Last week, Reed Hastings predicted the future.  He suggested that elected school boards all regress to the mean and that it’s impossible to create continuity of leadership.

Denver had the most aggressive reform agenda of any district led by an elected board until yesterday when they began the regression to the mean.  It happened to Jim Sweeny in Sacramento, Alan Bersin in San Diego, and now Tom Boasberg in Denver.  It certainly doesn’t help Colorado’s RttT agenda.

It was not a great week for Democrats but it’s hard to know yet what it means for education.  It is no accident that Obama was in Wisconsin talking about education the day after elections. Newly elected Gov Christie visited a charter school in Newark.  The election was a boost for charters in NJ (where all the candidates jumped on the charter bus).  Tom Carroll suggests it will be interesting watching Christie and Booker collaborate on the charter agenda. EduFlack speculates on the tricky RttT handoff.

The White House could use a win but I don’t think ESEA reauthorization got any easier.   A few more congressional democrats are nervous this week about choice and accountability.

This administration has taken a tougher stance on basic union issues than any in modern times.  While it’s true that ARRA saved education jobs, upcoming grant programs will cause big dislocations and reforms in how teachers are evaluated and compensated.  Let’s hope we don’t see a regression to the mean.

Previous articleWow, DOD gets learning
Next articleBig Levers
Tom Vander Ark
Tom Vander Ark is author of Smart Parents, Smart Cities and Getting Smart. He is co-founder of Getting Smart and Learn Capital and serves on the boards of 4.0 Schools, eduInnovation, Digital Learning Institute, Imagination Foundation, Charter Board Partners and Bloomboard. Follow Tom on Twitter, @tvanderark.

1 COMMENT

  1. The more important point is that the leadership and dynamism of virtually all organizations regress to the mean. In most cases, the faster they transition from the entrepreneur on the edge to a bureacracy, the more likely they will freeze up. Few organizations of any size manage to maintain “the way” of the founder, and those that do are in constant jeopardy.

    How does this happen? At some point what began as support activities become larger and more important than the reason the organization was started. Once the founder is gone, the sheer weight of infrastructure overwhelms whoever remains with a commitment to mission.

    (In this respect, Mao’s “Cultural Revolution” was good management.)

    To my mind that’s one of many, many arguments why we ought to have a system of support owned by individual independent charter schools, rather than a bureacracy of support (i.e., Charter Management Organization) DIRECTING schools it owns. Turn the CMO on its head (Charter Support Organization) and you have an interesting business/education model.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here