"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
-- Education Week's Alyson Klein
-- Susan Ohanian
Smart List: 60 People Shaping the Future of K-12 Education
3 Replies to “15 Minutes?”
OK, Andy, so you still got it 15 minutes before me, so you’re still the consummate insider.
Here’s the problem with the draft — and I accept that it’s still a draft. It reveals a troubling assumption that reading is a transferable skill. Take one of the standards: students should be able to summarize ideas, events and information in a text. That may sound obvious, and no one will disagree, but it’s not a transferable skill. You can’t learn to summarize ideas and information in the abstract and suddenly have the ability to do it for EVERY nonfiction text. It’s a function of your background knowledge, which helps you discern what’s important and what you can set aside. So our insistence on teaching skills and strategies instead of a broad, robust curriculum virtually guarantees that our kids won’t be very well educated or be competent readers, either.
Same thing in writing. According to the standards, students should be able to “make an argument” and “inform and explain.” Fine. Andy does a fine job of both when it comes to education policy. He might be able to do it for fishing, too. Anyone think he can do it on any subject? Urban planning? International law? Obstetrics? Our refusal to see this problem for what it is sets us back.
Decoding (turning letters into sounds) is a transferable skill. Reading comprehension is not. Research is quite clear that students who are poor readers suddenly turn into adequate to strong readers when they read passages on subjects they know something about. So maybe we should increase the number of subjects they know something about?
Anyone who would write standards for reading should understand this: Teaching content IS teaching reading.
I, for one, think Andy would do a fine job explaining obstetrics. He has twins after all…
I look forward to bookmarking OB/GYNUWONK