Hogwarts On The Hudson?

Wow.  Jaw meet floor.  Scholastic, a serious publisher in the education space (that produces some good products, for instance Read 180) is now allowing its bloggers to call out senior government officials as corrupt on the basis of anonymous third party hearsay and no evidence.   We’ve crossed into a strange new – and unfortunate – world if this is the new norm or somehow even remotely acceptable.

Update:  As you can tell from the now broken link it’s to Scholastic’s credit that they’ve removed the post.

15 Replies to “Hogwarts On The Hudson?”

  1. seems like a reasonable blog post to me – he’s just asking for a bit more transparency to clear up any perception of favoritism.

    as he said, it’s not like it hasn’t happened before 😉

  2. Steve F.-

    The first sentence is:

    “I have now heard the same thing from three independent credible sources – the fix is in on the U.S. Department of Education’s competitive grants, in particular Race to the Top (RTTT) and Investing in Innovation (I3). ”

    Not implying anything but just asking?

  3. it’s a blog, i’m not sure of the ethics of blog publishing.

    but the post is asking whether there is favoritism at the dept of ed? that’s reasonable in my book and could be cleared up easily through a transparent process.

    the ny times uses anonymous sources all the time.

  4. “Over the last several months a national education reporter, a senior manager at a national education research organization, and the head of a national nonprofit working in the field all volunteered that the Department’s senior officials know exactly who they want to get RTTT and I3 money – in brief, the new philanthropies’ grantees and the jurisdictions where they work. ”

    That is a reasonable question but the blog post is not asking whether there is favortism, it is *saying* there is favortism. The first line is “the fix is in” not “is the fix in?”

  5. Pleeeez! Favoritism at the Dept of Ed? Who’s the secretary? While he may be a nice man and a class warrior, his position derives from the favoritism we now find problematic.

  6. I feel certain that the taxpayers are about to be fleeced in the name of educational “reform.” Let’s hope someone with the right skills can find out what’s coming down the pike before it’s too late.

    The Reading First fiasco hurt a lot of children and lined a lot of pockets before the fraud was exposed. I don’t want to see this happen again.

  7. Clearly, we must applaud Scholastic’s journalistic integrity for not allowing its bloggers to call out senior public officials. Especially when, as you point out it sells “a lot of good products” and the senior official in question is capable of serious payback if the serious publisher were to allow such a breach in respect for senior government officials.

    That’s what journalistic standards are for: to protect our vulnerable senior government officials from unwarrented intrusion into their power to dispense payouts.

  8. Two classic moments from film and TV come to mind.
    “I’m shocked, shocked, to find gambling going on in this establishment.”

    “Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, grin, grin.”
    Monty Python’s Flying Circus.

  9. The saga is being followed by me as well as others. Several bloggers, including me, have given Millot space to respond. Check my blog for updates if you are interested.

  10. Mr. Millot:

    You sound like a very wise man. You were one of the first writers to predict that Michelle Rhee couldn’t possibly succeed given her disdain for teachers.

    I hope you can continue to expose “reformers” who are poised to line their pockets with tax money meant for schoolchildren. Your skills as a lawyer should prove very helpful. Our country cannot afford another Reading First scam. Thank you.

  11. No matter whether Millot’s post is *asking* or *charging* — and I will add that it’s not censorship for a private blog owner to decree what it wants on its blog — we still have to note that there have been two high-profile cases of stifling voices critical of the ed-reform machinery in the past couple of weeks. I’m referring to the editing of Bill Turque’s Washington Post blog as well.

    If there are any sincere, honest, ethical and independent-thinking supporters of the ed-reform machinery out there, shouldn’t they be asking themselves WHY they feel they need to stifle critical voices? If your ideas are sound and the forces behind them pure, Mr. Rotherham et al., shouldn’t they stand up to sharp questioning and criticism?

  12. Eduwonk is mixed up in too much ‘money politics’ to provide a useful forum for the truth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.