I first learned about Roland Fryer, Jr., a Harvard economist, when he devised an experiment to pay students for raising test scores in several cities, which failed. Subsequently, he seemed to be involved in other such experiments where the methodology always involved incentives for teachers or students to get higher scores. Here is an outside review of the merit pay plan he designed for New York City. Another of his less-than-successful incentive plans was called “loss aversion.” It works like this: the district gives teachers a $4,000 bonus at the start of the school year; if scores go up, they keep it. If scores don’t go up, they give the money back.
That gave me an idea: how about “loss aversion” for economists? If their predictions are wrong, their computer is confiscated. Or their pay is cut. Or they lose a digit on one finger.
Mercedes Schneider decided to learn more about Fryer after learning that Charlie Baker, the Republican governor, had appointed Fryer to the State Board of Education. The state is on the verge of deciding whether to stick with its MCAS state tests or switch to PARCC. The State Commissioner of Education for Massachusetts, Mitchell Chester, is chair of the PARCC Governing Board. Gosh, I wonder which test they will choose?
Schneider wondered, who is Roland Fryer, Jr.
She writes that Fryer was “promoted from assistant professor to full professor after a single year on the Harvard University faculty (and skipping right over associate professor, to boot).
“Fryer is also the faculty director of Harvard University-based EdLabs, which describes itself as just a helpful group of individuals with no agenda:”
Here is their agenda:
We are an eclectic collection of scientists, educators, and implementers with diverse backgrounds and vast experience, generating ideas and implementing experiments that have the potential to transform education.
Edlabs has no political affiliation or agenda to promote. We squeeze truths from data. People may not always like what we discover, but we will disseminate our results no matter what we find.
Sounds good, yes?
But then she checked out EdLab’s associates and funding, and almost every notable reformer group was there.
Among his advisors: Joel Klein, Condoleeza Rice, and Eli Broad.
Among his funders: the usual suspects. You can guess, or read the post.
Schneider reports on one of Fryer’s ideas to close the achievement gap: don’t test the affluent districts (like the one he lives in), because it would leave less time for reading Shakespeare; but test the poor kids daily.
As I have said on more than one occasion, tests are a measure, not an educational intervention. They measure gaps, they don’t close them. If you have a fever, you can find out how high it is with a thermometer, but taking your temperature again and again will not lower your fever.
How about Fryer must make a yearly economic prediction, if wrong he loses his job and degree? He needs to have something at stake, after all, for “accountability”.
“Economists are like psychics”
Economists are like psychics,
This cannot be denied.
Cuz if, by chance, they get it right,
It’s greatly AMPLIFIED!!!
But mostly, they just get it wrong,
And utter not a word
For them to actually point this out
Would really be unheard.
And when their goof’s so BLATANT
They really can’t ignore it,
They simply claim they “found a flaw”
And “makeup will restore it”
Educational experiments on students don’t sound good to me at all. Look at all the harm being done to our students through wholesale “experimentation.” Our children are being treated like lab rats. This would be unethical in contemporary medical experimentation. It shouldn’t be allowed in education.
I have said this repeatedly. Any medical experiment requires an IRB to proceed made up of qualified professionals who weigh the risks for those who will be allowed to enter the trial.
In education, we appoint “professionals” who know nothing about education and how children learn and they have IRB power.
We then institute radical large scale schemes with no research backing and deploy them wholesale and rapidly with little review on large numbers of children (usually poor children).
Any doctor should tell you that their number one priority is to not make things worse (do no harm) yet we ROUTINELY break this credo in education.
It makes me sick.
Yes. Roland “Two-Tier” Fryer. I discovered him just as Mercedes did.
During an interview on C-SPAN, when asked about Florida’s intense emphasis on standardized testing, Harvard Economics Professor—and the privatization industry’s bought-paid-for theorist—-Roland Fryer bloviates the hypocrisy of the elite… (which, after growing up in poverty, Fryer has joined and now sadly parrots their specious, elitist cant).
