"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
2 Replies to “Forget NAEP…”
Forget NAEP? Would that we could…
Today there were several great stories on Rhee. The DC Wire asks 15 key questions and Coutland Milloy asks the best question of all, “Can you raise an academic bar if you don’t have an ethical leg to stand on?”
June Kronholz hit the same notes as the previous portraits, but she also hit the key point that has been overlooked. As previously described, Rhee and her supporters are convinced of their righteousness, and they are taking on a horrible mess. They reason through analogy based on their personal experiences. Based on two years of elementary TFA experience, Rhee devises a cure for the nation’s educational ills. If her management style worked for TFA, extend it to a school district. If certain methods of business methods worked for some digital pioneers, extend it to the schools. If methods work for charters or low poverty schools, extend them to neighborhood schools that don’t have the luxury of selectivity. If you are reforming a system that “has more money than god,” and you can leverage amazing amounts of additional money, then those methods will work in schools with 1/3rd of the money as long as they have “high expectations.”
Life is too short to worry whether the DC superintendent is a hypocrite, as Malloy wrote, were she not a threat to my students. Why should I care if Rhee attracted amazing resources for DC students and fired hundreds of teachers, even an unknown number of good ones, if she did so in a way that is not illegal? After all, her firings would be illegal in my state and presumably in almost all states who don’t have the district’s unique circumstances.
Why would I worry if about Rhee if she wasn’t trying to split the union? In fact, why would I worry about a two-tiered contract in DC as long as she didn’t try to spread the concept nationally? But when the TNTP brings the divide and conquer strategy to a district 90 miles from mine as they just did, then they become a threat to my students. In fact, why would I worry too much about a two-tiered system if it wasn’t financed by people who might use divide and conquer to destroy unions and who haven’t repudiated Rhee’s pushing the envelope and violating the spirit if not the letter of the law? If “reformers” would repudiate Rhee’s excesses, maybe we could negotiate innovations that now are just too dangerous in the hands of people who believe their righteous ends justify their means.
Why would I care about Rhee’s style if she had not tried to nationalize her beliefs?
Why would the national press be writing about Rhee is she hadn’t tried to nationalize the fight?
I’m not going on a national crusade against educators who want to build their own classrooms or schools around standardized tests. It is only when they try to impose those policies on my kids that I fight like a mother bear.
I also support Richard Rothstein’s appraisal that it is too soon to judge Secretary Duncan based on the sales job he’s been making recently. Duncan is not Rhee, even if he appointed a lot of Rhee supporters. But neither should we assume that Rhee supporters and Rhee are the same.
Being an old-fashioned liberal I’m suspicious of the arguments of local control, but as Randi Weingarten said yesterday, when local districts demonstrate good faith, a lot of innovations are possible. For instance, VAMS in the hands of administrators for evaluation purposes represent an existential threat to teachers and unions. But as explained in The Grand Bargain, the same flawed VAMs in the hands of peer review committees of teachers, or teachers and administrators, may work. And if a local district in negotiating in good faith and the test-driven accountability produces unintended negative effects, then we can roll back the harm. After all, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, democracy, and public education. But to replace our profound heritage of liberal arts and the beliefs in a humane public education for all with “a culture of accountability,” even if it produced a few gains for some, would be obscene.
The saddest thing, however, is that we are having this conversation at a time when President Obama has created such an opportunity. We don’t see Geoffrey Canada going national telling everyone that they must embrace non-stop test prep.