
(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
Education Buzz Carnival replaces the Carnival of Education, you can check it out here.

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
Education Buzz Carnival replaces the Carnival of Education, you can check it out here.
(Guest post by Greg Forster)
Over the weekend, ALELR ran the numbers on Technorati and posted the Top 20 Education Blogs on his blog, Intercepts. Coming out on top – Joanne Jacobs. But what do you expect given that she’s married to royalty?
Tied for #10? Jay P. Greene’s Blog and . . . Intercepts.
I say we settle this like men - on the field of honor. There can be only ten!
For anyone interested in pursuing an intellectual career, I have three laws to suggest:
1) Never say anything you don’t believe. This may sound obvious, but I’m struck by how many people in academia and think-tankdom tailor their comments to please others while deviating from their true beliefs. Remember, we aren’t politicians, so we don’t have to lie. Some people get confused and think that they are politicians and craft what they say to produce a desired result as opposed to expressing their sincere convictions. Being able to say what you think is true is the one great compensation of an intellectual life so don’t throw it away to fit in with colleagues, please a funder, or to fool the public or politicians into doing something you want.
2) Never work with people with whom you do not want to be working. This law is harder to obey, especially earlier in one’s career, but please keep it in mind as an important goal to reach as soon as possible. People who work primarily for money have to put up with a lot, including nasty colleagues, because they feel obliged to do whatever get’s them more money. People who pursue an intellectual career should be primarily interested in ideas, not money. Since jerks as colleagues tend not to contribute to the development of your ideas and since their jerkiness distracts you from developing your own ideas, you should get as far away from them as quickly as you can.
3) Never work on projects that you don’t think matter. I’m not suggesting that every project needs to change the world, but you should see the projects on which you work as part of a broader intellectual agenda that has the potential to affect the world. If you work on projects that you don’t think have any effect on the world, then you will have a hard time caring about it. And if you don’t care about it, why should anyone else? You’ll probably also do a lousy job if even you don’t care about it. Besides, if you want to work on stuff you don’t care about you might as well work in a law firm or something else that pays better but does not require you to care.
This Examiner article from Jan. 5 has just been brought to my attention:
Another concern is that private schools work against segregation and decrease tolerance. On the contrary, in a study by Cory Forster of The Friedman Foundation who compared segregated levels in private voucher schools and public schools, less segregation was found in the private schools.
In my time I have been cited in newspapers as Greg Forester, Greg Foster, and other spellings. But I have never had the honor and privilege of being a Cory.
I’ll try not to let it go to my head.

I just noticed that JPGB has been nominated for the Best Group Education Blog from the Edublogawards. That’s nice. Click and vote if you feel like it. Voting ends on the 16th.
If I win, I promise to donate all of the proceeds (of which there are none) to charity. And I promise to give an awesome acceptance speech, like the one Obama gave for the Nobel. But to fit that mold would I have to say the opposite of everything else I had been saying? Would I praise the teacher union and the need to assign students to schools based on where they live?
Besides, what do they mean by “group blog”? Don’t they know that it’s been all me, me, me (except for all of the funny stuff — that’s Matt, and all of the smart stuff — that’s Greg).

