"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
Anyone tempted to agree with the statement that Thomas Nida did nothing improper as chair of the DC charter school board seriously needs to slap himself upside the head, take a walk out into the brisk 18-degree air to clear his head, and say “What was I thinking?”
A charter school board must make decisions for educational reasons, and, as reformers like Michelle Rhee constantly tell us, in the interests of children and not the adults involved. The December 14 Washington Post article made abundantly clear that Mr. Nida played a leading role in board decisions (no matter whether he “abstained” from the final vote) that revolved not around the educational needs of children or schools, but instead around the complicated machinations required to complete various real estate and development deals that brought him and his employer financial reward. Moreover, some of his actions clearly violated the independence and autonomy of the charter schools under his supervision by virtually substituting his own decisions regarding facilities and enrollment ceilings for those of charter school leaders.
Whether Mr. Nida technically violated current DC conflict-of-interest laws is beside the point. Key purposes of boards like the one that Nida leads are to provide a level playing field and limit the negative impact that the prospect of personal and corporate financial gain too often have on the appropriate expenditure of public dollars. Neither purpose can possibly be served when decisions made by a board member bring direct personal financial benefit, as was the case with Mr. Nida.
Charter schools are thriving in large part because so many parents long ago lost faith the probity of the regular public school systems. Vigilance against the Thomas Nidas of the world is necessary to ensure that the charter school movement does not suffer the same fate.
What I am thinkng is what part of
Review Finds No Breach By Charter Board Leader
District Attorney General Peter Nickles has decided that the chairman of the public charter school board did not violate the city’s conflict-of-interest law when he took official actions involving schools, landlords or developers financed by his bank.
is unclear?
Public officials do not own what they are in charge of. Therefore, educrats have less incentive to care about long term capital values-in this case- of a charter school. Instead, charter school directors are structurally inclined to exploit their offices with immediate and special interest in mind. This economic law does not rule out that a few saintly people might occupy these positions. It just means that the system is inherently working against morality, regardless of the character of those involved.
Those of us in the DC public charter school community who know and have worked with Tom Nida were appalled by the Post’s indictment of him. I and my colleagues have never known Tom to act in any way that didn’t put the best interests of children first. It is encouraging to see that our attorney general has come to that conclusion as well.
I read AG Nichols piece, including the portion quoted. The AG hastily found no acts he would prosecute as illegal. Bill Cordes had it right, except about the “key purpose of board…..” They are, presumably, to assure fair play among those within the charter school sector. As for maximizing the benefits to be secured from the public purse when DCPS is so negligent of so many students under its care? Well, loyalty to his purpose, stronger charter schools, prevails, then.
The only issue here is what is considered ethical behavior. Most of the facts are not in question. Should Nida act in what he thinks are the best interests of the charter school sector, much as the Commissioner of Baseball does? Why his view of the best interests of charter schools be what it is was the subject of the story. It happens that “orderly growth” of the many charter schools coincides with the ability of all schools who have borrowed money to repay their loans. Nida, in his role, acted to see that the growth was orderly.
Eduwonk offers, in defense, nothing more compelling than what has been offered to explain, say, recent year end bonuses at M-L : They were expected. They make “business sense.”