2008 September 03 Archive at The Core Knowledge Blog

Archive for September 3rd, 2008

If You Push Out Subject Matter, You Push Out Reading Comprehension

Published by Robert Pondiscio on September 3, 2008 in Core Knowledge and Literacy. 0 Comments

Core Knowledge founder E.D. Hirsch is interviewed by Claus von Zastrow of the Learning First Alliance over at the website Public School Insights. While supporting the broad aims of accountability, Hirsch laments the narrowing of the curriculum that has occurred under NCLB, since broad general knowledge is critical to reading comprehension. Thus ”if you push out subject matter, you’re also pushing out reading comprehension.”

Discussing the new Core Knowledge Reading Program, which will be piloted in ten New York City schools this year, Hirsch notes that the “listening and learning” strand of the program is key, since when it comes to taking in information ”reading doesn’t catch up to listening until 7th grade on average. You’re really handicapping yourself in the teaching of general knowledge that’s needed for reading comprehension if you insist on doing it through the decoding process.”

There’s lots more. You can hear the entire interview here.

Who’s A Reformer?

Published by Robert Pondiscio on September 3, 2008 in Educational Policy. 1 Comment

The traditional educational battle lines among the political parties are being redrawn, notes Diane Ravitch on her Bridging Differences blog, which makes a welcome return following its summer hiatus. Historically, she notes, the Democratic party advocated more funding for disadvantaged students and policies that promoted equity. The Republican party advocated choice, privatization, merit pay, and accountability, and criticized the teachers’ unions as the main obstacles to reform.

In this election cycle, that familiar divide has changed dramatically. The Republicans still advocate choice, privatization, merit pay, and accountability and are still critical of the teachers’ unions. But now there is a significant movement within the Democratic party that advocates the same positions as the Republicans.

Ravitch is concerned that ”the mantle of ‘reformer’ has passed to those who would dismantle public education, piece by piece.

Update: USA Today’s Greg Toppo picks up a similiar theme in this morning’s paper, noting, “A funny thing happened to the Democratic Party on the way to an education platform: The party has visibly split with teachers unions, its longtime allies, on key issues.”

Marching Orders for the Next Ed Secretary

Published by Robert Pondiscio on September 3, 2008 in Assessment and Testing and Educational Policy. 0 Comments

If we want to spur innovation in education, the Department of Education should act more like the National Institutes of Health. So say Newark Mayor Cory Booker, venture capitalist John Doerr, and Ted Mitchell, chief executive of NewSchools Venture Fund in a Los Angeles Times opinion piece.

“We need a new, results-driven mind-set at the Department of Education that will drive pure educational innovation and ’scale up’ proven experiments and novel ideas that work, the trio write. ”The federal government stands in a unique position to meet these needs.”

The evidence for making a national commitment to innovation in education is compelling. Today, many of the most promising solutions are emerging from entrepreneurial organizations that embrace freedom and accountability. Indeed, such social entrepreneurs represent a growing force. They have started nimble, typically nonprofit organizations that work in partnership with creative mayors and school superintendents.

They cite the examples of KIPP, Uncommon Schools, Green Dot and others as worthy of federal support. Booker, Doerr and Mitchell want the next president to create a “Grow What Works” fund and a second fund to provide research and development money for promising early stage initiatives. They also favor eliminating caps on the number of public charter schools allowed and “excessive restrictions on how teachers are trained and credentialed.” They also call for national standards and tests — without actually using the words, prefering instead “a common set of standards” and “a national data infrastructure.”