Master’s of None

David Firestone , an associate special ed teacher in New York City , is in his final semester of a master ’ s program at the Hunter College School of Education .
Yet he still feels like he hasn ’ t learned one of the core skills of teaching .
“ No one has ever bothered to teach us how to write a real lesson plan , ” he told me in November .
“ They just care that we know how to write edTPA lesson plans.
” He was referring to the test you ’ re required to pass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a teacher .
A real-world lesson plan is usually half a page , maybe a little more .
What the program has instead drilled into him is how to write the kind of document he will submit to get his teaching license : a super-detailed , eight-page plan , essentially a script of everything he ’ d say in a class .
As a full-time associate special ed teacher and a graduate student on the side , Firestone has a finely calibrated sense of time—how to divvy it up , maximize it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ house in central Brooklyn at seven to get to school in south Brooklyn by eight , teaches a full day of classes , and finishes just before three .
Then he spends an hour and 20 minutes trekking to the Upper East Side of Manhattan to take grad school classes , which can run until 9:40 p.m .
He often doesn ’ t get home until after 11 .
That doesn ’ t leave a lot of time for eight-page lesson plans .
Frequently he writes his on the subway .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as “ brutal ” and “ God awful.
” So why do it ?
Because he has to .
Right now , one of the most common ways that school districts attempt to increase teacher quality is through master ’ s degrees .
Some states , like New York , Maryland , and Connecticut , require that teachers get master ’ s degrees in order to keep teaching .
Far more states encourage teachers to get them by tying them to pay raises .
It makes sense for states and school districts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There are many factors schools can ’ t control , such as family income , parents ’ level of education , and so on .
But out of the factors they can influence , like class size or access to technology , one has a far greater impact on student achievement than all the rest : teacher quality .
Research shows that having a great teacher rather than an average one makes as much as a half year ’ s difference in learning growth .
The problem is that education master ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better teachers .
While programs vary greatly , and some stand above the rest , the teachers I interviewed told me that they had spent too much time on theory and not enough on practical teaching skills ; professors were too far removed from the classroom and using out-of-date pedagogy ; and many programs simply weren ’ t rigorous .
Decades of research back up their critiques .
“ When you talk to someone who is not in the weeds of ed research , they would be shocked that more education wouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” said Dan Goldhaber , who directs the Center for Education Data and Research at the University of Washington .
But that ’ s what the data shows .
Students whose teachers have a master ’ s degree don ’ t perform better on standardized tests—an incomplete but meaningful metric—than students whose teachers have just a bachelor ’ s degree .
Some teachers get a master ’ s because they want to .
But many do it because their district requires them to , or because they aren ’ t being paid much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get a raise .
Some teachers bluntly told me their degrees were a waste of time—a surprising admission given the strong human impulse to attribute value to whatever you ’ ve already spent a lot of money on .
In districts across the country , teachers aren ’ t paid enough .
To attract talented , devoted people to the profession—and so that teachers don ’ t need second and third jobs—we need to pay them more .
What doesn ’ t make sense is tying increased teacher pay to cumbersome , expensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ improve teacher quality .
And it ’ s clear that there ’ s a better way .
American teachers weren ’ t paid salaries at all well into the 19th century .
Schools were largely community organized , and teachers ’ compensation mostly consisted of free room and board .
By the early 20th century , with the cash economy in full swing and K–8 education growing rapidly , teaching had become more professionalized—but teacher pay reflected the intense racial and gender inequities of the time .
In part to confront that unfairness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on objective criteria like training and years of experience .
Scholars disagree on when exactly the master ’ s pay bump started , but by the 1960s it had become widespread .
This arrangement has proven durable .
It makes budgeting more predictable for school districts .
It suits the needs of teachers ’ unions , who want to increase benefits that are equally accessible to all their members and tend to prefer linking pay to seniority rather than performance .
And , not incidentally , it ensures a steady stream of tuition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What the system does not do , however , is improve teacher quality .
That ’ s not exactly what Arthur Levine expected to find when he set out to study the field of teacher education in the early 2000s .
At the time , he was the president of Columbia University ’ s Teachers College , one of the most prestigious programs of its kind in the country .
Education schools were coming under criticism , but Levine assumed that his research project would prove their value .
He and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 28 case studies of education programs , resulting in a more than 100-page report .
“ When I started the study , what I suspected was that the criticism was overstated , ” he told me recently .
He was wrong .
“ Things were so much worse than I had imagined , ” he said .
“ It was shocking.
” While there were some standout programs , on the whole he found a system rife with low selectivity , low rigor , and low graduation standards .
Students criticized faculty for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to dated material and a lack of practical tips .
Worst of all were school- administration programs , which many teachers enroll in with an eye toward career advancement , and of which Levine concluded , “ The majority of programs range from inadequate to appalling.
” Subsequent studies have backed up Levine ’ s research , showing that teachers with master ’ s degrees aren ’ t any better , on average , at educating students .
( A notable exception , according to recent research , is that students had higher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s degrees in math or science . )
The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education , which represents hundreds of colleges and universities that have education programs , cautions that much of this research relies narrowly on student performance on tests , and doesn ’ t capture other skills we expect teachers to impart .
But the consensus among people who have studied the question is overwhelming .
“ Most of the research is that there ’ s either no statistically significant difference , or small significant differences , in teachers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Thomas Kane , an economist and professor of education at Harvard .
Matthew Chingos , an education-policy expert at the Urban Institute , has described it as “ one of the most consistent findings in education research.
” Kate Walsh , president of the National Council on Teacher Quality , put it more bluntly : “ It ’ s as conclusive as research that finds smoking causes lung cancer .
It ’ s as conclusive as the research on climate change.
” It cuts against logic .
How could several years , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thousands of dollars spent on making teachers better not make better teachers ?
One explanation I heard again and again was that programs spend too much time on theory and not enough on practice .
“ Education programs in general are abstract , and they don ’ t really give teachers opportunities with real-world practical strategies which you can utilize in classrooms , ” said Jessica Chirico , a social-studies teacher at a New York City charter school , who , like David Firestone , did her master ’ s at Hunter College @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Piaget is a great guy , ” she said , referencing two famous pedagogical theorists .
“ But at the end of the day , the kid is throwing paper balls at his friend in the classroom , Johnny is not listening—how is that going to help you ?
” Firestone found that many of his professors were professional academics who hadn ’ t worked in a school classroom for decades , or at all .
“ There ’ s nothing wrong with leaving the classroom to be an academic , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find that people who are in the classroom every single day think more practically than the academics.
” Other teachers noted that their professors weren ’ t using up-to-date pedagogical practices themselves .
Martin Goldman-Kirst , a math teacher at Cleveland High School in Washington State , recalled the irony of being lectured on not lecturing his students .
“ I found that really funny , ” he said .
“ It would have been funnier had I not been so bored.
” When programs do try to deliver hands-on classroom experiences , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the degree—but it can also fall flat .
Firestone was required to spend a summer observing and learning from full-time teachers leading summer school classes .
But the teachers , he said , were hardly models to emulate .
They were mostly close to retirement or brand new , and were teaching summer classes because they needed the money or didn ’ t yet have a full-time job .
Sometimes Firestone found himself offering to take over a lesson .
To the extent that programs are challenging , most teachers I spoke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ schedule , rather than the rigor of the content .
This leads to perverse incentives .
The salary bump for getting a master ’ s degree is given in exchange for the signed and stamped diploma , whether or not teaching improves .
Teachers , most of whom already have tightly packed schedules , often seek the least time-consuming programs .
Schools of education , in turn , compete for customers by making their programs less demanding .
In many districts , there are few restrictions on the types of degrees that qualify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like school administration , unrelated to what they teach .
It might qualify them for a more lucrative leadership position down the line , but it won ’ t make them a better math , Spanish , or history teacher now .
“ You could get a master ’ s degree from a topflight master ’ s of education program , or you could go to a fly-by-night program , and typically those two would be treated the same [ by the school district ] , ” said Dan Goldhaber , the researcher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lozito , a social-studies teacher who works with Chirico , would have liked to get an advanced degree in history .
But when she compared syllabi , she quickly realized that a master ’ s in education would entail less reading and writing , and would cover material she was already familiar with from her undergrad courses .
