"Least influential of education's most influential information sources."
-- Education Week Research Center
"full of very lively short items and is always on top of the news...He gets extra points for skewering my high school rating system"
-- Jay Mathews, The Washington Post
"a daily dose of information from the education policy world, blended with a shot of attitude and a dash of humor"
-- Education Week
"unexpectedly entertaining"..."tackle[s] a potentially mindfogging subject with cutting clarity... they're reading those mushy, brain-numbing education stories so you don't have to!"
-- Mickey Kaus
"a very smart blog... this is the site to read"
-- Ryan Lizza
"everyone who's anyone reads Eduwonk"
-- Richard Colvin
"designed to cut through the fog and direct specialists and non-specialists alike to the center of the liveliest and most politically relevant debates on the future of our schools"
-- The New Dem Daily
"peppered with smart and witty comments on the education news of the day"
-- Education Gadfly
"don't hate Eduwonk cuz it's so good"
-- Alexander Russo, This Week In Education
"the morning's first stop for education bomb-throwers everywhere"
-- Mike Antonucci, Intercepts
"…the big dog on the ed policy blog-ck…"
-- Michele McLaughlin
"I check Eduwonk several times a day, especially since I cut back on caffeine"
-- Joe Williams
"...one of the few bloggers who isn't completely nuts"
-- Mike Petrilli, Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
"I have just three 'go to' websites: The Texas Legislature, Texas Longhorn sports, and Eduwonk"
-- Sandy Kress
"penetrating analysis in a lively style on a wide range of issues"
-- Walt Gardner
"Fabulous"
-- Education Week's Alyson Klein
"thugs"
-- Susan Ohanian
Smart List: 60 People Shaping the Future of K-12 Education
My hopefully non-hystercal take on turning down Title I money is this. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE WHICH IS JUST BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE, supplemented by a lot of reading and reflection, I wish our district had just turned down the money. I’ll just give one example of my logic. Our school has often made collaborative plans for remediation, and if they had been funded I think that they would have had a good chance. But all such efforts were killed by the Top Down policy that grew with the passage of NCLB. (Mr. Carey, you can call it “Correlation” or you can call it “causation,” I’d call it a predictable response consistent with Cambpell’s Law.)
As we all knew would happen, (and would have happened even if our plans had been implemented) the arrival of the money was determined by the butgetary process, not the schedule that schools and students follow. So they dumped tens of thousands of dollars on us in the middle of the semester, along with plans that had no chance, and we predicatably wasted them.
No buyin, no effective reform
As a former teacher and education policy consumer, I think this article presents a very one-sided view of the issue of NCLB and federal funding. Was this a news article or an editorial?
I’d like to hear more from defenders of the schools’ actions -what were the reasons behind the schools’ decision to avoid the NCLB rules? If nothing else, the fact that most of this money stayed in the district makes it less disadvantageous for the schools to make the decisions they did.
This is a great article. It says exactly what happened. School board members didn’t want to take the heat for having to publicize the lack of improvement among students. They’d rather turn down free money.
In my town, NCLB forced the schools to show test scores comparing black and white kids. People were surprised to see the gap, which had been covered up for so long. Sounds like the folks in this article want to cover it up again.