A group called the Campaign for High School Equity made
news the other day when it criticized Arne Duncan’s NCLB waivers
and complained that the waivers might reduce the amount of
high-stakes testing for poor and minority students. Mike Petrilli
at the conservative think tank Thomas B. Fordham Institute
challenged me to admit that the civil rights groups were leading
the charge to protect high-stakes testing. I accepted his
challenge. It didn’t make sense, on the face of it, that civil
rights groups would want more testing. Every standardized test in
the world reflects socioeconomic status, family education and
income. Testing measures advantage and disadvantage. Some kids defy
the odds, but the odds strongly predict that the have-not kids will
be at the bottom of the bell curve. They will be labeled as
failures. They may get help, they may not. But one thing is sure:
standardized testing is not a tool to advance civil rights. Testing
is not teaching. Low scores do not produce more resources or higher
achievement. More testing does not improve learning. It increase
rote learning, teaching to the test, narrowing the curriculum, and
sometimes, cheating. So who is this group and why does it want more
testing. First,
the article that Mike forwarded to me. It says that the
waivers are allowing too many schools to avoid the consequences of
being low-performing. In other words, the Campaign for High School
Equity prefers the draconian consequences of No Child Left Behind
and the punitive labels attached to schools based on high-stakes
testing. Of course, their statement also makes it appear that Arne
Duncan is trying to water down punishments and high-stakes testing,
when nothing could be further from the truth. Who is part of the
Campaign for High School Equity? It includes the following groups:
National
Urban League • National
Council of La Raza • National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People • The
Leadership Conference Education Fund • Mexican
American Legal Defense and Educational Fund • League
of United Latin American Citizens •National
Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational
Fund • Alliance
for Excellent Education • National
Indian Education Association • Southeast
Asia Resource Action Center Why are they in favor of
high-stakes testing, even though the evidence is overwhelming that
NCLB has failed the children they represent? I can’t say for sure,
but this I do know. The Campaign for High School Equity is funded
by the Gates Foundation. It received a grant of nearly $500,000.
Some if not all of its members have also received grants from Gates
to support the CHSE. The NAACP
received $1 million from Gates to do so. LULAC
received $600,000 to support the CHSE. The Alliance
for Excellent Education received $2.6 million “to promote
public will for effective high school reform.” The Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights Fund received
$375,000 from the Gates Foundation to support CHSE. The
National
Association of Latino Appointed and Elected Officials is
Gates-funded, though not for this specific program. The National
Indian Education Fund received
Gates funding to participate in CHSE. The Southeast Asia
Resource
Action Center was funded by Gates to participate in CHSE. The others are not Gates-funded.
When CHSE demands more high-stakes testing,
more labeling of schools as “failed,” more public school closings,
more sanctions, more punishments, they are not speaking for communities
of color. They are speaking for the Gates Foundation.
Whoever is actually speaking for minority communities and children of color is
advocating for more pre-school education, smaller class sizes,
equitable resources, more funding of special education, more
funding for children who are learning English, experienced
teachers, restoration of budget cuts, the hiring of social workers
and guidance counselors where they are needed, after-school
programs, and access to medical care for children and their
families.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“Testing measures advantage and disadvantage.”
NO! Testing “measures” nothing. Quantifying i.e., measuring a quality is a logical inconsistency, in other words an invalidity.
Noel Wilson has shown why educational standards, standardized testing and the “grading” of students are illogical, invalid and unreliable, and are educational malpractices that harm many, especially those of lower socio-economic status, which unfortunately to high a percentage of our population are a part of. See his “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700
Oh, El mio Cid give me the strength to continue this Quixotic Quest in fighting the monsters that are educational standards, standardized testing and the grading of students.
Brief outline of Wilson’s “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” and some comments of mine. (updated 6/24/13 per Wilson email)
1. A quality cannot be quantified. Quantity is a sub-category of quality. It is illogical to judge/assess a whole category by only a part (sub-category) of the whole. The assessment is, by definition, lacking in the sense that “assessments are always of multidimensional qualities. To quantify them as one dimensional quantities (numbers or grades) is to perpetuate a fundamental logical error” (per Wilson). The teaching and learning process falls in the logical realm of aesthetics/qualities of human interactions. In attempting to quantify educational standards and standardized testing we are lacking much information about said interactions.
