Eduwonk � Blog Archive � Hogwarts On The Hudson?

Eduwonk � Blog Archive � Hogwarts On The Hudson?

Hogwarts On The Hudson?

Wow.  Jaw meet floor.  Scholastic, a serious publisher in the education space (that produces some good products, for instance Read 180) is now allowing its bloggers to call out senior government officials as corrupt on the basis of anonymous third party hearsay and no evidence.   We’ve crossed into a strange new - and unfortunate - world if this is the new norm or somehow even remotely acceptable.
Update:  As you can tell from the now broken link it’s to Scholastic’s credit that they’ve removed the post.

This entry was posted on Friday, February 5th, 2010 at 4:00 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

1. steve f. Says:
   February 5th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
   seems like a reasonable blog post to me – he’s just asking for a bit more transparency to clear up any perception of favoritism.
   as he said, it’s not like it hasn’t happened before 
2. Ed Pol Says:
   February 5th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
   Steve F.-
   The first sentence is:
   “I have now heard the same thing from three independent credible sources – the fix is in on the U.S. Department of Education’s competitive grants, in particular Race to the Top (RTTT) and Investing in Innovation (I3). ”
   Not implying anything but just asking?
3. steve f. Says:
   February 5th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
   it’s a blog, i’m not sure of the ethics of blog publishing.
   but the post is asking whether there is favoritism at the dept of ed? that’s reasonable in my book and could be cleared up easily through a transparent process.
   the ny times uses anonymous sources all the time.