Her schedule couldn ’ t bear the workload of the history degree , so she chose a master ’ s in adolescent education offered online through Mercy College .
The homework mostly entailed posting in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It was a lot of “ ‘ Yeah , I agree with so-and-so ’ s point , ’ ” she said , and it got tedious .
“ I will be 100 percent honest , I did not notice any added value with this degree , ” she told me .
“ With the exception of a couple of things I gleaned from the texts , I feel like if I had never gotten it , I ’ d be teaching the same way.
” Nixing the automatic master ’ s pay bump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely face intense resistance from teachers ’ unions .
It would also draw quiet resistance from a less obvious source : the universities awarding degrees .
Data from the Department of Education shows that education master ’ s degrees are the second most commonly awarded master ’ s degrees in the country , after MBAs .
That makes them an important and reliable source of tuition revenue—as long as teachers feel the need to get them .
Marguerite Roza , an education-finance expert , got an inkling of that fact when she published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ master ’ s bump.
” The money going toward degree-based pay raises—nearly $ 15 billion nationwide in the 2007–08 school year—was a waste , she argued .
She authored that paper from her perch at the time at the University of Washington ’ s College of Education—the very sort of institution that was benefitting from the arrangement .
The paper had been out for less than a week , Roza said , when she heard from the dean of the college , Patricia Wasley .
Wasley told Roza she had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ education programs across the country , according to Roza .
They were asking that she censure Roza or even make her retract the paper .
Wasley declined .
“ The college of ed , for sure , earned a lot of their money through this whole handshake relationship with the school districts , ” Roza told me .
“ It makes colleges of education extremely resistant to any real change.
” That doesn ’ t make real change impossible , however—in fact , some states have already done it .
In 2013 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ master ’ s degrees in part because of the research finding their limited impact on student achievement , and in part because of budget squeezes from the Great Recession .
But wait : Does this mean paying teachers less ?
As teacher strikes have swept across the country , the public has been reminded that in many places , teachers make so little that some end up taking second jobs , or even , in extreme cases , selling their plasma .
In most places , we should be paying teachers more , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money should still go to teachers—it just shouldn ’ t be tied to an expensive , time-consuming degree with no tangible benefit .
Simply giving all teachers higher salaries , says Roza , would be better than having teachers go into debt to get degrees .
Some districts are proving that it ’ s possible to do one better .
Over the past decade , DC Public Schools ( DCPS ) , long seen as one of the worst school systems in the nation , has clawed its way up the ranks of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In 2019 , only D.C. and one state ( Mississippi ) saw improvement across most measures on an important national test of fourth and eight graders .
Some of those gains are due to demographic changes , but research shows that demographic change isn ’ t the whole story .
The district also undertook a series of major but controversial reforms aimed at improving the quality of the teacher workforce .
As part of the teacher effort , it abandoned the traditional practice of paying teachers strictly on the basis of years of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new evaluation system , combining principal evaluations throughout the year with student test scores and other measures .
High marks meant that a teacher would get a substantial bonus and , in some cases , permanent bumps up the pay scale .
The small percentage of teachers rated “ ineffective ” were dismissed .
In addition to shifting to a performance-based pay system , the district also beefed up mentoring and career development , including by implementing a weekly coaching program .
Vast racial and socioeconomic achievement gaps among students remain , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surveyed their members , a majority said they felt that the evaluations were unfairly subjective .
But academic researchers found that , on average , low-performing teachers who leave the system are replaced by more effective ones .
And a recent Washington Post poll found that the share of Washingtonians who approve of the city ’ s schools ( including charters ) is at a record high , and up sharply from 2008 .
Not all school districts could easily replicate what DCPS has done .
Smaller districts , especially in rural areas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so easily , and they may not have resources for a robust coaching system .
In other words , those districts will still have to rely on university programs to provide continuing education for their teachers .
The question is how to make those programs better .
When I put that question to experts , several suggested looking into Relay , an independent nonprofit grad school that focuses exclusively on teacher and school-leader education .
Initially incubated within Hunter College and accredited in 2011 , Relay was created to be a hyper-practical program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first year , students work in classrooms full-time with mentor teachers , earning assistant-teacher salaries .
At the same time , they ’ re taking classes and being coached by professors—all of whom have been classroom teachers for years .
In their second year , Relay students lead classrooms , earn full salaries , and continue to take courses and receive feedback .
Student teachers submit video of themselves leading classes , which professors review and give them feedback on , like a football coach going over a game tape with players .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has campuses in 19 cities .
It says it educates more than 4,000 student teachers .
The school ’ s impact on students hasn ’ t yet been evaluated by third-party researchers , but some early indicators are promising .
Relay had 18 first-year teachers working in DCPS in the 2018–19 school year who were assessed under the district ’ s evaluation system .
While it ’ s hard to draw conclusions from such a small sample , Relay says the share of its first-year teachers scoring in the top two brackets was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ novice teachers in the district .
Researchers will watch as Relay and other programs test out new strategies .
But there ’ s a larger , structural fix : decoupling master ’ s degrees from automatic raises .
Enrollment in education master ’ s programs would almost surely dip , at least initially , but those still choosing to enroll would become more demanding customers .
As Marguerite Roza and Patricia Wasley put it in a piece for Education Week responding to the backlash against Roza ’ s research , replacing the master @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ tip the scales to those programs that have redefined their offerings with a focus on achieving better results in the classroom.
” Figuring out how to actually make teachers more effective should be a national priority , Arthur Levine said .
“ The research makes clear that teacher quality is one of the best investments we could possibly make , ” he told me .
“ Our future depends upon the quality of our teaching force.
” Correction : A previous version of this story incorrectly described David Firestone as a special @ @ @ @ @ @ @ special ed teacher .
We regret the error .

David Firestone, an associate special ed teacher in New York City, is in his final semester of a master’s program at the Hunter College School of Education. Yet he still feels like he hasn’t learned one of the core skills of teaching.
“No one has ever bothered to teach us how to write a real lesson plan,” he told me in November. “They just care that we know how to write edTPA lesson plans.” He was referring to the test you’re required to pass in New York State to become certified as a teacher. A real-world lesson plan is usually half a page, maybe a little more. What the program has instead drilled into him is how to write the kind of document he will submit to get his teaching license: a super-detailed, eight-page plan, essentially a script of everything he’d say in a class.
As a full-time associate special ed teacher and a graduate student on the side, Firestone has a finely calibrated sense of time—how to divvy it up, maximize it, save it. He leaves his house in central Brooklyn at seven to get to school in south Brooklyn by eight, teaches a full day of classes, and finishes just before three. Then he spends an hour and 20 minutes trekking to the Upper East Side of Manhattan to take grad school classes, which can run until 9:40 p.m. He often doesn’t get home until after 11. That doesn’t leave a lot of time for eight-page lesson plans. Frequently he writes his on the subway. It’s a schedule that he described alternately as “brutal” and “God awful.”
So why do it? Because he has to. Right now, one of the most common ways that school districts attempt to increase teacher quality is through master’s degrees. Some states, like New York, Maryland, and Connecticut, require that teachers get master’s degrees in order to keep teaching. Far more states encourage teachers to get them by tying them to pay raises.
It makes sense for states and school districts to look for ways to improve teacher quality. There are many factors schools can’t control, such as family income, parents’ level of education, and so on. But out of the factors they can influence, like class size or access to technology, one has a far greater impact on student achievement than all the rest: teacher quality. Research shows that having a great teacher rather than an average one makes as much as a half year’s difference in learning growth.
Some teachers bluntly told me their degrees were a waste of time—a surprising admission given the strong human impulse to attribute value to whatever you’ve already spent a lot of money on.
The problem is that education master’s programs generally don’t produce better teachers. While programs vary greatly, and some stand above the rest, the teachers I interviewed told me that they had spent too much time on theory and not enough on practical teaching skills; professors were too far removed from the classroom and using out-of-date pedagogy; and many programs simply weren’t rigorous. Decades of research back up their critiques.