When it comes to testing requirements, Fryer wants a two-tiered system —
TIER ONE: The elite kids in the suburbs—including his own—should be excused from the whole testing and test prep regime, and in its place, get Shakespeare, art, drama, music, and other enriching electives.
TIER TWO: Meanwhile, the urban kids in failing schools should get TEST PREP… followed by TESTING… followed by more TEST PREP… followed by MORE TESTING… followed by MORE TEST PREP…. and on and on and on…
He says urban children in “failing schools”…” ought to be tested every day” in lieu of the rich curriculum that their peers in suburbs—again, including Fryer’s own children— receive and enjoy.
Fryer has it exactly backwards… a big part of the reason the kids in the suburbs are “high-performing” is that, from DAY ONE, they have a rich curriculum devoid of constant test prep and testing, and that’s due to massive advantages in funding that they enjoy over urban schools.
Watch the video:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?304111-1/roland-fryer-education
(it’s somewhere between 48:00 and 50:00… it varies every time I try to find it)
TRANSCRIPT:
(somewhere between 48:00 and 50:00)
———————————————–
———————————————-
MODERATOR: “Well, as a follow-up to that, this question from the audience is:
” ‘What would you say to Governor Scott of Florida regarding his emphasis on standardized tests as a way to rate all of our schools? And that’s what’s happening in Florida right now.’ ”
–
ROLAND FRYER: “Yeah, ya know… I… I think… uhmm… I haven’t figured out why no one has tried out a two-tier system for standardized testing, soooo, you know… if you’re-… I live in Concord, Massachusetts, which is a wonderful suburb of Boston. My wife and I just moved there, annnnd… ya know, I actually don’t want standardized testing in Concord because it will crowd out my kids learning Shakespeare and those types of things, things that I never really read…. uhmm…
“However, in the schools that are… failing, we really do need standardized tests, because at least, we know… where they are, and that’s really, really important. Just because we don’t test them, doesn’t mean they’re not failing.
“And so I would actually say if schools are high-performing—high-performing suburban schools, or high-performing schools—ought to be able to say,
” ‘You know that? 90% of our kids have passed the test in 2008. Let’s not take the test for two or three years, so that we can focus on more different and more wholistic types of instruction.’
“For schools who are in the bottom, I think that you oughta test those kids every day. I think we just need to be (unintelligible) to be (unintelligible)”
–
MODERATOR: “Well this (next question) is something… be careful what you ask for… you asked for this… but…
” ‘Would you expand on the reasons for those differences between Math and Reading on standardized tests (between socio-economic groups). and the reasons for those differences?’ ”
–
FRYER: “I have no idea. Uhhm.. That’s the great thing about being a professor. You can say you don’t know and keep talking…. ”
——————————————————
This was an opening for Fryer to acknowledge the difficulties in education posed by poverty, but because he’s following the corporate reform playbook, Fryer won’t go there. Even given his own first-hand experiences with poverty, he’s totally bought the corporate reform agenda. Someone at the HARVARD CRIMSON should do a take-down of Fryer based on the above quote.
Here’s an answer from Ravitch’s “REIGN OF ERROR”:
RAVITCH (p. 55-56) : “Poverty is not an excuse. It’s a harsh reality. Poverty matters. Poverty affects children’s health and well-being. It affects their emotional lives an their attention spans, their attendance, and their academic performance. Poverty affects their motivation and their ability to concentrate on anything other than day-to-day survival. In a society of abundance, poverty is degrading and humiliating.
“… it is easy for people who enjoy lives of economic ease to say that poverty doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter to THEM. It is an abstraction. For them, it is a hurdle to overcome, like having a bad day, or a headache, or an ill-fitting jacket.”