2. A major epistemological mistake is that we attach, with great importance, the “score” of the student, not only onto the student but also, by extension, the teacher, school and district. Any description of a testing event is only a description of an interaction, that of the student and the testing device at a given time and place. The only correct logical thing that we can attempt to do is to describe that interaction (how accurately or not is a whole other story). That description cannot, by logical thought, be “assigned/attached” to the student as it cannot be a description of the student but the interaction. And this error is probably one of the most egregious “errors” that occur with standardized testing (and even the “grading” of students by a teacher).
3. Wilson identifies four “frames of reference” each with distinct assumptions (epistemological basis) about the assessment process from which the “assessor” views the interactions of the teaching and learning process: the Judge (think college professor who “knows” the students capabilities and grades them accordingly), the General Frame-think standardized testing that claims to have a “scientific” basis, the Specific Frame-think of learning by objective like computer based learning, getting a correct answer before moving on to the next screen, and the Responsive Frame-think of an apprenticeship in a trade or a medical residency program where the learner interacts with the “teacher” with constant feedback. Each category has its own sources of error and more error in the process is caused when the assessor confuses and conflates the categories.
4. Wilson elucidates the notion of “error”: “Error is predicated on a notion of perfection; to allocate error is to imply what is without error; to know error it is necessary to determine what is true. And what is true is determined by what we define as true, theoretically by the assumptions of our epistemology, practically by the events and non-events, the discourses and silences, the world of surfaces and their interactions and interpretations; in short, the practices that permeate the field. . . Error is the uncertainty dimension of the statement; error is the band within which chaos reigns, in which anything can happen. Error comprises all of those eventful circumstances which make the assessment statement less than perfectly precise, the measure less than perfectly accurate, the rank order less than perfectly stable, the standard and its measurement less than absolute, and the communication of its truth less than impeccable.”
In other word all the logical errors involved in the process render any conclusions invalid.
5. The test makers/psychometricians, through all sorts of mathematical machinations attempt to “prove” that these tests (based on standards) are valid-errorless or supposedly at least with minimal error [they aren’t]. Wilson turns the concept of validity on its head and focuses on just how invalid the machinations and the test and results are. He is an advocate for the test taker not the test maker. In doing so he identifies thirteen sources of “error”, any one of which renders the test making/giving/disseminating of results invalid. As a basic logical premise is that once something is shown to be invalid it is just that, invalid, and no amount of “fudging” by the psychometricians/test makers can alleviate that invalidity.
6. Having shown the invalidity, and therefore the unreliability, of the whole process Wilson concludes, rightly so, that any result/information gleaned from the process is “vain and illusory”. In other words start with an invalidity, end with an invalidity (except by sheer chance every once in a while, like a blind and anosmic squirrel who finds the occasional acorn, a result may be “true”) or to put in more mundane terms crap in-crap out.
7. And so what does this all mean? I’ll let Wilson have the second to last word: “So what does a test measure in our world? It measures what the person with the power to pay for the test says it measures. And the person who sets the test will name the test what the person who pays for the test wants the test to be named.”
In other words it measures “’something’ and we can specify some of the ‘errors’ in that ‘something’ but still don’t know [precisely] what the ‘something’ is.” The whole process harms many students as the social rewards for some are not available to others who “don’t make the grade (sic)” Should American public education have the function of sorting and separating students so that some may receive greater benefits than others, especially considering that the sorting and separating devices, educational standards and standardized testing, are so flawed not only in concept but in execution?
My answer is NO!!!!!
