Tag Archive for 'Andy Rotherham'

Not Either/Or…It’s AND

Published by Robert Pondiscio on October 28, 2009 in Curriculum and Educational Policy. 2 Comments

At Eduwonk, Andy Rotherham catches up to Russ Whitehurst’s paper, Don’t Forget Curriculum.  But he misses the boat when he writes, “I’m not sure when curriculum and reforms like choice, teacher quality, etc…became either/or.”   I’m not sure where Andy’s getting that message, but it’s not from Russ Whitehurst, who went out of his way NOT to say that.  Here’s the relevant quote from his paper:

This is not to say that curriculum reforms should be pursued instead of efforts to create more choice and competition through charters, or to reconstitute the teacher workforce towards higher levels of effectiveness, or to establish high quality, intensive, and targeted preschool programs, all of which have evidence of effectiveness. It is to say that leaving curriculum reform off the table or giving it a very small place makes no sense.

Over at the American Enterprise Institute’s blog, Charles Murray adds his voice to the curriculum choir.

Outta Here!

Published by Robert Pondiscio on September 15, 2009 in Educational Policy. 0 Comments

Andy Rotherham is leaving Ed Sector, reports Michele McNeil on her Politics K-12 blog.  Everyone seemed to expect Rotherham to head for the turnstiles and take up a post in the Obama administration earlier this year.  That didn’t happen, but now he’s leaving “to work on broader issues.”   And what of Eduwonk,the 800-pound gorilla of ed blogs?  “The blog will live on, Rotherham says, although it will likely be re-branded once his future becomes more clear,” McNeil writes.   Does that mean Rotherham will continue to write it?

Update:  Andy emails to say: “Yes, I will continue to pen Eduwonk.com although in a different venue than where it lives now.  I’m also not planning major changes in board service or the writing I do, for instance at U.S. News and various venues.  So, depending where you sit in this debate I guess that’s welcome or unwelcome news.”

Ed Reform Agonistes

Published by Robert Pondiscio on April 14, 2009 in Educational Policy. 14 Comments

“Maybe it’s just as well; school vouchers aren’t that “innovative” anyway. In D.C. at least, they merely help poor kids get access to good schools that have been around for a long time. In today’s education reform world, that’s not enough of a “game-changer.” Never mind the difference it makes for several thousand children.”  — Mike Petrilli,  “Voucher Program Dies” at Flypaper.

“Rather than using symbolism, the modern education reform movement has instead often allowed itself to be defined as a cloistered group of white dilettantes from Ivy League schools-counterproductive symbolism and off the mark.” — Andy Rotherham, “Education Reform Requires Symbols for the Movement to Embrace,” in U.S. News.

“Compare our top-performing schools and our weakest performing schools by looking at test scores, graduation rates, whatever measure you want.  Do you find that most top-performing schools are running many more hours per day, or more days per year? Do you find that the top-performing schools have that much more, or better data?  Do you find that they are more likely to have linked student data to teachers? Do you find that the top-performing schools have a maniacal focus on test preparation?  No, no, no, no.”  — David Cohen, a Palo Alto, CA English Teacher via Teacher in a Strange Land.

“I’m a reformist, not a revolutionary, because revolutions in human habits don’t work. Humans resist discontinuity and unpredictability. We may be “wired” that way? In any case, I’m sympathetic, not hostile, to caution. So I’m betting on exploring what “works” within the context of both shared ends and different ends—honoring both continuity and change at the same time.  They needn’t be poised as enemies.”  — Deborah Meier, “Seeing ‘Reform’ as More Than a Horse Race or Marketplace” at Bridging Differences.

National Standards Critical to Low-SES Schools

Published by Robert Pondiscio on February 17, 2009 in Education Practice and Educational Policy. 17 Comments

At Eduwonk, Andy Rotherham damns Randi Weingarten’s call for national standards with faint praise, noting he’s not against the idea, but calling it a distraction from the core problem the country faces today:

A system of public education that dramatically and dangerously under-serves low-income students and students of color.  And it doesn’t under-serve them by a matter of degree but substantially.   That’s much more a political problem than a substantive one and while better standards and more fine-grained measurement are important, their absence is not why we are where we are today and we should not lose sight of that. 

I respectfully disagree with Andy.  The lack of a coherent curriculum is one of the principal ways in which underperforming low-income schools fail their students substantially.  Given what we know about the connection between content knowledge and reading comprehension, those who are concerned with low-SES schools should be the ones shouting the loudest for national standards.  Factor in the extraordinarily high mobility rates among low-income students of color and national content standards become an essential prerequisite for closing the achievement gap. 

Standards are not a panacea.  Process standards are notoriously vague and difficult to assess and are little more than aspirational statements (”All students will write in clear, concise, organized language that varies in content and form for different audiences and purposes,” for example, is not the most helpful standard when planning lessons.)  But strong national content standards tied to reading assessments to ensure the content is actually taught would be the quickest way to avoid gaps and repetitions in the critical elementary school years and boost achievement over time.  National curriculum standards would also free novice teachers, who are overrepresented in low-SES schools, an opportunity to focus on how to teach instead of what to teach.

21st Century B.C. Skills

Published by Robert Pondiscio on October 30, 2008 in Core Knowledge, Curriculum and Education Theory. 4 Comments

Eduwonk Andy Rotherham gives voice today to something that has been irritating me for a while now–the careless and self-indulgent tossing about of the phrase “21st Century Skills” to describe the simple outcome of a sound, basic education.  Problem solving, critical thinking and cooperative learning have been with us in this country since we hunted in groups using spears with Clovis points.  As Andy puts it:

 We’re not the first society where those skills have been needed or valued.   What’s changed is the need —  for both equity and economic reasons — to give many more students a high quality education that allows them to develop these skills.   In other words it’s about broadening access to a good education rather than a radically different conception of what a good education is.   If dressing that up as 21st Century Skills helps sell an equity agenda, that’s great, otherwise we are flattering ourselves some about just how revolutionary the world we live in really is.

Amen.  The sooner we stop nattering on about “21st Century” skills the better, especially since the phrase tends to be code for devaluing the content-rich curriculum that makes critical thinking possible.