“When you talk to someone who is not in the weeds of ed research, they would be shocked that more education wouldn’t make a teacher more productive,” said Dan Goldhaber, who directs the Center for Education Data and Research at the University of Washington. But that’s what the data shows. Students whose teachers have a master’s degree don’t perform better on standardized tests—an incomplete but meaningful metric—than students whose teachers have just a bachelor’s degree.
Some teachers get a master’s because they want to. But many do it because their district requires them to, or because they aren’t being paid much and it’s a way to get a raise. Some teachers bluntly told me their degrees were a waste of time—a surprising admission given the strong human impulse to attribute value to whatever you’ve already spent a lot of money on.
In districts across the country, teachers aren’t paid enough. To attract talented, devoted people to the profession—and so that teachers don’t need second and third jobs—we need to pay them more. What doesn’t make sense is tying increased teacher pay to cumbersome, expensive degree programs that don’t actually improve teacher quality. And it’s clear that there’s a better way.
American teachers weren’t paid salaries at all well into the 19th century. Schools were largely community organized, and teachers’ compensation mostly consisted of free room and board. By the early 20th century, with the cash economy in full swing and K–8 education growing rapidly, teaching had become more professionalized—but teacher pay reflected the intense racial and gender inequities of the time. In part to confront that unfairness, districts began setting pay schedules based on objective criteria like training and years of experience. Scholars disagree on when exactly the master’s pay bump started, but by the 1960s it had become widespread.
This arrangement has proven durable. It makes budgeting more predictable for school districts. It suits the needs of teachers’ unions, who want to increase benefits that are equally accessible to all their members and tend to prefer linking pay to seniority rather than performance. And, not incidentally, it ensures a steady stream of tuition revenue to the universities offering the degrees.
What the system does not do, however, is improve teacher quality.
That’s not exactly what Arthur Levine expected to find when he set out to study the field of teacher education in the early 2000s. At the time, he was the president of Columbia University’s Teachers College, one of the most prestigious programs of its kind in the country. Education schools were coming under criticism, but Levine assumed that his research project would prove their value. He and his research team conducted four massive surveys and 28 case studies of education programs, resulting in a more than 100-page report.
“When I started the study, what I suspected was that the criticism was overstated,” he told me recently. He was wrong. “Things were so much worse than I had imagined,” he said. “It was shocking.” While there were some standout programs, on the whole he found a system rife with low selectivity, low rigor, and low graduation standards. Students criticized faculty for having limited classroom experience, which led to dated material and a lack of practical tips. Worst of all were school- administration programs, which many teachers enroll in with an eye toward career advancement, and of which Levine concluded, “The majority of programs range from inadequate to appalling.”
Subsequent studies have backed up Levine’s research, showing that teachers with master’s degrees aren’t any better, on average, at educating students. (A notable exception, according to recent research, is that students had higher math scores when their teachers had master’s degrees in math or science.) The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, which represents hundreds of colleges and universities that have education programs, cautions that much of this research relies narrowly on student performance on tests, and doesn’t capture other skills we expect teachers to impart. But the consensus among people who have studied the question is overwhelming.
“Most of the research is that there’s either no statistically significant difference, or small significant differences, in teachers with master’s degrees,” said Thomas Kane, an economist and professor of education at Harvard. Matthew Chingos, an education-policy expert at the Urban Institute, has described it as “one of the most consistent findings in education research.” Kate Walsh, president of the National Council on Teacher Quality, put it more bluntly: “It’s as conclusive as research that finds smoking causes lung cancer. It’s as conclusive as the research on climate change.”
It cuts against logic. How could several years, hundreds of hours, and tens of thousands of dollars spent on making teachers better not make better teachers?
One explanation I heard again and again was that programs spend too much time on theory and not enough on practice. “Education programs in general are abstract, and they don’t really give teachers opportunities with real-world practical strategies which you can utilize in classrooms,” said Jessica Chirico, a social-studies teacher at a New York City charter school, who, like David Firestone, did her master’s at Hunter College. “Vygotsky is a great guy, Piaget is a great guy,” she said, referencing two famous pedagogical theorists. “But at the end of the day, the kid is throwing paper balls at his friend in the classroom, Johnny is not listening—how is that going to help you?”
Firestone found that many of his professors were professional academics who hadn’t worked in a school classroom for decades, or at all. “There’s nothing wrong with leaving the classroom to be an academic,” he said. “But I just find that people who are in the classroom every single day think more practically than the academics.” Other teachers noted that their professors weren’t using up-to-date pedagogical practices themselves. Martin Goldman-Kirst, a math teacher at Cleveland High School in Washington State, recalled the irony of being lectured on not lecturing his students. “I found that really funny,” he said. “It would have been funnier had I not been so bored.”
When programs do try to deliver hands-on classroom experiences, it can be the most valuable part of the degree—but it can also fall flat. Firestone was required to spend a summer observing and learning from full-time teachers leading summer school classes. But the teachers, he said, were hardly models to emulate. They were mostly close to retirement or brand new, and were teaching summer classes because they needed the money or didn’t yet have a full-time job. Sometimes Firestone found himself offering to take over a lesson.
To the extent that programs are challenging, most teachers I spoke with pointed to the burden on their schedule, rather than the rigor of the content. This leads to perverse incentives. The salary bump for getting a master’s degree is given in exchange for the signed and stamped diploma, whether or not teaching improves. Teachers, most of whom already have tightly packed schedules, often seek the least time-consuming programs. Schools of education, in turn, compete for customers by making their programs less demanding. In many districts, there are few restrictions on the types of degrees that qualify, so often teachers choose subjects, like school administration, unrelated to what they teach. It might qualify them for a more lucrative leadership position down the line, but it won’t make them a better math, Spanish, or history teacher now. “You could get a master’s degree from a topflight master’s of education program, or you could go to a fly-by-night program, and typically those two would be treated the same [by the school district],” said Dan Goldhaber, the researcher at the University of Washington.
Teachers, most of whom already have tightly packed schedules, often seek the least time-consuming programs. Schools of education, in turn, compete for customers by making their programs less demanding.
Laura Lozito, a social-studies teacher who works with Chirico, would have liked to get an advanced degree in history. But when she compared syllabi, she quickly realized that a master’s in education would entail less reading and writing, and would cover material she was already familiar with from her undergrad courses. Her schedule couldn’t bear the workload of the history degree, so she chose a master’s in adolescent education offered online through Mercy College. The homework mostly entailed posting in an online forum for her class. It was a lot of “ ‘Yeah, I agree with so-and-so’s point,’ ” she said, and it got tedious. “I will be 100 percent honest, I did not notice any added value with this degree,” she told me. “With the exception of a couple of things I gleaned from the texts, I feel like if I had never gotten it, I’d be teaching the same way.”
Nixing the automatic master’s pay bump, which many experts advocate, would likely face intense resistance from teachers’ unions. It would also draw quiet resistance from a less obvious source: the universities awarding degrees. Data from the Department of Education shows that education master’s degrees are the second most commonly awarded master’s degrees in the country, after MBAs. That makes them an important and reliable source of tuition revenue—as long as teachers feel the need to get them.
Marguerite Roza, an education-finance expert, got an inkling of that fact when she published a paper arguing that states should end the “master’s bump.” The money going toward degree-based pay raises—nearly $15 billion nationwide in the 2007–08 school year—was a waste, she argued. She authored that paper from her perch at the time at the University of Washington’s College of Education—the very sort of institution that was benefitting from the arrangement.
The paper had been out for less than a week, Roza said, when she heard from the dean of the college, Patricia Wasley. Wasley told Roza she had been inundated by calls from deans of other education programs across the country, according to Roza. They were asking that she censure Roza or even make her retract the paper. Wasley declined.
“The college of ed, for sure, earned a lot of their money through this whole handshake relationship with the school districts,” Roza told me. “It makes colleges of education extremely resistant to any real change.”
That doesn’t make real change impossible, however—in fact, some states have already done it. In 2013, North Carolina stopped paying teachers extra for master’s degrees in part because of the research finding their limited impact on student achievement, and in part because of budget squeezes from the Great Recession.
But wait: Does this mean paying teachers less? As teacher strikes have swept across the country, the public has been reminded that in many places, teachers make so little that some end up taking second jobs, or even, in extreme cases, selling their plasma. In most places, we should be paying teachers more, not less.
