Carmen Fariña's war on evidence
Editor's note: This post originally appeared in a slightly different form in the Daily News and City Journal.
Editor's note: This post originally appeared in a slightly different form in the Daily News and City Journal.
Editor's note: This post originally appeared in a slightly different form at RegBlog.
Last week, I explained the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (a.k.a. No Child Left Behind) in a single table:
Editor's note: This post originally appeared in a slightly different form on the Tools for the Common Core Standards blog.
Some of ed reform’s leading lights finally see that what kids learn makes a difference. Robert Pondiscio
ESEA reauthorization explained in a single table
Crying “Dump it!” might be good politics. But any high standards will look a lot like Common Core. Michael J. Petrilli and Michael Brickman
Previously, I posted about the perils of applying standards-driven instruction to reading classrooms.
Just in time for Christmas, my Fordham colleague Mike Petrilli has left a present under the tree for inquisitive children and busy parents who don’t think the sky will fall if the kids get a little screen time now and again (it won’t).
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. Michelle Lerner, Robert Pondiscio, and Alyssa Schwenk
You can’t teach reading the way you teach other subjects. Kathleen Porter-Magee
[Editor's note: This is part two of a multi-part series on the use of prior knowledge in literacy. It originally appeared in a slightly different form at Tim Shanahan's blog, Shanahan on Reading.
[Editor's note: This is part one of a multi-part series on the use of prior knowledge in literacy. It originally appeared in a slightly different form at Tim Shanahan's blog, Shanahan on Reading.]
Opportunities abound if only Catholic schools will seize them. by Chester E. Finn, Jr.
Their criticisms don’t add up. Robert Pondicio and Kevin Mahnken
There’s a wonderfully apt saying about why debates in the U.S.
Get ready for another “Year of School Choice.” Michael J. Petrilli
Joe Sixpack: You’re not paying attention. And much of what you think you know is wrong. Morgan Polikoff
Accountability works. But not in reading, which isn’t a subject or a skill. Robert Pondiscio
I confess I’m somewhat bewildered by the passionate arguments over the Common Core State Standards. Getting in high dudgeon about K–12 learning standards, which say almost nothing about what kids do in school all day, makes no more sense to me than getting apoplectic about food-handling procedures, which I seldom think about when pushing my cart through the grocery store.
Ed reform is dead. Long live ed reform. Chester E. Finn, Jr.
There’s more to Common Core than “close reading.” Robert Pondiscio
We need two kinds of high school diplomas. Chester E. Finn, Jr.
Among opponents of the Common Core, one of the more popular targets of vitriol is the standards’ focus on improving literacy by introducing higher levels of textual complexity into the instructional mix.
Every child should be in a school where he or she can learn effectively. That’s not a controversial goal in itself, but the methods meant to accomplish it can become hot buttons.
It was back-to-school night last week at my son’s elementary school in Montgomery County, Maryland, which meant that we moms and dads got a first look at “Learning for the Future: A Parent’s Guide to Grade 1 Curriculum 2.0.”
For over a year, I’ve been encouraging Common Core advocates to stop endlessly re-litigating the standards and instead to focus on getting implementation right. Taking my own advice last week, I traveled to Reno to see first-hand the work of the Core Task Project, the initiative driving implementation of the standards in Washoe County, Nevada.
On September 9th, the Fordham Institute’s Mike Petrilli participated in an Intelligence Squared U.S. debate on the Common Core. These are his opening comments, as prepared for delivery.
We seemed to have welcomed good manners back to the Common Core debate. That doesn’t mean we’ve seen more advocacy either on behalf of the standards or knocking them, only that the tenor appears to have changed for the better. At least for the time being, detractors are no longer paranoid Neanderthals, and supporters have ceased to be communists on the federal or Gates Foundation dole.
Over the past four years on this blog, I’ve strived to advance a substantive conversation around standards and assessment through complex (and hopefully interesting) policy arguments. But finding new things to advance a discussion sometimes means losing sight of large and obvious things that need to be said over and over again.