One final note with Wilson channeling Foucault and his concept of subjectivization:
“So the mark [grade/test score] becomes part of the story about yourself and with sufficient repetitions becomes true: true because those who know, those in authority, say it is true; true because the society in which you live legitimates this authority; true because your cultural habitus makes it difficult for you to perceive, conceive and integrate those aspects of your experience that contradict the story; true because in acting out your story, which now includes the mark and its meaning, the social truth that created it is confirmed; true because if your mark is high you are consistently rewarded, so that your voice becomes a voice of authority in the power-knowledge discourses that reproduce the structure that helped to produce you; true because if your mark is low your voice becomes muted and confirms your lower position in the social hierarchy; true finally because that success or failure confirms that mark that implicitly predicted the now self evident consequences. And so the circle is complete.”
In other words students “internalize” what those “marks” (grades/test scores) mean, and since the vast majority of the students have not developed the mental skills to counteract what the “authorities” say, they accept as “natural and normal” that “story/description” of them. Although paradoxical in a sense, the “I’m an “A” student” is almost as harmful as “I’m an ‘F’ student” in hindering students becoming independent, critical and free thinkers. And having independent, critical and free thinkers is a threat to the current socio-economic structure of society
I like your last paragraph.
Yes such thinkers are a treat to the current socio-economic system, and that’s why I think the tea party will eventually prevail because they can indeed think. Making thinking out of drones isn’t easy, but one by one, bit by bit we will succeed because of the inherent contradiction of progressive thinking. The operable, hyperbolic question, is “How much are you prepared to steal from Bill Gates to feed a hungry child.”
Taking back ill gotten gains made through exploitation, cheating, and manipulating is hardly stealing. Perhaps you should read the trial documents that accompanied Gates’ conviction as a predatory monopolist.
Thanks for the ill-placed and off-topic political diatribe. Do you have something to say about the topic? Otherwise, how can you “prevail”? And dare I ask what is the “inherent contradiction” of progressive thought? And for a bonus, what are the “inherent contradictions” we frequently see with the things tea party folks frequently say?
HU,
I’m not sure what you mean by your first sentence, especially the first clause. Please explain.
Thanks,
Duane
Diane, are your opinions for sale? That is, would you accept $500,000 to change your mind and advocate for things you really don’t believe in? Of course not. Same is true of many other people who regularly post here – including those who vigorously disagree with some things I’ve written.
Same is true for many other people. The Urban League, NAACP, and LaRaza, just for example, are long-time advocates for low income young people and families of color. I don’t think their opinions are “for sale.”
“For sale” is probably not an apt descriptor- it’s not just the money, but the illusion of being “at the table” where the same deformy slogans substitute for discourse.
Click to access CCSS_Toolkit.pdf
An NCLR Common Core “Tool Kit” funded by the Gates Foundation
Civil rights groups may still be under the spell of GWB and Ted Kennedy (“The soft bigotry of low expectations”). The problem with the standards-based reform philosophy was that high expectations and high stakes testing do nothing to change the negative impacts of poverty, child neglect, the breakdown of the nuclear family, teenage pregnancy, racism, and shear the hopelessness that follows.
The central idea that high expectations could be measured accurately using standardized test scores is a castle made of sand.
As Arne says, maybe we have just been lying to kids all along about what it takes to make it in college, and they have believed the lies that high school graduation certifies a functioning mind. Whether the CCSS will lift the level of academic functioning remains to be seen. Certainly not for the low poor, possibly not the middle middle class. The elite rich with do well under any regimen.
Joe – Falae presumption. Fact is, people WILL sell their souls! Consciously, unconsciously, covertly or overtly. . .
Joe, I do not accept advertisements for this blog. I do not seek nor would I accept foundation grants. My books are sold to individuals who want to buy them. I sometimes receive speaker’s fees, but I make a point of telling audiences what I believe, even if it makes them uncomfortable, not what they want to hear. Are my views for sale? No. But I am lucky. I am 75 and I don’t need the money. I understand that many people do distasteful things because they need to put food on the table and pay their mortgage. That’s life. There are some things, however, that should never be sold out, like the well-being of children, human rights, basic principle.
Thank you for speaking up. The speeches yesterday at the 50th Anniversary of the Dream speech in DC indicate the degree of push for the CC that is evidenced in the minority community.
teddiu – keep in mind that the speeches were tightly controlled yesterday. No minority speakers (or non-minority speakers for that matter) would have been allowed to speak against CC.