Data shows that education master’s degrees are the second most commonly awarded master’s degrees in the country, after MBAs. That makes them a reliable source of tuition revenue for the universities—as long as teachers feel the need to get them.
Roza agrees. This money should still go to teachers—it just shouldn’t be tied to an expensive, time-consuming degree with no tangible benefit. Simply giving all teachers higher salaries, says Roza, would be better than having teachers go into debt to get degrees.
Some districts are proving that it’s possible to do one better. Over the past decade, DC Public Schools (DCPS), long seen as one of the worst school systems in the nation, has clawed its way up the ranks of urban school districts across the country. In 2019, only D.C. and one state (Mississippi) saw improvement across most measures on an important national test of fourth and eight graders. Some of those gains are due to demographic changes, but research shows that demographic change isn’t the whole story. The district also undertook a series of major but controversial reforms aimed at improving the quality of the teacher workforce. As part of the teacher effort, it abandoned the traditional practice of paying teachers strictly on the basis of years of service and graduate credits. It implemented a new evaluation system, combining principal evaluations throughout the year with student test scores and other measures. High marks meant that a teacher would get a substantial bonus and, in some cases, permanent bumps up the pay scale. The small percentage of teachers rated “ineffective” were dismissed. In addition to shifting to a performance-based pay system, the district also beefed up mentoring and career development, including by implementing a weekly coaching program.
Vast racial and socioeconomic achievement gaps among students remain, and when the Washington Teachers’ Union surveyed their members, a majority said they felt that the evaluations were unfairly subjective. But academic researchers found that, on average, low-performing teachers who leave the system are replaced by more effective ones. And a recent Washington Post poll found that the share of Washingtonians who approve of the city’s schools (including charters) is at a record high, and up sharply from 2008.
Not all school districts could easily replicate what DCPS has done. Smaller districts, especially in rural areas, can’t replace low-performing teachers so easily, and they may not have resources for a robust coaching system. In other words, those districts will still have to rely on university programs to provide continuing education for their teachers. The question is how to make those programs better.
When I put that question to experts, several suggested looking into Relay, an independent nonprofit grad school that focuses exclusively on teacher and school-leader education. Initially incubated within Hunter College and accredited in 2011, Relay was created to be a hyper-practical program for training new teachers. In their first year, students work in classrooms full-time with mentor teachers, earning assistant-teacher salaries. At the same time, they’re taking classes and being coached by professors—all of whom have been classroom teachers for years. In their second year, Relay students lead classrooms, earn full salaries, and continue to take courses and receive feedback. Student teachers submit video of themselves leading classes, which professors review and give them feedback on, like a football coach going over a game tape with players.
Relay has grown quickly, and now has campuses in 19 cities. It says it educates more than 4,000 student teachers. The school’s impact on students hasn’t yet been evaluated by third-party researchers, but some early indicators are promising. Relay had 18 first-year teachers working in DCPS in the 2018–19 school year who were assessed under the district’s evaluation system. While it’s hard to draw conclusions from such a small sample, Relay says the share of its first-year teachers scoring in the top two brackets was nearly 20 percentage points higher than other novice teachers in the district.
Researchers will watch as Relay and other programs test out new strategies. But there’s a larger, structural fix: decoupling master’s degrees from automatic raises. Enrollment in education master’s programs would almost surely dip, at least initially, but those still choosing to enroll would become more demanding customers. As Marguerite Roza and Patricia Wasley put it in a piece for Education Week responding to the backlash against Roza’s research, replacing the master’s bump with performance-based pay would “tip the scales to those programs that have redefined their offerings with a focus on achieving better results in the classroom.”
Figuring out how to actually make teachers more effective should be a national priority, Arthur Levine said. “The research makes clear that teacher quality is one of the best investments we could possibly make,” he told me. “Our future depends upon the quality of our teaching force.”
This piece was produced in partnership with FutureEd, an independent think tank at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy. Brooke LePage provided research assistance.
Correction: A previous version of this story incorrectly described David Firestone as a special ed teacher. He is an associate special ed teacher. We regret the error.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-13--How to Save Liberalism in the U.S. and Europe

Pro-Brexit Conservatives win a landslide victory in the U.K. Donald Trump is laughed out of a NATO summit after French President Emmanuel Macron declared the organization “ brain dead.
” Poland ’ s far-right government attempts to purge its judiciary , while Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán tightens his grip on the country ’ s media .
Russia funds radical , anti-Europe , right-wing parties and floods U.S. elections with fake news .
Every month , it seems , brings new evidence that the Transatlantic Alliance that has kept the peace and promoted democracy for seven decades is slowly cracking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monthly published a proposal by editor Daniel Block to revitalize the alliance and reverse the slide toward authoritarianism with a truly progressive U.S.-EU trade deal ( “ Free Trade for Liberals , ” July/August 2019 ) .
This new “ Atlantic Alliance , ” Block argued , would cut tariffs between the United States and Europe in exchange for binding commitments to raise labor , environmental , and antitrust standards .
The aim would be to boost incomes for average citizens , reversing the devastating income inequality that is one of the main @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current slide toward illiberalism .
For this issue , the Monthly asked five foreign-policy and economics experts to weigh in with their own proposals for revitalizing the U.S.-Europe relationship and promoting democracy in both places .
They came back with proposals that detail everything from the rhetoric the next president can use immediately to stabilize deteriorating relations to what substantive new security arrangements both blocs should forge together for the long term .

Pro-Brexit Conservatives win a landslide victory in the U.K. Donald Trump is laughed out of a NATO summit after French President Emmanuel Macron declared the organization “brain dead.” Poland’s far-right government attempts to purge its judiciary, while Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán tightens his grip on the country’s media. Russia funds radical, anti-Europe, right-wing parties and floods U.S. elections with fake news. Every month, it seems, brings new evidence that the Transatlantic Alliance that has kept the peace and promoted democracy for seven decades is slowly cracking up.
Last summer, the Washington Monthly published a proposal by editor Daniel Block to revitalize the alliance and reverse the slide toward authoritarianism with a truly progressive U.S.-EU trade deal (“Free Trade for Liberals,” July/August 2019). This new “Atlantic Alliance,” Block argued, would cut tariffs between the United States and Europe in exchange for binding commitments to raise labor, environmental, and antitrust standards. The aim would be to boost incomes for average citizens, reversing the devastating income inequality that is one of the main causes of Europe and America’s current slide toward illiberalism.
For this issue, the Monthly asked five foreign-policy and economics experts to weigh in with their own proposals for revitalizing the U.S.-Europe relationship and promoting democracy in both places. They came back with proposals that detail everything from the rhetoric the next president can use immediately to stabilize deteriorating relations to what substantive new security arrangements both blocs should forge together for the long term.
— The Editors
Europe and America Must Redefine Security by Heather Hurlburt Stop fighting over chlorinated chickens and start cooperating over digital threats.
The Trading System FDR Envisioned by Beth Baltzan and Francesco Cerruti America’s 32nd president wanted economic deals that led to broadly shared growth. We can make that happen.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-14--Why the Progressive Message Isn’t Resonating With Older African Americans

One of the questions that has stumped ( mostly white ) reporters during the 2020 Democratic presidential primary is the overwhelming support Joe Biden is getting from African American voters .
While it is true that other candidates garner some support from younger black voters , the older crowd remains firmly in Biden ’ s camp .
We ’ ve heard some helpful explanations of this phenomenon from African American commentators recently , like Charles Blow and Marcus Johnson .
But Jason Johnson from The Root went right to the source and talked to a group of older black voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stood out to me .
First of all , these folks have been watching the political scene for decades now—and they ’ ve drawn some conclusions .
There has been a raging debate among Democrats for decades about whether it is possible to win back white working-class voters .
More than any other group , African Americans know that racism sits at the center of that discussion .
Given that their primary objective is to beat Donald Trump , these older black voters have made an interesting calculation .
They are betting on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white folks.
” I suspect that one of the things that went unsaid in these discussions is that older African Americans have spent years making that kind of calculation and never succumbed to the idea that they have to be emotionally inspired by a presidential candidate .
That leaves them free to be pragmatic on the question that seems to be front and center in 2020—electability .