“After more than a decade of No Child Left Behind, we now know that a program of more testing and more accountability leaves millions of children behind and does not eliminate poverty or close achievement gaps. The growing demand for more testing and more accountability in the wake of NCLB is akin to bringing a blowtorch to put out a fire.
“More of the same is not change. The testing, accountability, and choice strategies after the illusion of change while changing nothing. They mask the inequity and injustice that are now so apparent in our social order. They do nothing to alter the status quo. They preserve the status quo. They are the status quo.”
Speaking of parents like Fryer. Ravitch says,
RAVITCH: “An educated parent will not accept a school where many weeks of every school year were spent preparing for state tests. An educated parent would not tolerate a school that cut back or eliminated the arts to spend more time preparing for state tests.”
Here’s an account of the non-stop test prep that Roland Fryer, Jr. wants for poor kids of color—but not his own kids, mind you. It’s from Emily Talmadge Kennedy, a former teacher at Brooklyn Ascend, one of the militaristic, no excuses charters that Roland wants to subject low income minority children to, while his own kids out in Concord are studying Shakespeare:
http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2015/09/teaching-based-on-doug-lemovs-robot.html
EMILY TALMADGE KENNEDY: “Starting from Christmas break onwards, you were only to teach these test prep lessons that I had nothing to do with. I had no business in deciding how we were going to teach these, or what we were going to teach. I was really just administering what they had given me. I just remember one morning putting the projector on, and putting the overhead, and looking around the room. I had one kid falling asleep. They just looked miserable. They looked bored. I was miserable. I was bored. I remember just feeling like I can’t teach this lesson right now. I remember turning the overhead off. We need to do something that actually matters, that’s actually going to get these kids going. I don’t remember what we did, but it was this sense of I can’t do this. This is not fair to them.
“It was just so clearly all the way through, not about the kids. It was so blatantly obvious that it was about the scores that they were going to get on these tests. We weren’t teaching writing. We weren’t giving them any time that they needed to rest.
“All the conversation we’d have during our meetings was about had they mastered this concept? It’s going to be on the state exam. This concept might be on the state exam. When they ended up taking the state exam, I don’t know how they did.
“I remember there were certain questions that asked them to use the concepts that we had tried to teach them. We basically were teaching them these tricks and formulas. I remember one was number patterns. We had to teach them very explicitly the way to find the answer to a number problem problem. A number problem question is you have a series of numbers like four, eight, twelve, sixteen. What’s the next number? The way to find it is you had to teach them step by step, follow what I do. Step one. Look at the first two numbers. Step two. Find the difference between the first two numbers. Step three. Write down the rule. Step four. Apply the rule to the final number. Let’s say the rule we figured out was add four. That was how they had to go about doing it every time.
“They got to the state exam, and I remember the question was two, four, eight, basically it was multiplying by two so it didn’t work to use that formula. You’d just subtract the first two numbers. My kids, at least, they had no idea what to do because they didn’t know the concept. They didn’t know the idea of what it meant to look for a pattern. All they knew was this formula.
“To me it was, of course, they got that one wrong. The formula is not going to work all the time. That’s how math works. Sometimes you have to be able to look into it, and think critically about it. [Sighs] There were a lot of low points.
“There was a low point where this little boy, K_____, got suspended for the fourth time. He just wasn’t that bad. I had seen kids in the Bronx that were bad, that got in fights, and they were disrespectful. [K_____] wasn’t like that. This little boy was just a busy body. He tapped his feet all the time. He would make these little humming noises while he worked. He was really bright. He was really sweet. Because we had this very rigid behavior system that we absolutely had to stick to, we had to mark every time he talked. We had to mark every time he turned around in his seat. He had to go the Dean. It broke my heart because this poor kid basically lost the majority of his third grade year. He didn’t have to. If we had been teachers that were allowed to actually teach, and actually allowed to do at least what I learned how to do when I got my Masters in Education, then when I did my first three years.