Diane, I agree with you that “some things should never be sold out…”
On August 23, you posted comments from the National Education Policy Center.
During that conversation, someone calling her/himself NEPC wrote that “We’re very happy with the NEA’s strong understanding and agreement with our requirements for complete editorial freedom. (The same is true of our other funders, including our largest funder, the Ford Foundation.)” I don’t think the NEPC is for sale, to Ford or anyone else.
It’s interesting to look at Ford Foundation support (since NEPC mentioned it as “our largest funder”) over the last several years for several of the groups that were mentioned in today’s post.
Here’s how much support some of those groups that have been criticized for their recent statement have received from Ford Foundation:
Alliance for Excellent Education (2011)
$100,000
Leadership Conference Education Fund:
More than $5 million since 2009
NAACP –
2009 – 1.3 million
2010 $1 million
2011 – $1.5 million
2012 – $735,000.
National Council o LaRaza
2009 – 1.7 million
2010 – $1.9 million
2011 – $1.7 million
2013 – $700,000.
Urban League
2010 – $200,000
2011 $1.2 million
I think a variety of funders (including Ford and Gates) look for groups that they think have credibility and do good work (that would include NEPC, as well as others listed above) and then give them money.
I also recognize that not everyone agrees with NEPC, or NAACP, or Leadership Conference Education Fund or NAACP, or La Raza, or the Urban League.
Perhaps others are comfortable implying or suggesting that these organizations have done “distasteful things” because of the $ they were offered. I don’t agree with such an assertion.
Actually, Joe, true black progressives have been arguing that the Urban League, NAACP and Civil Rights groups HAVE in fact sold out to GATES et al:
Black Agenda Report: “Corporate Funding of Urban League, NAACP & Civil Rights Orgs Has Turned Into Corporate Leadership”
http://blackagendareport.com/corporate-funding-urban-league-naacp-civil-rights-orgs-has-turned-corporate-leadership
As noted above, some of those same groups have received millions from Ford Foundation. The University of Colorado National Education Policy Center reported recently here that the Ford Foundation is their single largest funder.
My family and I worked actively for civil rights in these organizations during the 50s, 60s and 70s and today they are nothing like they were then. Gone from the leadership is the consistent outrage over human rights violations, such as poverty, and absent is the advocacy for livable wages. They shut up after they were bought off. They live comfortably in quiet, just like their role model Obama, who also never talks about poverty and, while he gave lip service to labor unions when campaigning, shamefully, he has failed to support them.
The Perils for Obama of Not Talking About Poverty in America
http://www.laprogressive.com/obama-of-not-talking-about-poverty-in-america/
I’m ?aving trouble imagining how not living in poverty is a human rights violation, or a civil rights violation. Can you explain.
My family and I did too CT. And I still an working with a number of those groups who believe strongly that they are working on poverty, race, unemployment and education issues.
In essence there is no race issue except in the minds of the race hustlers. About poverty, unemployment, and education there is much yet to be done.
You’re living in a bubble. There’s evidence that these same groups were bought off by communications corporations to oppose Net Neutrality –even though Obama supports it:
“La Raza, LULAC, NAACP, Urban League AGAINST Net Neutrality”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/04/11/856009/-La-Raza-LULAC-NAACP-Urban-League-AGAINST-Net-Neutrality
CT re “bubbles” – I don’t know where you live but every day I come to work in a nationally awarding winning inner city school that has more than 75% students from low income families and people of color. I spent 2-3 days in urban public schools. I listen to students of color from low income families every day.
I live in a racially diverse city and spent lots of time working with organizations that are fiercely devoted to reducing poverty and improving education.
Where do you work? Where do you live?
Joe
I live in poverty myself. I have been poor throughout my four decade long career in education. I have never had the opportunity to join a teacher’s union and our pay is unlivable. I am facing the prospect of homelessness for the fourth time in the last two years. Excuse me if I think no one is advocating for those in poverty, but four decades of being the working poor tells me that no one is helping.