At one point , Johnson gives us a hint about why so many older African Americans are rejecting the arguments made by the more progressive candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again focusing on white voters , said that growth and progress have slowed for all Americans since the 1940s .
I thought Yang was supposed to be good at MATH ?
Literally every generation of black people has done better than the previous one , ( even kids in the ’ 90s ) but that doesn ’ t mean the ’ 40s were some golden age either .
Trust me , we have committee members born in the ’ 40s—and by almost every empirical measure black Americans are better off in 2020 than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the minds of most white people—regardless of party affiliation—is the idea that life was better for middle-class Americans in the aftermath of World War II .
Progressives hail things like FDR ’ s New Deal and the rise of unions that spurred the hopes of an American dream .
What we tend to forget is that , for African Americans , racism and Jim Crow were alive and well through all of that .
So the 40s and 50s were hardly a golden age for them .
The trajectory of their lives didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ success of the Civil Rights Movement .
Eventually , African Americans started to buy into the so-called “ American dream.
” Back in 2011 , Ellis Cose identified the country ’ s “ new optimists.
” African-Americans , long accustomed to frustration in their pursuit of opportunity and respect , are amazingly upbeat , consistently astounding pollsters with their hopefulness .
Earlier this year , when a Washington Post–Kaiser–Harvard poll asked respondents whether they expected their children ’ s standard of living to be better or worse than their own , 60 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compared with only 36 percent of whites .
Although many African Americans identify long-standing problems that still plague the community—such as unemployment and access to high-quality education—the black population remains largely optimistic about the future and satisfied with the direction the country is going in , according to a new survey by Ebony magazine and the W.K .
Kellogg Foundation .
The rise of that kind of optimism within the African American community coincided with the rise of white progressive angst about income inequality and the way that it was killing the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this country ’ s first African American president , that helps explain the disconnect between progressives and black voters during the Obama presidency .
Of course , the racism that fueled the election of Donald Trump turned all of that on its head .
But that recent history helps explain why older African Americans would be suspicious about the kinds of deep structural changes proposed by the more progressive presidential candidates .
Not only are they betting on Biden being the candidate they can sneak by white voters , they simply want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to where they were in 2016—not 1950 .

One of the questions that has stumped (mostly white) reporters during the 2020 Democratic presidential primary is the overwhelming support Joe Biden is getting from African American voters. While it is true that other candidates garner some support from younger black voters, the older crowd remains firmly in Biden’s camp.
We’ve heard some helpful explanations of this phenomenon from African American commentators recently, like Charles Blow and Marcus Johnson. But Jason Johnson from The Root went right to the source and talked to a group of older black voters. A couple of things he heard stood out to me. First of all, these folks have been watching the political scene for decades now—and they’ve drawn some conclusions.
Senior Week committee members see Trump as a threat and have policy preferences just like everyone else. However, they have seen decades of “working class” white America voting against their own economic interests if it meant screwing over African Americans, too. So many of them looked for the best candidate for black America this week —one you could also sneak by white folks.
There has been a raging debate among Democrats for decades about whether it is possible to win back white working-class voters. More than any other group, African Americans know that racism sits at the center of that discussion. Given that their primary objective is to beat Donald Trump, these older black voters have made an interesting calculation. They are betting on a candidate they can “sneak by white folks.”
I suspect that one of the things that went unsaid in these discussions is that older African Americans have spent years making that kind of calculation and never succumbed to the idea that they have to be emotionally inspired by a presidential candidate. That leaves them free to be pragmatic on the question that seems to be front and center in 2020—electability.
At one point, Johnson gives us a hint about why so many older African Americans are rejecting the arguments made by the more progressive candidates.
Just this week, Yang, again focusing on white voters, said that growth and progress have slowed for all Americans since the 1940s. I thought Yang was supposed to be good at MATH? Literally every generation of black people has done better than the previous one, (even kids in the ’90s) but that doesn’t mean the ’40s were some golden age either. Trust me, we have committee members born in the ’40s—and by almost every empirical measure black Americans are better off in 2020 than we were in 1940.
Embedded in the minds of most white people—regardless of party affiliation—is the idea that life was better for middle-class Americans in the aftermath of World War II. Progressives hail things like FDR’s New Deal and the rise of unions that spurred the hopes of an American dream.
What we tend to forget is that, for African Americans, racism and Jim Crow were alive and well through all of that. So the 40s and 50s were hardly a golden age for them. The trajectory of their lives didn’t change until years after the success of the Civil Rights Movement. Eventually, African Americans started to buy into the so-called “American dream.” Back in 2011, Ellis Cose identified the country’s “new optimists.”
African-Americans, long accustomed to frustration in their pursuit of opportunity and respect, are amazingly upbeat, consistently astounding pollsters with their hopefulness. Earlier this year, when a Washington Post–Kaiser–Harvard poll asked respondents whether they expected their children’s standard of living to be better or worse than their own, 60 percent of blacks chose “better,” compared with only 36 percent of whites. Although many African Americans identify long-standing problems that still plague the community—such as unemployment and access to high-quality education—the black population remains largely optimistic about the future and satisfied with the direction the country is going in, according to a new survey by Ebony magazine and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation.
The rise of that kind of optimism within the African American community coincided with the rise of white progressive angst about income inequality and the way that it was killing the American dream. In addition to the election of this country’s first African American president, that helps explain the disconnect between progressives and black voters during the Obama presidency.
Of course, the racism that fueled the election of Donald Trump turned all of that on its head. But that recent history helps explain why older African Americans would be suspicious about the kinds of deep structural changes proposed by the more progressive presidential candidates. Not only are they betting on Biden being the candidate they can sneak by white voters, they simply want a president who will get things back to where they were in 2016—not 1950.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-14--Michael Bloomberg Will Be the Elephant at the Democratic Debate

Raise your hand if you predicted that Amy Klobuchar would be invited to the final Democratic Party debate before the Iowa Caucuses but Kamala Harris wouldn ’ t be , or if you thought there would be a mayor on the stage but no governors .
Who believed billionaire Tom Steyer would be there but Cory Booker and Julián Castro would not ?
There have been some surprises in the Democrats ’ campaign so far , but one thing seemed predictable : Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders would be near the top of the pack .
The media puts them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressive camps , respectively , with Pete Buttigieg and Klobuchar joining Biden and Elizabeth Warren joining Sanders .
Steyer is a bit of a wildcard .
Meanwhile , there are still some people who are technically running but didn ’ t make the cut , like businessman Andrew Yang and Senator Michael Bennet .
And there is former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick and billionaire media mogul Michael Bloomberg , both of whom got into the race very late .
The debate will air at 9 p.m .
ET and be televised on CNN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certainly win the Iowa Caucuses and seize the early momentum in the race .
At some point , though , they will have to reckon with Bloomberg , who is running a completely unconventional campaign .
Here is how Michael Scherer of the Washington Post describes it : The thing that makes Bloomberg different is that he can knock on all doors at once .
Bloomberg is running aggressively to win the Democratic nomination , but he is simultaneously building out a general election machine to defeat President Trump , with a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and policy—that aims to elect Democrats up and down the ballot even if the party ’ s voters reject the former New York mayor this spring .
The party he is moving to transform , which he only rejoined in October , has become little more than a bystander to his ambition .
With more than 800 employees , $ 200 million in ad spending so far and a fully catered Times Square office that houses hundreds of employees , “ Mike Bloomberg 2020 , Inc. ” does not resemble a primary campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an experiment in what happens to democracy when a single faction operates without economic constraints .
He has large ambitions , but his immediate electoral strategy is focused on winning the contests that begin in March .
In this sense , the early contests in Iowa , New Hampshire , South Carolina , and Nevada are really about discovering if a single person can be found to take on Bloomberg or if he ’ ll face a scattered opposition .
This doesn ’ t make Tuesday ’ s debate unimportant , but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Most people have been focused on deciding which candidate is best able to take on Donald Trump , but before they can get to him they will have to vanquish a different New York billionaire .
I ’ m sure this will come up during the debate , and perhaps Tom Steyer will argue that it takes a billionaire to beat billionaires .
