It's OK To Call Rotherham
It has recently come to light that my post from a few days ago (Need a Quote? Call 202-756-4944) was based on horribly bad research (my own). Andy Rotherham is not Education Week's only source.
The original numbers I used to chart how many times various pundits were mentioned in EdWeek during the past year were wrong. I didn't put quotation marks around the search terms. The real EdWeek numbers are much more reasonable: Rotherham 17, Finn 12, Haycock 18, and Hess 21.
I think it's worth pointing out that it was Rotherham -- not the folks at EdWeek -- who was concerned enough to check the original figures. Upon reflection, they seem pretty outrageous. Some reporters were apparently telling him they couldn't quote him anymore. But no one questioned the stats.
In any case, the good news is that we can all go back to calling him as much or as little as we'd like -- and go back to reading EdWeek stories without thinking they're all based on the same source. My sincere apologies to all.
The original numbers I used to chart how many times various pundits were mentioned in EdWeek during the past year were wrong. I didn't put quotation marks around the search terms. The real EdWeek numbers are much more reasonable: Rotherham 17, Finn 12, Haycock 18, and Hess 21.
I think it's worth pointing out that it was Rotherham -- not the folks at EdWeek -- who was concerned enough to check the original figures. Upon reflection, they seem pretty outrageous. Some reporters were apparently telling him they couldn't quote him anymore. But no one questioned the stats.
In any case, the good news is that we can all go back to calling him as much or as little as we'd like -- and go back to reading EdWeek stories without thinking they're all based on the same source. My sincere apologies to all.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home