Sorry you have been living in poverty. In what state do you live where you have never been able to join a union? Are you a public school teacher?
I am a teacher. It doesn’t matter where I live and work because there are many more teachers who are struggling across the country, in both public and private P-20 education.
What is a “true Black progressive”?
Listen to Black Agenda Radio on the Progressive Radio Network and read their website: http://www.blackagendareport.com/ba_radio_on_PRN
See Glen Ford from the Black Agenda Report, “Corporate Assault on Public Education”
Are you kidding Mr. Nathan? “Fund-to-advocate” is the fundamental operating mode of the Nonprofit Industrial Complex (NPIC). I’d tell you to read “The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex” http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/76167539, but I doubt those of your political stripe are willing to take a look at the reality that these groups only advocate for things that will continue their foundation funding. In Los Angeles Urban League and Council of La Raza are Gates and UWGLA funded pariah NPICs looked upon with disdain by authentic civil rights groups and grassroots organizers.
My political stripe happens to be liberal Democrat. Have served as campaign director for a liberal Democrat mayor, and worked on many campaigns including the late US Senator Paul Wellstone.
Ever since Clinton, New Democrats have dominated the party and they are free-market neo-liberals, not liberals. (Those of us who used to be liberal Democrats and understand what’s been happening typically distinguish ourselves as “progressives” today.)
“We have so much evidence that school reforms being carried out by Democrats and Republicans aim to benefit the rich and powerful, that we can no longer excuse liberals who don’t “get’ what’s happening.”
“The Liberal Education Reform Revolt: Are liberals finally ready to oppose neoliberal education reform?”
http://jacobinmag.com/2013/07/the-liberal-education-reform-revolt/
Gates’ wealth grows as Microsoft avoids paying taxes in the US. Instead of those tax dollars making their way into our school systems and allowing the schools to leverage increased revenue to fully fund our schools, he pockets his tax savings and then doles out billions of dollars to fund education reform that will in the end funnel more money to Microsoft and Gates.
http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-microsoft-avoids-taxes-loopholes-irs-2013-1
And now we have Big for Schools http://tinyurl.com/q4cvts6
I think you mean BING for Schools.
yes Bing
“The Campaign for High School Equity is funded by the Gates Foundation.” Could it be that The Campaign held these beliefs intrinsically and sought out support from Gates, recognizing the alignment? They may well be speaking about something that they care deeply about and that Gates has helped them accomplish their mission.
Sold!
Joe, you hit on a point that I was going to comment on, even though I’m not exactly going to agree with you.
What we have in the CHSE is not so much a “selling out” by the other organizations listed as a stealth umbrella group that uses the cover of its “partners” to cover for an agenda that is not controlled by or necessarily advocates the same way as these other groups. It’s actually a known dodge in philanthropy circles, one I saw even from relatively good organizations like the Pew Charitable Trusts when my wife worked there. It is another aspect of the “venture philanthropy” idea. All you have to do is dig into who actually formed and runs CHSE to find the fingerprints.
While they may claim up front that it was the coalition of “partner” groups that formed the organization, that is not actually the case. If you look at a very bottom of any of the “About Us” pages on the CHSE website, you will find a tiny link to Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors (which does not appear on the main menus), along with a copyright notice (in a very small font) that says:
Clicking that link takes you to a page that you otherwise wouldn’t see on the CHSE website. Here you find out that in fact, it is this RFA who actually formed CHSE with the support of…The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In other words, it is a stealth arm of Gates, working through RFA.
What really drives this home is that RFA is what is referred to as a “pass-through” organization, one that takes money from one philanthropic source and passes it on to another, usually so that the original source will not have a direct hand in the funding (it’s also done sometimes to gain tax-exempt benefits if the pass-through has 501c3 status.) RFA is a cash funnel for Gates, in this case, and is managing CHSE for the donor with the actual cash. The monies given by Gates to the partner organizations just help to conceal the underlying nature of the group and who’s really behind and running it. The partners often have no idea that they’ve been played and think that the group is advancing an agenda they like. Meanwhile, the real controllers get cover using the names of the partners while pursuing their own agenda.