“Actually really get to know a kid, and really figure out what’s going to work for them, he could’ve been fine. Even if seventy five percent of Brooklyn Ascend scholars passed the state test, I can tell you for a fact that there were some of them who we, personally, completely failed. Completely and utterly failed them because we did nothing for them, because they didn’t fit this total compliance model. They got completely left behind.
“That’s one thing that I wish I’d thought more about. I was a special education teacher to start out, so I have a special place in my heart for these special education kids. That’s what I’m most passionate about, and most committed to. A school like Brooklyn Ascend, maybe it does work for the kids who can do it, the kids who can keep their hands still, and who tend to sit and nod, and say things back. It doesn’t work for the kids who have learning disabilities, or have special education needs. It just doesn’t.
“I had another little girl in my class. To me it was just blatantly obvious that she had dyslexia. She would flip her numbers. She would flip her words. There was nothing I could do. She had to go through the exact same structure, exact same I Do, We Do, You Do lessons, with the same worksheets, and the same thing as everybody else. She’ll probably get left back. She’s probably going to have to repeat third grade. That’s another thing at Brooklyn Ascend is that they’re very proud of the fact that they don’t do social promotions. Very proud of the fact that if the kid doesn’t meet the cut off, that they have to repeat the grade.”
———————-
Brought to you, courtesy of Roland Fryer, Jr. (and others)
Keep sellin’ out, Roland!!!!!
Jack,
You do know, of course, that Roland Fryer was, in his youth, a poor kid of color, right?
TE,
Now he is a Harvard faculty member of color. That’s not exactly a secret. Did you know?
Glad you’ve caught this, Diane, and thanks for the additional information. I put what I found on our two new Board members here:
http://who-cester.blogspot.com/2015/09/two-new-additions-to-board-of-ed-and.html
Dr. Ravitch,
I certainly agree that tests do not close education gaps. They do not widen them either.
Loss aversion is not a plan, but an observed characteristic of people. Lets think about assigning grades in a class. Many teachers assign a point value to each activity and add up the points awarded to each student to compute the grade. Under this system each student starts with no points. Alternatively a teacher could start each student will the maximum number of points in the class and deduct points for every point missed on the individual assignments. Both methods will end with the student getting exactly the same point total. Behavioral economists argue that the two systems will be viewed differently by people despite the fact that outcome is identical because one involves a loss of something that the student already has and the other involves an addition to what the student has. The reason to do this is to encourage students to put more work into their studies.
Here is a link to Roland Fryer’s vita: http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/rolandfryer_cv_2015.pdf?m=1421246740 The 42 publications he has would be easily enough at my university for him to be promoted to full professor. I suspect the same is true at NYU or any other institution.
It is good to see a student from public post-secondary schools (UT at Arlington and Penn State) doing so well at an elite private institution.
TE,
Another irrelevant, inaccurate, and misleading comment by you.
I compared tests to a thermometer. I said that thermometers do not cure patients and tests do not close achievement gaps. You add that tests “do not widen them either.” You add an exaggeration to my commonsense statement. I did not say that tests widen achievement gaps. You are boxing with your own straw man.
As for loss aversion, it was not tried out as an intellectual exercise, but as part of a search for a form of performance pay that might raise test scores—by giving teachers a bonus, then taking it away if they don’t raise test scores.
I am asking you to leave the blog. Your comments are not made in good faith. This is my living room, and I find your comments obnoxious, misleading, and consistently made in bad faith–not to advance the conversation but to mislead. Take your hat and coat. Don’t forget your gloves and your cane. Adieu.
I found one of Professor Fryer’s “big ideas” for improving education in “urban” schools: advertising. I’m not making this up. Apparently, he is working with New York City on an ad campaign that will make school cool. It has something to do with smart phones.
http://edlabs.harvard.edu/news/next-big-idea-can-advertising-save-our-schools
Maybe next he’ll come up with the “big idea” of buying every student an iPad.
Of course: students are a “market” to be monetized, and advertising is necessary.
