Yesterday I highlighted DeVos’ speech where she laid out her theory of the case. It’s getting a lot of pushback, the NCLB pieces in particular, and from people generally sympathetic to her. You can Google or search Twitter for those.
But that’s the impact. We’ve now all drunk the kool-aid and know the new code. Try suggesting to any audience these days that a school’s first obligation to young children is to teach them to read, write, and become numerically literate, and that their teachers should meet a standard that suggests they are qualified to deliver those skills. These academic skills are, if not verboten, now just an aside, emblematic of our once narrow mindset, and too closely connected with The Word We Are Not To Ever Mutter Again: TESTING.
It’s a sure way to lose an audience these days to remind them that tests have merit, not just for accountability purposes, not just because they measure numeracy and literacy, but because they are highly predictive of the quality of a child’s future. (Thank you Raj Chetty and other academic purists.) A few short years ago, reminding an audience of this connection was a rallying cry. Now our eyes avert, we squirm in our seats, and feel the sudden need for another cup of hotel coffee.
Susan Dynarksi is asking hard questions about online learning.
Connecticut’s landmark case overturned.
Here’s a literal blacklist. Something to keep in mind with all the coming Janus euphoria is education management, or the lack of it.
New Pahara cohort. #20 if you like round numbers.
Devon Sproule: Keep Your Silver Shined.