That Gates would do this kind of thing, just to make sure that he could have a “civil rights organization” backing his version of school reform and high-stakes testing should not surprise any of us. Just because he’s the 800lb gorilla doesn’t mean he can’t be underhanded at the same time. CHSE is a perfect example of how this kind of pass-through tactic can be used to sucker even the best of organizations into things they’d never do on their own, and I have no doubt that Gates knows this.
Guys: Let’s hear from our civil rights organizations before we come to conclusions about them. I have “tweetted” each of them. You do the same. Let’s get some answers straight from them. I also called the local offices of these organizations. That was futile. So let’s put it out there in the clouds. Thanks Diane for the “heads up”!
I’d suggest you tweet the Black Agenda Report, too, because they’ve been on the case of corporate sponsorship and the hijacking of black civil rights groups for years. You can tweet them at: @blkagendareport
No, let’s smoke out the organizations that some are claiming have sold us out and others are claiming want more standardized testing. NAACP has issued a statement against more standardized testing. Let the organizations say where they stand not us by inference and innuendo. Le’s all ask them directly.
Good luck with that, because they are beholden to other corporate sponsors as well, such as AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc, whose interests they have pomoted over the rights of citizens, and their responses to inquiries were not particularly palatable:: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/04/11/856009/-La-Raza-LULAC-NAACP-Urban-League-AGAINST-Net-Neutrality
HELP! Please someone point out to me in the documents in Diane’s link that indicates that “the civil rights groups were leading the charge to protect high-stakes testing.” I cannot find anything in those documents that would lead me to believe that is the case. I don’t find anything that says the groups are asking for more high stakes assessment either. What I read is regarding accountability. I don’t think Petrilli read the article, but he was sure anxious to push Diane’s buttons. Fordham supports the common core initiative so they twist simple things around so it sounds like something it’s not. Voila, a new narrative is born. If I am wrong, SOMEONE SHOW ME!
A very good article titled, “Why the Alarm is Going Off About Students Learning English as a Second Language” by Tim Padgett came out just yesterday referencing the problems nationwide and specifically in Florida:
“Among the key flaws they point to: a lack of individual school accountability for ESOL performance, inadequate teacher training and a requirement that students take Florida’s standardized English exams after just one year of ESOL instruction – something Miami-Dade Public Schools Superintendent Alberto Carvalho, himself an ESOL alumnus, calls “not reasonable.”
http://wlrn.org/post/why-alarm-going-about-students-learning-english-second-language
Sandra, the Campaign for High School Equity released a statement criticizing waivers from the NCLB accountability system. That means a defense of NCLB and high-stakes testing.
http://www.highschoolequity.org/media-room/news-releases/384-chses-analysis-of-waivers-raises-serious-questions-about-how-states-will-serve-students-of-color.html#fbid=TwJP6aJ_lPP
Thank you Diane for your response. The press release does not confirm Petrilli’s notion that “civil rights groups are leading the charge to protect high-stakes testing” or that they are demanding more testing or punitive high stakes assessments.
As I read the press release, I see there are concerns raised that states, if left to their own design, will not on their own pay sufficient attention to sub-groups; I am from Florida…no question that is the case here, and has been for too long. I guess the more important question is what can be done to ensure equal education access; hardly the case nationwide with so many school closings in lower SES areas.
If I read correctly, Duncan’s current waiver has strings attached…punitive style with teachers the target.
A gentle and most respective suggestion to you….the next time Petrilli sends you a “challenge” like this one…tell him to take a hike.
Thanks, Sandra. Fighting to preserve NCLB is not the same as fighting for smaller classes, pre-K, experienced teachers, and fully resourced schools.