Oh, and don’t forget Roland “Loss Aversion Works” Fryer:
https://dianeravitch.net/2012/07/31/the-loss-aversion-contest-you-can-win/
The Loss Aversion Contest: You Can Win!
Economist Roland Fryer has been trying for years to find the magic incentive that would produce higher scores.
He tried merit pay, and that didn’t work.
He tried paying students to get higher scores, but that didn’t work.
Now, he has at last found the key:
He and his colleagues have perfected a technique called “loss aversion.”
They give teachers a bonus (say, $4,000) at the beginning of the year. If the scores go up, the teachers keep the money.
If the scores don’t go up, they lose the money!
That’s called “loss aversion.”
Barnett Berry thinks this is a stupid idea, but hey, it works. That’s good enough for Dylan Matthews writing on Ezra Klein’s blog at the Washington Post , who calls this study a success for merit pay. It is also good enough for the Broad Foundation, which funds Fryer’s quest for the golden test score.
What will people do to avoid a loss?
What if you tell teachers that you will cut off their fingers if the scores don’t go up?
What if you tell doctors that their pay will be cut whenever any of their patients die?
What if you say to economists that they lose their computers if their predictions don’t pay out?
What would you say to journalists to get them to produce better stories?
Here is the contest:
What is your best idea to raise the scores through “loss aversion”?
What is the very best threat you can think of to compel/frighten/intimidate/and/terrify teachers to make the students’ scores go up?
I will publish the responses of those who come up with the best ideas to improve American test-score productivity through “loss aversion.”
Is that enough of an incentive for you?
—————-
And here’s the ultimate implementation of loss aversion in the classroom:
https://dianeravitch.net/2012/07/31/attention-roland-fryer-this-may-be-a-winner/
So we are having this “loss aversion” contest. The idea is that teachers will work hard to avoid loss than they will to win a bonus.
Roland Fryer and colleagues say that this works. Offer teachers a bonus at the beginning of the year and take it away if the scores don’t go up.
I thought we have a winner when a reader suggested taking away the teacher’s first born.
But that idea pales next to this one. This looks like a winner.
Don’t threaten the teacher. Threaten the kiddies!
What do you think?
This is for elementary students and would work particularly well when high stakes tests are pushed down to the K-3 grade band.
The mistake in the original plan is that it focuses on having teachers have to avoid loss. That’s simply one layer removed from the REAL target: the kiddoes being tested. After all, the threat of the teacher’s loss of $4000 means little or nothing to them.
So near the beginning of the school year, the teacher buys several lovable classroom pets. Perhaps a class bunny, kitty, and puppy would have maximum appeal, but the skillful teacher will be sure to find out in advance what animals are most beloved to the children s/he’ll be working with.
And then, after ample time has passed to ensure that every child is head-over-heels in love with at least one of the animals, signs go up over each pet’s enclosure that read, “If your test scores don’t go up, I’ll shoot this [puppy/kitty/bunny, respectively]. Love, Ms. Williams”
I’m confident that those students who don’t succumb to nervous breakdowns in short order will kick some serious high-stakes test boo-tay.
Reblogged this on Lloyd Lofthouse and commented:
Discover another corporate wolf in sheep’s clothing–a corporate shill appointed to deliberately destroy the public schools.
The “think tank” sounds like a breeding ground for bad market based ideas in which they create products to sell to schools to enrich themselves. As for improving outcomes for students, I doubt it. This is the entrepreneurial state of mind. Keep throwing out ideas, which of course translate into products, which ultimately come back to roost as profit. When these “wunderkind” are backed by billionaires they have the funding to throw out lots of bad ideas before something sticks. In the interim schools have paid for lots of bad products that wind up in the junk closet compliments of the local taxpayers. All of the this leaves the “consumer,” or should I say, student dazed and confused.
