I have said in the past that I am dismayed that Education Week takes money from the foundations it covers, like Gates and Walton. I have said that I am dismayed at its shameless advocacy for the edtech shlock and profiteering now inundating the schools.
But Education Week has great reporters, who tell it like it is.
In this blog, Mark Walsh reports on the controversy over NBC’s biased selection of participants. Why in the world would NBC invite the CEO of Goldman Sachs as an “education expert?” Why in the world is the list tilted towards governors on the far-far-far right? Why are there so few educators?
How can there be a debate when only one side is represented?
How can a national discussion of American education take place with no discussion of poverty and segregation, budget cuts and privatization? Why no panel on equitable distribution of resources to the neediest children? Why no discussion about the remarkable growth in the for-profit management of public schools?
Thanks, Mark Walsh. You restore my faith in EdWeek.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Never fully trust any organization controlled by wealthy money. This is why we are CORE-CA not CORE. Celes King III whose family founded CORE-CA to counter the billionaires in civil and human rights. Therefore Celes King III separated legally CORE-CA from CORE in about 1985. We never have and will not take their money. This allows us to work issues as we see them without having to answer to anyone. This gives you credibility. We have the ability to walk on both sides of the aisle as they know we are not paid to push an issue but only do it from research and what is good for the community. Go look up the funders of the Urban League, NAACP and any other organization you can think of and look at who their funders are and compare it to the OLD ALEX LIST and see what you see. You will be surprised and then think what would happen if you crossed the desires of your funders. No more job is what it is. What does that do to decision making and public positions in the nice suits and such? Remember, “I hear real good, but I see a whole lot better.”
Diane, I’m a big fan of most of what you have to say. But I am offended by your bias against ed tech as referenced “edtech shlock”. Yes, there is a bit of edtech vendors that take advantage of school districts when their products do little if anything to affect achievement. Interactive white boards would be one example where the cost/benefit does matchup with achievement. But to refer to all of us as ed tech schlock is a bit over the top in my book.
Dr. Bob, I do not refer to all EdTech as shlock. You know, as well as I, that there some very inferior products vying for “market share.”
I have enormous admiration for teachers who use Ed tech wisely and well. And I have enormous suspicion of some of the entrepreneurs who want to create a “teacher proof” technology or to cut costs by having 100 kids on computers, with only one teachers. This is a twos idled phenomenon and you have to aware of the dangers, not naively endorsing whatever is for sale.
“Interactive white boards (IWB) would be one example where the cost/benefit does matchup with achievement.”
REALLY???
How??
Stats/studies please.
Please be advised that Marzano’s study with it’s concludion of X percentage of student acheivement raised by IWB’s is not valid.
And what is your definition of “achievement”?