Read Michelle Alexander’s @thenewjimcrow – see key point from p. 210 here – http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/16406-education-reform-in-the-new-jim-crow-era …
allow me to plug my neice in law’s book…..sarah reckhow…http://newbooksinpoliticalscience.com/2013/03/20/sarah-reckhow-follow-the-money-how-foundation-dollars-change-public-school-politics-oxford-up-2013/OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2013
by HEATH BROWN on MARCH 20, 2013
Sarah Reckhow
View on Amazon
Sarah Reckhow is the author of Follow the Money: How Foundation Dollars Change Public School Politics (Oxford University Press 2013). Reckhow is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Michigan State University. Her book probes significant questions about the role of philanthropic foundations in education reform. Through in-depth case studies of New York City and Los Angeles, Reckhow demonstrates how a particular view of school reform has been funded by major foundations such as Gates and Eli Broad. Emphasizing new types of schools, particularly charter schools, and reforms focused around a business-oriented view of school management, foundations have reshaped education in these two cities. Yet differences in governance that exist between the two cities also have resulted in a different role for funders and funding. Reckhow weaves together this story with novel data collection and excellent interviews. The book should be read by scholars in public policy, education, and nonprofit studies.
I expand on this here: http://atthechalkface.com/2013/08/29/who-speaks-for-whom/
Diane, Which others are NOT Gates funded? I checked and ALL of the organizations listed are funded by Gates, including some you didn’t mention that WERE funded specifically to support CHSE, such as:
National Urban League: 2009
Purpose: to more effectively leverage its affiliate network, introduce common (national) policy goals and objectives, and involve local and state NUL leaders in the national federal advocacy work of the Campaign for High School Equity
Amount: $800,000
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund 2009
Purpose: to continue participation in Campaign for High School Equity
Amount: $400,000
National Council of La Raza received a lot of Gates funding for different projects.
Who is NOT funded by Gates???
I just wrote a redundant comment below to the same effect.
All that testing does, is identify who is being left behind. Where is the funding for the remedy? The free market appoach is educational darwinism for each student, survival of the fittest. A perfect example are charter schools which cull out the weakest students. This is the polar opposite of the concept of NCLB.
If the billionaires matched every dollar of public funding for the students who are identified as failing, then there would be an actual private public action to back up the spirit of NCLB.
Guys, you are jumping to conclusions that you do not know about. Sometimes you do bite the hand that feeds you. Much of Gates money is so hidden, we don;t know who is getting it. Tweet the organizations, write the organizations, call them and ask what they support. Remember it was NAACP that helped put a stop to IQ testing and it was not too long ago that NAACP put out a statement against high stakes testing
Would suggest that people follow educatorwhome’s advice and read the recommendations of the Campaign for High School Equity. They have a number of recommendations that include more funding for schools serving students from low income and limited English speaking families, federal incentives to promote state greater funding for such schools, schools and other organizations sharing facilities (something done in Cincinnati and other places that the AFT has endorsed), more funds to help families understand the US public education system, etc. etc.
There is a long list of recommendations.
The NAACP, LaRaza, Urban League and other groups are listed as partners.
I’d agree with this educator who suggests taking a look at what is being recommended. Happy Labor Day weekend.
Wow!! That’s some list of groups my sense is that they didn’t ask parents and students what they wanted and supported.
Attached you will find what PARENTS AND STUDENTS REALLY want to see in their schools AND It is not more high stakes testing, its SUSTAINABLE SCHOOL TRANSFORMATION!
Developed by parents and students across the country in response to the often unproven,racist,failed education policies that continue to be pushed on Black and Brown communities from California-New York.
So tired and frustrated to have others think its okay to talk for parents and students most impacted, we are very capable of expressing what we need and what works. Visit our Journey for Justice Facebook page or follow us on Twitter at J4J_USA
Educational Justice Movement continues, led by youth supported by parents and community!
https://www.facebook.com/notes/journey-4-justice/proposal-for-sustainable-school-tranformation-82013/237543576394291
Has anyone who’s worked on ed policy or curriculum in the last decade *NOT* worked for an organization funded by Gates?
That’s not what I meant. I was asking about the groups on the list that Diane was referring to when she wrote, ” The others are not Gates-funded.”
I regularly look up organizations to see if they are Gates-funded, such as the special ed organizations promoting that special ed students take the same test as typically developing students. I could find no evidence that any of them were funded by Gates.