We have always had some level of market based products in education through the purchase of textbooks and supplies, but this is different. Now that students are monetized, we have put a target on their backs. Now that marketers and economists have decided teachers are too expensive and demanding, there’s a target on them as well. Now that billionaires and corporations see big potential profits, they will continue to attempt to destroy public education as they have bought the rights to exploit the market. They want to dictate every aspect of education, but, of course, educators are not part of the discussion potential solutions, they are merely annoying mosquitoes that must be squashed. The students and the many products they need; they are the holy grail.
Who gave economists the mantle of scientist? I know, they gave it to themselves just like Hanushcek citing his own discredited non peer reviewed studies in court to show his expertise, so exemplary are the economists that no one with any mathematical or scientific expertise agrees with them. I wish their accountability measures were applied to them. We would soon be done with their meddling ways in our profession.
In the sphere of economics, there are no professional standards
and no disciplinary organization to review complaints about economists committing fraud, demonstrating gross incompetence, or displaying grave indifference to facts.
Economists have great power to abuse, with neither accountability
nor sanctioning.
Austerity policy is one of the most egregious examples.
Accountability for economists, perhaps a way to eliminate the infestation for good. Who made economists the go-to “experts” on everything?
There’s a lot going on in Massachusetts and in Boston right now that raises cause for concern.
This week, the Boston superintendent, together with the mayor, unveiled a new One Boston assignment process (think One Newark) which will allow a parent to fill out one application for charter, public and Catholic schools. This is supposed to be “choice”. The public schools can’t opt out of participation, though the charters can and some most certainly will. The Catholic schools have been trying to reposition themselves after the clerical abuse scandal, which had its roots here in the city.
What remains unclear is what will happen to our kids who need support for which the charters lack “programming” – our ELL’s or high need SWD’s. Will it have the effect of allowing charters to be perceived as neighborhood schools? Will it give the gloss of “public” to these private entities?
Last week, at a ribbon cutting ceremony for a new charter, the mayor announced the likelyhood that six public schools will be closed by next year.
One MA superintendent, who deserves a spot on your Honor Roll, Diane, is Todd Gazda of Ludlow. This post of his touches on much of what is happening:
http://superintendentlps.blogspot.com/2015/09/in-defense-of-public-schools.html
There seems to be a common thread running through certain people in the school privatization industry… the slick hustler. This was what Fryer was a teenage gang member, and still is today.
Fryer’s performance on C-SPAN is reminiscent of major edu-fraud Dr. Steve Perry from Connecticut. They both have these stock, stand-up comedian one-liners that they throw out at the audience as part of their schtick. I notice him
Go here:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?304111-1/roland-fryer-education
(somewhere around 5200 – 54:00 )
FRYER: “The last piece of this is… you didn’t hear me talking about parents, on purpose, and the reason is not because I don’t think parents are important. They’re very important, but in the education landscape, people use the parents as an excuse not to educate their kids. Right? And my view of this is: ‘They’re sending you the best kids they have They don’t hide the good ones at home.’ ”
(AUDIENCE LAUGHTER for several seconds.. Fryer then makes a joke about how tenure allows him to get away with saying stuff… MORE ON THAT BELOW))
This prepared joke gets a good laugh, but it doesn’t really say anything of substance… and that’s exactly how con-men like Fryer operate. In lieu of making any real point, these jokes puts “the mark”, or the object of the con at ease—in this case, the audience. Laughter installs a blank slate in the mind, or puts the mind, like a car, into neutral, so he can then push and steer it wherever he wants it to go.
Again, edu-fraud “Dr.” Steve Perry does the same thing when he goes on a speaking tour.
Or how about this slick kid a couple years ago who was approved by the State of New York to operate a charter school—and control a multi-million-dollar budget? It was later revealed that not only were his “Bachelor’s” and “Master’s” degrees fraudulent, but he had actually never graduated high school.
