Blog Security Risk

September 29, 2008

I don’t mean to alarm all of you, but I should tell you that Greg Forster, Matt Ladner, and I were all in the same place last week.  I know that this was an unacceptable breach of blog security — if something awful should have happened to us, if terrorists had struck, who would have been left to carry-on with the blog?

Normally we maintain blog security by ensuring that one of us is kept in a bunker in an undisclosed location when the other two meet.  Having us all three together was running an unreasonable risk.

We have taken concrete steps to improve blog security.  In particular, I have successfully cloned myself so that Jay Prime can go to the bunker if the three of us ever get together again.  Jay Prime has been taught all of the secrets of the Jay P. Greene Blog so that if anything should happen the blog will be able to continue.  The Blog Security color remains orange, so we will continue to be vigilant against any and all threats.

3 Comments | blogging | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

The Wolf that Cried Ad Hominem

September 15, 2008

The NY Sun columnist, Andrew Wolf, has posted a long and angry comment, taking exception to Matt Ladner’s post, Little Ramona’s Gone Hillbilly Nuts.  In that post Matt challenged Diane Ravitch’s assertion that Joel Klein, Cory Booker, Michelle Rhee, and Adrian Fenty were seeking to “dismantle public education, piece by piece” by supporting merit pay, reductions in teacher tenure, and charter schools.  Matt observed that these were extra-ordinary charges to make “without presenting a scintilla of supporting evidence.”

But Wolf responds: “I am astounded by the puerile ad hominem attack on Dr. Diane Ravitch that appeared in Jay Greene’s blog. Like all of us, Dr. Ravitch has a right for her opinion to be respected and discussed without opponents resorting to such a childish (and inaccurate) attack. Apparently, Prof. Greene and his band of acolytes can’t muster the intellectual arguments to counter those of Dr. Ravitch, so must resort to this denigration of her scholarship and beliefs.”

I see.  And accusing Klein, Booker, Rhee, and Fenty of seeking to dismantle public education without any supporting evidence is not ad hominem?   

It is not ad hominem to say, as I did in my post on this, that “it is shocking to see these new claims made without any evidence that merit pay, weaker tenure, and charter schools harm public education, let alone destroy it.  Other than the fact that Bloomberg and Klein support these policies, it is not clear why Diane Ravitch opposes them.”  The fact is that Diane Ravitch did not provide evidence to support her claim and it is perfectly within reasonable discourse to point that out. 

If Andrew Wolf wants a substantive discussion rather than ad hominem, how about if he starts by providing the evidence that merit pay, reduced tenure rights, and charter schools “dismantle public education” that Ravitch neglected to provide?

In his own defense, Matt added, “A long and distinguished career does not entitle one to make such reckless and unsupported claims.”

4 Comments | politics, teacher union | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

A Few Comments

September 9, 2008

It must be the back to school season because there are a lot of interesting education pieces on the web.  I thought I’d just mention and briefly comment on some:

  • On Matt Ladner’s Little Ramona’s Gone Hillbilly Nuts about Diane Ravtich’s new-found enthusiasm for teacher unions and hostility to charter schools and merit pay — I posted this comment on his piece: “I liked Left Back, Language Police, and much of her historical work. That’s why it’s so disappointing to read what she is writing these days. From her earlier work one would never have guessed that she would accuse people who favor merit pay, reduction in teacher tenure rights, and charter schools of plotting to destroy public education.  And for someone whose past work relied on rigorous scholarship, it is shocking to see these new claims made without any evidence that merit pay, weaker tenure, and charter schools harm public education, let alone destroy it.  Other than the fact that Bloomberg and Klein support these policies, it is not clear why Diane Ravitch opposes them.”
  • Marcus Winters has a great piece on National Review Online about how reforming the teacher compensation system is the key to improving teacher quality and, in turn, student achievement.
  • Thomas Hibbs has a not-so-great piece on National review Online about how “the true teacher cannot simply be an instrument of the wishes of the student’s family.”  He’s right that parents can sometimes try to shield their children from burdens by lowering academic expectations and that teachers need to strive for excellence regardless.  But it’s unrealistic to expect that we can build an educational system based on “the teacher’s love.”  Parents, whatever their shortcomings, are more likely to be effective advocates for a child’s progress than even well-intentioned and well-trained teachers because the parents have a love for children that we cannot realistically expect from teachers. 
  • I don’t have time to comment on them, but you should also check out the rest of the National Review Online pieces, including those by Checker Finn, Neal McCluskey, Mike Petrilli and Amber Winkler, and Susan Konig.

4 Comments | teacher quality, teacher union | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

Next Entries »