Nice to see Bill getting a freebie, I guess?
FLerp,
Economic Policy Institute in DC is NOT funded by Gates.
The reprehensible “Democrats For Ed. Reform” have this attack of Diane on their home page;
DFER @DFER_News
MT @charlesbarone: Ravitch: none of following groups speak 4 children of color: @NAACP @LULAC @NCLR @NatUrbanLeague
http://www.dfer.org/list/about/board/
How would you describe this
“Who is part of the
Campaign for High School Equity? It includes the following groups:
National
Urban League • National
Council of La Raza • National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People • The
Leadership Conference Education Fund • Mexican
American Legal Defense and Educational Fund • League
of United Latin American Citizens •National
Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational
Fund • Alliance
for Excellent Education • National
Indian Education Association • Southeast
Asia Resource Action Center Why are they in favor of
high-stakes testing, even though the evidence is overwhelming that
NCLB has failed the children they represent? I can’t say for sure,
but this I do know. The Campaign for High School Equity is funded
by the Gates Foundation. It received a grant of nearly $500,000.
Some if not all of its members have also received grants from Gates
to support the CHSE. The NAACP
received $1 million from Gates to do so. LULAC
received $600,000 to support the CHSE. The Alliance
for Excellent Education received $2.6 million “to promote
public will for effective high school reform.” The Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights Fund received
$375,000 from the Gates Foundation to support CHSE. The
National
Association of Latino Appointed and Elected Officials is
Gates-funded, though not for this specific program. The National
Indian Education Fund received
Gates funding to participate in CHSE. The Southeast Asia
Resource
Action Center was funded by Gates to participate in CHSE. The others are not Gates-funded.
When CHSE demands more high-stakes testing,
more labeling of schools as “failed,” more public school closings,
more sanctions, more punishments, they are not speaking for communities
of color. They are speaking for the Gates Foundation.”
Pleased to see that DFER reads my blog. maybe they will read my book. It might change their minds.
So, DFERS think that THEY speak for children of color??? REALLY???? What is clear through Petrilli’s teaser and the DFER follow up is to change the conversation and reframe the narrative.
This not so clever approach is intended to avoid a real analysis of the impact of the current waivers …..and they seem to have more strings than NCLB requirements. Why should anyone support Duncan’s waivers?
Schools unite. If you’re buying school or personal computers from Microsoft, you’re enriching Bill Gates further to finance public education’s demise – the only school system open to all children. Find another computer company to enrich.
A few years ago, a group of African American leaders were viewed on a video having a conversation with Arne Duncan on how No Child Left Behind and standardized tests are failing to serve the best interests of minority children and their neighborhood schools. Duncan’s body language showed his disdain for their concerns. He kept talking past these individuals without precisely addressing their concerns. I was embarrassed for him.
Duncan knows many organizations are hurting financially in this recession, so Bill Gates rides to the rescue and buys support for ‘reforms’ which enrich his company with requirements for on-line instruction and standardized testing.
Could Bill Gates pass a standardized test in a language he doesn’t understand? Would that test score accurately reflect his knowledge of math or language arts? Would he be able to correctly answer a question about bananas being brown from a test maker so poor that he’d never seen a banana while it was yellow? Standardized tests reflect the economic status of white, middle class, English-speaking test-makers rather than our current student diversity, and often mislabel students.
I wish Bill Gates would rescue hungry families who have no jobs, medical care, money for rent or their children’s needs, and no knowledge of English. That would do more good than all the testing and computers in the world. AND I wish he’d listen to real educators and poor parents. I doubt he’s had many if any conversations with special ed. or ELL teachers or school nurses or school counselors or school social workers or school psychologists or parents on food stamps who can’t speak English but whose children are required to be tested in English.
Gates’ money is like Duncan’s conversation with African American leaders – it keeps missing the mark by avoiding the tough questions and problems. Labeling schools and re-sorting children is not teaching.
Do you have an opinion about No Child Left Behind? Listen to WHY? radio show on Sunday and e-mail in your questions, live!!
https://www.facebook.com/whyradioshow