Rotherham takes offense.
Got an e-mail from Andrew Rotherham of Eduwonk:
Mr. Klonsky,
Someone forwarded me your post about the competitiveness – equity article that Rick Hess and I did. I was struck by what you wrote. Did you actually take the time to read the piece, or did you just assume you knew what was in it? Either way, your characterization is incorrect because we assiduously don’t take a position because we don’t in fact agree. Here is some background via several links:
http://www.eduwonk.com/2007/06/nclb-and-competition.html
You’ll be particularly interested in the web video where I discuss why I think the equity issue is the more important.
I trust you’ll remedy this on your blog.
Regards,
AR
Andy, you’re wrong on two points. At least two.
One. I did read the article.
Two. I didn’t characterize it inaccurately. I did interpret the article. I did make meaning of it. After all, I’m not taking a fill-in-the-blank test on it. But, if you’re going to write that way, what else can I do?
I understand that you and Rick (can I call him Rick too?) don’t march in lock step. I understand your political resume is different than his.
But, here’s what I learned from Rick’s and your piece. And I suggest anyone who is interested should read it for themselves and decide.
You say that within NCLB there are two contradictory aims: increasing American economic competitiveness and equity.
Although you don’t say it in the article, you claim you stand on the equity side. And while you claim differences with Hess, you attack teacher unions, support the worst aspects of the so-called accountability components of NCLB, and ridicule those who argue that achieving equity means linking school reform with broader social movements for social justice:
There also exists a liberal anti-NCLB coalition united by the belief that NCLB-like policies are damaging teachers, schools, and students. Some from this coalition are following the lead of the National Education Association, parroting the union’s resistance to testing, accountability, and disruption. Others believe it is folly to hold schools accountable for erasing the academic achievement gap absent broad changes in social policy–an argument advanced, most notably, by Richard Rothstein. Inattention to such issues as health care, they say, invalidates the assumptions underlying NCLB, whatever the law’s other merits might be. Some in this camp, buoyed by critics such as popular education author Alfie Kohn and former National Academy of Education president Nel Noddings, have an aversion to testing and accountability, more generally.
I can acknowledge your position. I just can’t remedy it.
But you can remedy it. If I didn’t get your position right, am I the only one? Make your pro-equity position clear so that even someone like me, someone who doesn’t ponder at a think-tank, but just teaches kids, can understand.