If he ’ s convincing , it will another sign that we ’ re beginning to resemble the oligarchic system that prevails in the former Soviet Union more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we ’ ll see more jousting among the progressive and moderate wings , as they compete to be the alternative to Bloombergism .

Raise your hand if you predicted that Amy Klobuchar would be invited to the final Democratic Party debate before the Iowa Caucuses but Kamala Harris wouldn’t be, or if you thought there would be a mayor on the stage but no governors. Who believed billionaire Tom Steyer would be there but Cory Booker and Julián Castro would not?
There have been some surprises in the Democrats’ campaign so far, but one thing seemed predictable: Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders would be near the top of the pack. The media puts them at the top of the moderate and progressive camps, respectively, with Pete Buttigieg and Klobuchar joining Biden and Elizabeth Warren joining Sanders. Steyer is a bit of a wildcard.
Meanwhile, there are still some people who are technically running but didn’t make the cut, like businessman Andrew Yang and Senator Michael Bennet. And there is former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick and billionaire media mogul Michael Bloomberg, both of whom got into the race very late.
The debate will air at 9 p.m. ET and be televised on CNN. Someone on that stage will almost certainly win the Iowa Caucuses and seize the early momentum in the race. At some point, though, they will have to reckon with Bloomberg, who is running a completely unconventional campaign. Here is how Michael Scherer of the Washington Post describes it:
The thing that makes Bloomberg different is that he can knock on all doors at once. Bloomberg is running aggressively to win the Democratic nomination, but he is simultaneously building out a general election machine to defeat President Trump, with a new structure—data, field organizing, advertising, and policy—that aims to elect Democrats up and down the ballot even if the party’s voters reject the former New York mayor this spring. The party he is moving to transform, which he only rejoined in October, has become little more than a bystander to his ambition. With more than 800 employees, $200 million in ad spending so far and a fully catered Times Square office that houses hundreds of employees, “Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc.” does not resemble a primary campaign in any traditional sense. It is an experiment in what happens to democracy when a single faction operates without economic constraints.
He has large ambitions, but his immediate electoral strategy is focused on winning the contests that begin in March. In this sense, the early contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada are really about discovering if a single person can be found to take on Bloomberg or if he’ll face a scattered opposition.
This doesn’t make Tuesday’s debate unimportant, but it does cast it in a different light. Most people have been focused on deciding which candidate is best able to take on Donald Trump, but before they can get to him they will have to vanquish a different New York billionaire.
I’m sure this will come up during the debate, and perhaps Tom Steyer will argue that it takes a billionaire to beat billionaires. If he’s convincing, it will another sign that we’re beginning to resemble the oligarchic system that prevails in the former Soviet Union more than we resemble ourselves.
In the meantime, we’ll see more jousting among the progressive and moderate wings, as they compete to be the alternative to Bloombergism.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-15--Trump Says ‘It Doesn’t Really Matter’ Why He Decided to Assassinate Soleimani

The Trump administration spent days lying about what led up to the decision to assassinate Soleimani .
They insist that there were intelligence reports of “ imminent ” attacks , which they are unwilling to share with anyone .
As all of those rationales began to fall apart , the president told us that it doesn ’ t really matter .
In other words , as Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy claimed , the president is free to assassinate “ bad people.
” But the president ’ s claim that the intelligence doesn ’ t really matter reminded me of another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ became determined to find fault with the Obama administration over the attack on our government facility in Benghazi , Libya .
Initially , they focused their blame on National Security Advisor Susan Rice .
But as it became apparent that Hillary Clinton would run for president in 2016 , they set their sites on her .
Most of us remember the admirable way that the former secretary of state handled herself during the 11-hour grilling she received from Republicans on the House Select Committee on Benghazi in 2015 .
But prior to that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Relations Committee in January 2013 , less than three months after the attack occurred .
Under questioning by Senator Johnson , she responded angrily .
Here is the pertinent exchange : Johnson : No , again , we were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that—an assault sprang out of that—and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact , and the American people could have known that within days and they didn ’ t know that .
Clinton : With all due respect , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans .
Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they ’ d they go kill some Americans ?
What difference at this point does it make ?
It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again , Senator .
Now , honestly , I will do my best to answer your questions about this , but the fact is that people were trying in real time to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ IC has a process , I understand , going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out .
But you know , to be clear , it is , from my perspective , less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice , and then maybe we ’ ll figure out what was going on in the meantime .
The issue at the time was whether the attack began as a protest in response to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a planned terrorist attack .
What we eventually learned from those involved is that it was both .
To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers , there is little doubt what occurred : a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest , and they did it in retaliation for the video .
That is what the fighters said at the time , speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda , Osama bin Laden or the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as members of a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence .
Clinton ’ s point was that , at that moment , understanding what motivated the attack was not the priority .
Four Americans were dead and the important issue was to find those who were responsible and hold them accountable .
None of that stopped Republicans from twisting Clinton ’ s words in order to launch vicious attacks .
As a matter of fact , they made it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For example , here is Mike Pence .
It was Hillary Clinton who left Americans in harm ’ s way in Benghazi .
Then she said , “ What difference at this point does it make ?
” As the proud father of a United States Marine , let me say from my heart : Anyone who said that , anyone who did that should be disqualified from ever serving as commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America .
Ted Cruz suggested that Democrats are the party “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Benghazi by asking , ‘ What difference does it make ?
’ ” Now , those same Republicans are defending a president who says that “ it doesn ’ t really matter ” why his administration decided to assassinate Soleimani and escalate tensions with Iran .
The GOP has perfected the art of hypocrisy and employs it shamelessly .

The Trump administration spent days lying about what led up to the decision to assassinate Soleimani. They insist that there were intelligence reports of “imminent” attacks, which they are unwilling to share with anyone. As all of those rationales began to fall apart, the president told us that it doesn’t really matter.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1216754098382524422
In other words, as Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy claimed, the president is free to assassinate “bad people.”
But the president’s claim that the intelligence doesn’t really matter reminded me of another story.
Back in 2012, Republicans became determined to find fault with the Obama administration over the attack on our government facility in Benghazi, Libya. Initially, they focused their blame on National Security Advisor Susan Rice. But as it became apparent that Hillary Clinton would run for president in 2016, they set their sites on her.
Most of us remember the admirable way that the former secretary of state handled herself during the 11-hour grilling she received from Republicans on the House Select Committee on Benghazi in 2015. But prior to that, she testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January 2013, less than three months after the attack occurred. Under questioning by Senator Johnson, she responded angrily.
Here is the pertinent exchange:
Johnson: No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that—an assault sprang out of that—and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that. Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.
The issue at the time was whether the attack began as a protest in response to an inflammatory anti-Muslim video or if it was a planned terrorist attack. What we eventually learned from those involved is that it was both.
To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as members of a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence.
Clinton’s point was that, at that moment, understanding what motivated the attack was not the priority. Four Americans were dead and the important issue was to find those who were responsible and hold them accountable.
None of that stopped Republicans from twisting Clinton’s words in order to launch vicious attacks. As a matter of fact, they made it a theme at the 2016 Republican Convention. For example, here is Mike Pence.
It was Hillary Clinton who left Americans in harm’s way in Benghazi. Then she said, “What difference at this point does it make?” As the proud father of a United States Marine, let me say from my heart: Anyone who said that, anyone who did that should be disqualified from ever serving as commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America.
Ted Cruz suggested that Democrats are the party “that responds to the death of Americans at Benghazi by asking, ‘What difference does it make?’”
Now, those same Republicans are defending a president who says that “it doesn’t really matter” why his administration decided to assassinate Soleimani and escalate tensions with Iran. The GOP has perfected the art of hypocrisy and employs it shamelessly.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-15--Giuliani’s Extortion Team Plotted Against the Security of a U.S. Ambassador

Donald Trump and his enablers don ’ t just lie , they turn truth on its head .
Such is the case with the claim that , when the president requested “ favors ” from the Ukrainian president and blocked aid to that country , he was attempting to fight corruption in Ukraine .
No one captured what was at the heart of the Trump-Giuliani extortion scheme better than Representative Jim Himes , who said , “ President Trump wasn ’ t trying to end corruption in Ukraine , I think he was trying to aim corruption in Ukraine at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” With the release of some of the phone records of Giuliani ’ s associate , Lev Parnas , we might question whether that statement from Himes went far enough .
