"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
By the numbers that’s what we’ve been expecting despite the department’s claims to the contrary. They’d need $2.2 billion to fund the number of awards they’ve been projecting–and that’s at the average expected award amounts and not the maximum award level. The validation awards alone would require $1.7 billion.
Based on the anticipated average award size, they should have projected 5 scale-up, 10 validation, and 100 development. Instead, they projected 5 scale-up, 100 validation, and 100 development, and they refused to admit in the pre-application workshops that the projections were not possible given the amount of funding available.
I’m more concerned with the use of the words, “likely i3 winners.” They claimed that there would be unprecedented levels of transparency. The most recent post to the i3 website says they will be publishing details about each proposed project. None of that is available yet and Secretary Duncan is already talking about likely winners?!
I think that’s great news. My anecdotal impression is that i3 became a required funding application stop for any and all education groups. I’ve been hearing about applications from those who are genuinely pushing change, excellence and the envelope but also those who are tired, old, defending the way we’ve always done it. I’d much rather see our $$ going for a few big ideas with huge promise than to a hodge podge of good ideas, lots of stuff with marginal potential and the usual suspects. I applaud the administration for trying to push us beyond the “Casablanca syndrome”.