for the Abbott districts.  If anything approaching the kind of money in the Abbott districts had been spent on school choice programs that had generated the mediocre results seen in even the best of the Abbott districts, I can only imagine the shrieking that would ensue, the demands to shut the program down. 

Being realistic, Abbott is going nowhere for a while; it’s too big, too entrenched, and the Abbott districts have promised to sue if anybody touches the program, meaning the state will have to endure another round of court battles to bring this to a conclusion.  But once the dust finally settles, maybe the state will turn to folks like E3 for a different way of doing things. 

Breaking Down The Ivory Tower - Never has the nation paid so much attention to improving the quality of teaching. Yet the institutions that produce teachers have never faced so much criticism.

Ohio Supreme Court Narrowly Upholds State Charter Law (edweek.org subscription required) - In a 4-3 ruling handed down last week, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the state’s charter school law.

Brewer Signs Contract to Become Next LAUSD Schools Chief - Retired U.S. Navy Adm. David Brewer today agreed to a four-year, $300,000 annual contract to become the next superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District.

Education: It’s about deeds - Editorial: Jim Doyle , the incumbent Democratic governor of Wisconsin, and Rep. Mark Green, the Republican challenger, have been sparring over education. Doyle gets the better grade.

Charter School Review Needed - Editorial: We agree with the recent Ohio Supreme Court ruling in favor of the state’s charter school system.  But justices who dissented from the ruling made some excellent points. State legislators should be thinking about them — and doing something about them.

Specialized program is taking a different approach to math - A look at a specialized math learning program in Arizona.

Discrete Math Comes to the Classroom - A look at a relatively new branch of mathematics known as discrete math.

Teachers Union Loves Davis - Democrat Jim Davis, Florida gubernatorial candidate, got a rock star’s welcome at an appearance before representatives of the state’s largest teacher union and delivered an uncharacteristically fiery speech before being mobbed by ardent supporters.

L.A. schools chief to get $300,000 a year - David L. Brewer, the retired Navy vice admiral selected to become Los Angeles’ next education chief, agreed Monday to a four-year contract that will pay him $300,000 per year.

Judge: LA school, archdiocese violated rights of blind teacher - A high school operated by the Los Angeles Roman Catholic Archdiocese violated the American with Disabilities Act when it refused to renew a blind teacher’s contract because he missed a deadline to secure funding for a classroom aide, a federal judge has ruled.

State education head resigns - Massachusetts commissioner of education David Driscoll yesterday announced his plans to retire on Aug. 31, 2007.

In Detroit, schools and union dispute money again - The love between the Detroit Public Schools and the Detroit Federation of Teachers that was touted by both sides last month as the Detroit teachers strike was settled apparently has fallen apart — over money, again.

Rich’s one-man costume party - Opinion: Have you ever seen a one-man costume party?  If not, take a close look at the most recent campaign finance disclosures. When you do, you’ll see that the millionaire who finances the South Carolina voucher lobby is playing dress-up for Halloween.

‘Indecency’ in one race would be breath of fresh air in others - Opinion: A look at the allegations in two different congressional races in South Carolina.

Check back later for more education news. 

UPDATE:

Spellings Exemptions (WSJ subscription required) - Editorial: Here’s a question for Education Secretary Margaret Spellings: Why won’t you enforce the school choice provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act?

Management 101 for public schools - WSJ op-ed by Terry Moe. (subscription required) The Department of Education recently announced its first grants in a new $94-million program to fund incentive-pay plans for teachers. The money itself is a drop in the bucket for a public school industry that spends more than $400 billion annually.

Ed Week: Unions provide money and personnel for key races - (subscription required) Thus, this past spring, the NEA for the first time drew up a list of target states based in part on gubernatorial contests that might be won by the union-backed candidate.

A higher bar for future teachers - ..if we are to see substantial performance improvements from all students, we need better performance from their teachers.

I observed last week that the familiar partisan lines around school choice keep getting blurred.  Latest sign of change: Democrat Eliot Spitzer, likely to become the next governor of New York, said this Sunday.

Gubernatorial hopeful Eliot Spitzer said yesterday he favors funneling more state cash to private schools.

Spitzer, speaking to Orthodox Jews at a Brooklyn yeshiva, said it is unjust that private schools educate 15% of the state’s students but get only 1% of the education budget.

"We will work on that," promised Spitzer, a graduate of the prestigious and private Horace Mann High School in the Bronx.

No, he doesn’t support vouchers–not surprising, since he does want to become governor of a union-dominated state–but he endorsed the state’s child tax credit, and is willing to consider expanding it.  Over at Cato at Liberty, Adam Schaeffer suggests that the child tax credit is becoming a way for Dems to straddle the fence, which sounds right; it allows them to capture centrists for whom school choice is becoming increasingly attractive while not alienating liberals for whom vouchers remain anathema. 

I see at least two positive products from this development.  First off, the extreme politicization of education may actually be fading.  Of course, education will be politicized so long as public money is involved in the process, but K-12 might finally be moving beyond the ridiculous red-vs-blue fistfight that has characterized it for far too long. 

Secondly, union clout might show some signs of fading as well.  Look, if they can’t even keep New York liberals like Spitzer in the fold, something has gone awry.  (For similar signs, Joe Williams has thoughts on a legislative race in Buffalo, where the Democratic challenger is openly touting his pro-school choice stance.)  Again, a good thing–it’s a bit extreme for any interest group to have the kind of outsized leverage the unions have enjoyed.

Another question: why are Democrats increasingly favoring school choice?  The cynic might say they’re just reading the political tea leaves: just about the only way to get a negative poll on school choice is to doctor it thoroughly, so it’s pretty clear that public sentiment is tilting in our favor.  However, it’s also worthwhile to consider that school choice may actually be returning to its progressive roots, bringing many Democrats along for the ride. 

All of these are welcome developments, especially with Democrats on the verge of recapturing the governor’s mansion and the state legislature (not to mention the state’s ongoing charter cap struggle).  Schaeffer suggests that New York school choice coalition TEACHNYS should gear up for a major push next year.  They might want to consider that the playbook for advancing school choice under Democratic governors has already been favorably tested in states like Arizona (and that was under a governor that has never looked favorably upon school choice).