As a reminder , Parnas was assigned the job of connecting Giuliani to Ukrainians who could provide him with dirt on the man Trump was likely to face as his opponent in 2020—Joe Biden .
One of the key figures who was willing to cooperate in those efforts was Yuri Lutsenko , who was Ukraine ’ s top prosecutor at the time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Petro Poroshenko .
After noting that Lutsenko was spreading lies about Ukrainian officials , Ambassador Marie Yavanovitch , and Joe Biden , the whistleblower noted the following in his/her complaint : In other words , Lutsenko was about to lose his job and he primarily blamed the anti-corruption efforts supported by Ambassador Yavanovitch .
If Trump and Giuliani were going to exploit that corruption , Yavanovitch needed to be removed .
Here is how the Washington Post summarized the recently released communication between Parnas and Lutsenko on that matter : The messages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urging Parnas to force out Yovanovitch in exchange for cooperation regarding Biden .
At one point , Lutsenko suggests he won ’ t make any helpful public statements unless “ madam ” is removed .
“ It ’ s just that if you don ’ t make a decision about Madam — you are calling into question all my declarations .
Including about B , ” Lutsenko wrote to Parnas in a March 22 message on WhatsApp .
It ’ s unclear if ‘ B ’ is a reference to Biden or Burisma @ @ @ @ @ @ @ board Hunter Biden served from 2014 to 2019 .
Four days later , Lutsenko told Parnas that work on the case against the owner of the gas company is proceeding successfully and evidence of the money transfers of “ B ” had been obtained .
“ And here you can ’ t even remove one fool , ” Lutsenko laments , using a sad-face emoticon as he again appeared to push for Yovanovitch ’ s ouster .
“ She ’ s not a simple fool [ , ] trust me , ” Parnas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not getting away.
” Parnas , days later , told Lutsenko that “ soon everything will turn around and we ’ ll be on the right course.
” Meanwhile , Parnas was communicating with Robert Hyde , a Republican candidate for Congress from Connecticut who was previously best known for a vile tweet about Kamala Harris .
Since the release of Parnas ’ records , there is photographic evidence suggesting that Hyde was part of Giuliani ’ s extortion team .
That is him on the far right .
Jonathan Chait summarized what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get rid of Yavanovitch : Wow .
Can ’ t believe Trumo [ sic ] hasn ’ t fired this bitch .
I ’ ll get right in [ sic ? ]
that .
She under heavy protection outside Kiev .
My guy thinks maybe FSB [ the Russian security service ] The guys over asked me what I would like to do and what is in it for them She ’ s talked to three people .
Her phone is off .
Computer is off .
She ’ s next to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know when she ’ s on the move They are willing to help if you/we would like a price .
Guess you can do anything in the Ukraine with money… what I was told .
Update she will not be moved special security unit upgraded force on the compound people are already aware of the situation my contacts are asking what is the next step because they can not keep going to check people will start to ask questions If you want her out , they need to make contact with security forces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contract with people who were stalking Yavanovitch ( possibly FSB ) , including surveillance of her phone and computer .
He also seems to make reference to the possibility of threatening her physically .
During her testimony before the House , Ambassador Yavanovitch stated that Ukrainian officials warned her that Guiliani and other associates “ had plans , and that they were going to , you know , do things , including to me.
” She also testified that , while in attendance at an event honoring a murdered Ukrainian anti-corruption activist , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department ’ s director-general telling her to get on the next plane to Washington .
A little while later she was told that an unspecified security issue demanded her departure from Kyiv .
At this point , we don ’ t know if Hyde ’ s communication to Parnas was in any way connected to the State Department claim of “ an unspecified security issue.
” But the possibility is chilling , to say the least .
It is clear that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has some explaining to do .
Beyond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2020 election , everything about this story reeks of mobster-like tactics from the Trump-Giuliani extortion team .
Based on what we know about this president ’ s history , that doesn ’ t come as a big surprise .
But to see it affecting this country ’ s foreign policy is enraging .
To watch Republicans defend the president who is responsible is even more so .

Donald Trump and his enablers don’t just lie, they turn truth on its head. Such is the case with the claim that, when the president requested “favors” from the Ukrainian president and blocked aid to that country, he was attempting to fight corruption in Ukraine. No one captured what was at the heart of the Trump-Giuliani extortion scheme better than Representative Jim Himes, who said, “President Trump wasn’t trying to end corruption in Ukraine, I think he was trying to aim corruption in Ukraine at Vice-President Biden and at the 2020 election.”
With the release of some of the phone records of Giuliani’s associate, Lev Parnas, we might question whether that statement from Himes went far enough. As a reminder, Parnas was assigned the job of connecting Giuliani to Ukrainians who could provide him with dirt on the man Trump was likely to face as his opponent in 2020—Joe Biden. One of the key figures who was willing to cooperate in those efforts was Yuri Lutsenko, who was Ukraine’s top prosecutor at the time and a close political ally of then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.
After noting that Lutsenko was spreading lies about Ukrainian officials, Ambassador Marie Yavanovitch, and Joe Biden, the whistleblower noted the following in his/her complaint:
The allegations by Mr. Lutsenko came on the eve of the first round of Ukraine’s presidential election on 31 March. By that time, Mr. Lutsenko’s political patron, President Poroshenko, was trailing Mr. Zelenskyy in the polls and appeared likely to be defeated. Mr. Zelensky had made known his desire to replace Mr. Lutsenko as Prosecutor General.
In other words, Lutsenko was about to lose his job and he primarily blamed the anti-corruption efforts supported by Ambassador Yavanovitch. If Trump and Giuliani were going to exploit that corruption, Yavanovitch needed to be removed. Here is how the Washington Post summarized the recently released communication between Parnas and Lutsenko on that matter:
The messages, written in Russian, show Lutsenko urging Parnas to force out Yovanovitch in exchange for cooperation regarding Biden. At one point, Lutsenko suggests he won’t make any helpful public statements unless “madam” is removed. “It’s just that if you don’t make a decision about Madam — you are calling into question all my declarations. Including about B,” Lutsenko wrote to Parnas in a March 22 message on WhatsApp. It’s unclear if ‘B’ is a reference to Biden or Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company on whose board Hunter Biden served from 2014 to 2019. Four days later, Lutsenko told Parnas that work on the case against the owner of the gas company is proceeding successfully and evidence of the money transfers of “B” had been obtained. “And here you can’t even remove one fool,” Lutsenko laments, using a sad-face emoticon as he again appeared to push for Yovanovitch’s ouster. “She’s not a simple fool[,] trust me,” Parnas responded. “But she’s not getting away.” Parnas, days later, told Lutsenko that “soon everything will turn around and we’ll be on the right course.”
Meanwhile, Parnas was communicating with Robert Hyde, a Republican candidate for Congress from Connecticut who was previously best known for a vile tweet about Kamala Harris. Since the release of Parnas’ records, there is photographic evidence suggesting that Hyde was part of Giuliani’s extortion team. That is him on the far right.
Jonathan Chait summarized what Hyde communicated to Parnas about the attempts to get rid of Yavanovitch:
Wow. Can’t believe Trumo [sic] hasn’t fired this bitch. I’ll get right in [sic?] that. She under heavy protection outside Kiev. My guy thinks maybe FSB [the Russian security service] The guys over asked me what I would like to do and what is in it for them She’s talked to three people. Her phone is off. Computer is off. She’s next to the embassy. They know she’s a political puppet. They will let me know when she’s on the move They are willing to help if you/we would like a price. Guess you can do anything in the Ukraine with money… what I was told. Update she will not be moved special security unit upgraded force on the compound people are already aware of the situation my contacts are asking what is the next step because they cannot keep going to check people will start to ask questions If you want her out, they need to make contact with security forces
In other words, Hyde was in contract with people who were stalking Yavanovitch (possibly FSB), including surveillance of her phone and computer. He also seems to make reference to the possibility of threatening her physically.