I’m suffering from blog envy. Other blogs have had some great posts — much better than what I’ve come up with recently. If I can’t beat them I might as well link to them and poach their material.
First, Brian Kisida has a superb post at Mid-Riffs on the predictable waste and banality of consultant reports in the political and education arena. He demonstrates this using as his examples a “curriculum audit” that the Fayetteville school district has commissioned from Phi Delta Kappa for $36,000 as well as a “visioning” report that the City of Fayetteville commissioned from Eva Klein & Associates for $150,000:
To be sure, the report that Phi Delta Kappa comes up with won’t look exactly like the same ideas the community gave them. They’ll be re-written in such a way that any resemblance or lack of substance will be obfuscated by consultant-speak gobbledy-gook. For example, when the Rogers School District hired Phi Delta Kappa to conduct an audit, one of the recommendations they received was:
Develop and implement a comprehensive curriculum management system that delineates short- and long-term goals, directs curriculum revision to ensure deep alignment and quality delivery, and defines the instructional model district leaders expect teachers to follow in delivering the curriculum.
Translation: Establish a system to set and achieve goals. And make it a good one.
Here’s another recommendation from the Rogers audit:
Research, identify and implement strategies to eliminate inequities and inequalities that impede opportunities for all students to succeed.
Translation: Do what you and every other school district has already been doing (or should have been doing) for decades.
I’m willing to bet Fayetteville’s audit will contain many of the same recommendations given to Rogers. These types of consultant groups have stock boiler-plate language that they recycle time and time again. I also expect to see some of the views of the community rewritten in consultant-speak. Here’s some of the comments and concerns the Northwest Arkansas Times picked up from teachers and parents at one of the focus groups:
I got this list from the newspaper, which cost me fifty cents–a whopping $35,499.50 less than Phi Delta Kappa is going to charge for repackaging these ideas in consultant-speak.
I don’t know exactly why organizations pay money to outside consultants, like when the city paid Eva Klein & Associates to tell us that the University was one of our strengths, and that the perception that Fayetteville was anti-business was one of our weaknesses. Don’t we already elect and pay people to think about these things and have a vision for what we need to do? So why are they sub-contracting out their duties?
Wow. Great blogging!
And Paul Peterson is hitting his stride as a blogger over at the Education Next Blog. There he notes the political difficulty posed by teacher union financial might for President Obama and Secretary Duncan’s efforts to turn Race to the Top rhetoric into reality:
The National Education Association (and its local affiliates) gave $56.3 million dollars to state and federal election campaigns in 2007 and 2008, more than any other entity. That’s what we learn from the recently released report issued by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) together with the National Institute on Money in State Politics.
The much smaller American Federation of Teachers tossed in another $12 million dollars into political campaigns….
The money is wrested directly from teacher paychecks as an add-on to their monthly dues (unless teachers specifically object), a power granted unions by school boards as part of collective bargaining deals. So the NEA’s slush fund is in fact built by taxpayer dollars, which flow directly to the NEA instead of into the teacher’s own bank account. Yes, some individual teachers object and don’t make the political contribution, but unions typically collect the money by default.
With all that cash in hand, unions are in a position to tell state legislatures what to do, if they want campaign dollars next time around. Significantly, over $53 million of the $56.3 million dollars went for state-level expenditures, a clear indication that unions know that the action is not in Washington but in state capitols.
This enormous cash nexus that swamps anything any business entity has contributed creates a huge problem for President Obama’s Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, who is asking states and school districts to put merit pay into place.

Mid-Riffs, a blog started by a bunch of my friends, is off to a great start with several posts on the high school millage in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Sometimes I agree with them and sometimes I don’t, but they are always fun to read.
The election is today, so be sure to check out their excellent information and analysis. In particular, they have argued:
But Mid-Riffs did make a case for why we might want to spend $116 million to tear-down the currently functional building for a brand new one — we like shiny new things. We don’t need to buy diamond engagement rings, but people like to have them. We don’t need a new building, but we might still want to have one.
It’s not a very compelling argument, but it is no worse of a reason than your reason for buying that new Lexus.

Check out the new blog, Mid-Riffs. It’s got a catchy name for a blog offering “a view from mid-America.” In it’s inaugural post it declared:
“While those of us that contribute here won’t always agree, we are bound by a shared appreciation for good arguments, logical consistency, geeky sarcasm, and all things good. We are against things that are bad (e.g., Texas).”
And in its first substantive post, Mid-Riffs takes on the new high school millage in Fayetteville, Arkansas.
(edited to correct typo)

Education Next launched a blog to accompany their re-designed web site. It looks great!
And yours truly has a post on the Ed Next blog about teacher burn-out. Check it out!