And just so no one thinks this isn’t a race thing. John Deasy was/is also a charlatan. His “doctorate” being given after three credit hours, supervised by Robert Felner, the head of the university—the first and only time a doctor candidate was supervised. Deasy barely set foot on campus.
Or Michelle Rhee claiming that her teaching led her children from moving from the 13th percentile to the 90th percentile in one year.
The privatization movement is shot thru with charlatanism.
Which brings us back to Fryer. Mercedes notices that, in exchange for being a face of color that promotes school privatization, Fryer seems to have moved awfully quick up Harvard’s academic ladder. She connects this rapid rise to Fryer’s involvement with the EdLabs the school privatization org that is now embedded in Harvard’s Department of Education… as the billionaires promoting school privatization essentially bought their way onto the Harvard campus.
—————————————-
https://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2015/09/17/massachusetts-roland-fryer-and-a-two-tiered-system-of-standardized-testing/
MERCEDES SCHNEIDER: “The other is Harvard University economist Roland Fryer, who was (hmmm…) promoted from assistant professor to full professor after a single year on the Harvard University faculty (and skipping right over associate professor, to boot).
“Fryer is also the faculty director of Harvard University-based EdLabs, which describes itself as just a helpful group of individuals with no agenda:
“We are an eclectic collection of scientists, educators, and implementers with diverse backgrounds and vast experience, generating ideas and implementing experiments that have the potential to transform education.
“Edlabs has no political affiliation or agenda to promote. We squeeze truths from data. People may not always like what we discover, but we will disseminate our results no matter what we find.
“On the same web page EdLabs lists five “stakeholders.” Among them is Condoleeza Rice, former secretary of state who now leads former Florida governor and Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush’s corporate-reform-promoting nonprofit, Foundation for Excellence in Education (FEE).
“A second EdLabs stakeholder is former New York City chancellor, Joel Klein, who with Rice co-authored a weak “A Nation at Risk” substitute in March 2012. After his stint in trying to privatize NYC public education, Klein left to lead Rupert Murdoch’s ed division, Amplify– a losing venture that Murdoch dumped after it lost $371 million this year alone.
“According to Fryer’s curriculum vitae, Fryer served under Klein as the “chief equality officer” for the NYC Department of Education for a year (2007-08), which happens to be the same year that Fryer made that remarkable jump from assistant professor to full professor.
“A third notable EdLabs stakeholder is billionaire Eli Broad, whose most recent privatizing effort involves pushing to convert half of Los Angeles’ schools to charters.
“Then there are EdLabs “Partners in Innovation,” a Who’s Who in test-score-driven, market-serving, ed “reform,” including Teach for America (TFA), the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, Pritzker Foundation, and Robin Hood Foundation.
“Fryer’s curriculum vitae includes the following section entitled, “Selected Gifts and Grants.” Note that Fryer has collected over $10 million from the Broad Foundation and more than $7 million from the NY City Mayor’s Fund under Bloomberg:
Broad Foundation Grant, 2011 [2,500,000]
Community Foundation of Oklahoma, 2011 [284,000]
Hecksher Foundation Grant, 2011 [500,000]
Ford Foundation Grant, 2010 [$1,000,000]
Liemandt Foundation Grant, 2010 [$1,500,000]
Hecksher Foundation Grant, 2010 [$250,000]
Gates Foundation Grant, 2009 [$1,000,000]
Arnold Foundation Grant, 2009 [$500,000]
Fisher Foundation Grant, 2009 [$500,000]
Griffin Foundation Grant, 2009 [$10,000,000]
CAREER Grant, 2008 [$400,000]
Steans Foundation, 2008 [$150,000]
Joyce Foundation, 2008 [$150,000]
Broad Foundation Grant, 2007-2009 [$7,600,000]
NYC Mayor’s Fund Grant, 2007-2009 [$4,800,000]
District of Columbia Public Schools, 2007-2009 [$1,900,000]
Smith Richardson Foundation Grant, 2007-2009 [$360,000]
National Science Foundation Grant, 2005-2007 [$200,000]
Milton Fund Grant, Harvard University, 2004-2005 [$35,000]
NICHD Minority Research Grant, 2001-2002 [$15,000]
———————————————————————-
Again, this is something that some enterprising reporter at the HARVARD CRIMSON should look into.