During her testimony before the House, Ambassador Yavanovitch stated that Ukrainian officials warned her that Guiliani and other associates “had plans, and that they were going to, you know, do things, including to me.” She also testified that, while in attendance at an event honoring a murdered Ukrainian anti-corruption activist, she received a call from the State Department’s director-general telling her to get on the next plane to Washington. A little while later she was told that an unspecified security issue demanded her departure from Kyiv.
At this point, we don’t know if Hyde’s communication to Parnas was in any way connected to the State Department claim of “an unspecified security issue.” But the possibility is chilling, to say the least. It is clear that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has some explaining to do.
https://twitter.com/AmbDana/status/1217234294726451200
Beyond an attempt to aim Ukrainian corruption at the 2020 election, everything about this story reeks of mobster-like tactics from the Trump-Giuliani extortion team. Based on what we know about this president’s history, that doesn’t come as a big surprise. But to see it affecting this country’s foreign policy is enraging. To watch Republicans defend the president who is responsible is even more so.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-15--Lev Parnas Will Be Central in Any Real Impeachment Trial

We now know who will prosecute the impeachment case against President Donald Trump in his Senate trial .
Speaker Pelosi has predictably selected Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff of California and Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler of New York .
Additionally , she chose Reps. Hakeem Jeffries of New York , Sylvia Garcia of Texas , Val Demings of Florida , Zoe Lofgren of California , and Jason Crow of Colorado .
It will be fascinating to see how they divvy their responsibilities up , and I ’ m particularly interested in learning who will be discussing Lev Parnas .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the past .
It ’ s hard to identify a shadier character , and he ’ s not necessarily of much use as a fact witness due to his complete lack of credibility .
But his documents and electronic communications are another matter : Parnas has been turning them over to Congress as fast as he can get them released by the Feds who seized them when they arrested him and his partner Igor Fruman back in October 2019 for making illegal campaign contributions with Russian money .
A new batch landed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday , and they included everything from death threats against a sitting U.S. ambassador by a Republican congressional candidate , to confirmation that a Ukrainian prosecutor had agreed to “ find ” dirt on Hunter Biden in exchange for the removal of that ambassador , to written proof that Giuliani ( with the assistance of lawyer Victoria Toensing ) sought an audience with newly-elected Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky for the purpose of helping Trump is his capacity as the president ’ s private attorney .
Philip Bump of The Washington Post explains why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t a government employee and wasn ’ t claiming to be serving the nation ’ s interests when he wrote to Zelensky .
Giuliani was explicit that the president has different attorneys who are responsible for managing “ official ” business : This is also a problem because the president has stated that he didn ’ t authorize Giuliani to do any of this : Asked about Giuliani ’ s planned trip in an interview with Bill O ’ Reilly in November , the president denied awareness of what his lawyer was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was going to go to Ukraine and I think he canceled the trip .
But Rudy has other clients , other than me , ” Trump said .
Asked if Giuliani was going to Ukraine on his behalf to try to find negative information about Biden , Trump said , “ No , I didn ’ t direct him , but he is a warrior , he is a warrior.
” Giuliani told the Times he was going for Trump .
He told Zelensky he was going for Trump .
But in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well underway , Trump dismissed the idea .
There ’ s a lot more to unpack here than I can cover in a single blog post , but I ’ d be remiss if I didn ’ t add one last revelation from Parnas ’ latest document dump .
Even before Parnas was arrested in October 2019 , the president was very aware that he had some legal problems .
Do you remember what Trump said about Parnas after he was arrested and people immediately found many pictures of the two together ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporters that he doesn ’ t know two Ukrainian associates of Rudy Giuliani arrested on campaign finance charges — despite being pictured with both of them .
The previous evening Florida-based businessmen Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman — clients of Trump ’ s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani — were arrested on charges of campaign finance violations involving a pro-Trump PAC and Republican candidates .
“ I don ’ t know those gentlemen .
Now it ’ s possible I have a picture with them because I have a picture with everybody , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Trump said , according to a pool report .
“ But somebody said that there may be a picture or something at a fundraiser or somewhere .
But I have pictures with everybody.
” “ I don ’ t know them .
I don ’ t know about them .
I don ’ t know what they do but I don ’ t know , maybe they were clients of Rudy .
You ’ d have to ask Rudy , I just don ’ t know , ” continued the president .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ available to Trump , and that ’ s the one Nixon tried out after he ’ d already been drummed out of office .
In 1977 , British journalist David Frost interviewed Nixon and asked him about his illegal activities .
Nixon famously responded , “ Well , when the president does it , that means that it is not illegal.
” If the Republican senators agree , then he ’ ll be acquitted .

We now know who will prosecute the impeachment case against President Donald Trump in his Senate trial. Speaker Pelosi has predictably selected Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff of California and Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler of New York. Additionally, she chose Reps. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, Sylvia Garcia of Texas, Val Demings of Florida, Zoe Lofgren of California, and Jason Crow of Colorado. It will be fascinating to see how they divvy their responsibilities up, and I’m particularly interested in learning who will be discussing Lev Parnas.
I’ve written about Parnas repeatedly in the past. It’s hard to identify a shadier character, and he’s not necessarily of much use as a fact witness due to his complete lack of credibility. But his documents and electronic communications are another matter: Parnas has been turning them over to Congress as fast as he can get them released by the Feds who seized them when they arrested him and his partner Igor Fruman back in October 2019 for making illegal campaign contributions with Russian money.
A new batch landed on the nation’s lap on Tuesday, and they included everything from death threats against a sitting U.S. ambassador by a Republican congressional candidate, to confirmation that a Ukrainian prosecutor had agreed to “find” dirt on Hunter Biden in exchange for the removal of that ambassador, to written proof that Giuliani (with the assistance of lawyer Victoria Toensing) sought an audience with newly-elected Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky for the purpose of helping Trump is his capacity as the president’s private attorney.
Philip Bump of The Washington Post explains why it’s significant that Giuliani wasn’t a government employee and wasn’t claiming to be serving the nation’s interests when he wrote to Zelensky. Giuliani was explicit that the president has different attorneys who are responsible for managing “official” business:
Document from Lev Parnas, a former associate of Rudolph W. Giuliani, released by House investigators. (House Intelligence Committee)
This is also a problem because the president has stated that he didn’t authorize Giuliani to do any of this:
Asked about Giuliani’s planned trip in an interview with Bill O’Reilly in November, the president denied awareness of what his lawyer was up to. “I know that he was going to go to Ukraine and I think he canceled the trip. But Rudy has other clients, other than me,” Trump said. Asked if Giuliani was going to Ukraine on his behalf to try to find negative information about Biden, Trump said, “No, I didn’t direct him, but he is a warrior, he is a warrior.” Giuliani told the Times he was going for Trump. He told Zelensky he was going for Trump. But in November, once the impeachment inquiry was well underway, Trump dismissed the idea.
There’s a lot more to unpack here than I can cover in a single blog post, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t add one last revelation from Parnas’ latest document dump. Even before Parnas was arrested in October 2019, the president was very aware that he had some legal problems.
The documents also reveal that when Parnas and Fruman came under scrutiny in the impeachment inquiry (but before his arrest), Trump personally approved his former lawyer John Dowd’s representation of the pair. That’s according to an email from Trump’s lawyer Jay Sekulow.
Do you remember what Trump said about Parnas after he was arrested and people immediately found many pictures of the two together?
U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday told reporters that he doesn’t know two Ukrainian associates of Rudy Giuliani arrested on campaign finance charges — despite being pictured with both of them. The previous evening Florida-based businessmen Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman — clients of Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani — were arrested on charges of campaign finance violations involving a pro-Trump PAC and Republican candidates. “I don’t know those gentlemen. Now it’s possible I have a picture with them because I have a picture with everybody, I have a picture with everybody here,” Trump said, according to a pool report. “But somebody said that there may be a picture or something at a fundraiser or somewhere. But I have pictures with everybody.” “I don’t know them. I don’t know about them. I don’t know what they do but I don’t know, maybe they were clients of Rudy. You’d have to ask Rudy, I just don’t know,” continued the president.
There’s really only one defense available to Trump, and that’s the one Nixon tried out after he’d already been drummed out of office. In 1977, British journalist David Frost interviewed Nixon and asked him about his illegal activities. Nixon famously responded, “Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”
If the Republican senators agree, then he’ll be acquitted.