One more edu-fraud… and again, it’s thanks to Mercedes that this one was uncovered:
Molly Horstman
https://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/a-molly-horstman-update/
This woman taught for only two years as a TFA Corps member… quitting before she had ever been evaluated, and then letting her provisional teaching license lapse. Shortly afterwards, at age 27, her fellow TFA John Whilte, the head of Louisiana’s Dept. of Ed., appointed her in charge of… wait for it… evaluating all the teachers in the state of Louisiana… some of whole have been teaching longer than Ms. Horstman has even been alive. Ms. Horstman claimed that the fact that she herself had never been evaluated, or that she no longer had a valid license, was not relevant, and did not undermine her credibility as the state’s top evaluator of teachers..
Above, Mercedes did an update on where Ms. Horstman is now… another cushy well-paid gig elsewhere in the school privatization industry.
Interesting list. One of the Joyce Foundation directors was a senior official at the AAUW (which endorses Common Core). The same person went on to the Gates Foundation, then, a top position on Arne Duncan’s staff, where she reportedly received “an ethics waiver”, as described in an on-line article about the revolving door at the Dept. of Ed. No surprise, she’s now at a company, founded by Bain.
GDP has become a such a tangled web of assumptions that few investors give it
much credence. It purports to measure economic health, but linking diminishing
achievement gaps with fairly dramatic increases in GDP is dubious at best.
Diane’s comment about not treating fever with thermometers highlights fatal flaws in current education reform efforts: abandoning systemic change, not even treating all symptoms, while using flawed measurements of only selected symptoms. I wrote about this a number of years ago in, Why Schools Alone Can’t Cure Poverty: http://www.arthurcamins.com/?p=90
God forbid that kids in urban school districts might also want to read Shakespeare instead of taking standardized tests!
http://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/video/loss-aversion
Thanks for the post.
Fryer’s research papers, IMO, are driven by ideology. They lack objective discernment of causal factors. He constructs elaborate, flawed arguments based on biased premises. I am not surprised he is at Harvard, alongside Rogoff and Rhinehart.
Linda,
One of his better known papers documents discrimination against African Americans in employment markets. Are you suggesting that the paper is flawed and in fact there is no discrimination against African Americans?
TE,
It is a fact that there is discrimination against African Americans in the job market, in the housing market, in education, and in every other sphere I can think of.
That does not change the fact that Professor Fryer has a devout belief that incentives and sanctions and “loss aversion” are keys to raising test scores. None of his theories have panned out. As I have written again and again, merit pay has failed for a century. It has been tried repeatedly without success. Even when test scores rise, the gains disappear because they are the result of training, not understanding.
Your comment displays your typical change-the-subject irrelevant question, which can only have been offered in bad faith. This blog exists for people who are sincerely interested in improving education, improving the lives of children, and elevating the teaching profession. Your questions are meant to be misleading and confusing. I am not enjoying your disruptions.
dianeravitch: you are too polite.
A sick slur dressed up as naive query reminds me of that old gotcha standby for the sneer, jeer and smear crowd:
“Senator! How many times a week do you beat your wife?”
And this from a commenter that has complained about bad manners on this blog!
😱
But then again, how many times must we be reminded how sharp old dead French guys are?
“Ridicule dishonors a man more than dishonor does.”
What would François de la Rochefoucauld say about self-ridicule?
😏
You are a saint to let TE back on this blog, Diane. I would have banned him in perpetuity for this kind of dreck.
Sounds like you are making an insinuation that the commenter is saying that Fryer’s research is flawed because he is African-American.
Who the heck is playing an apologist linking flawed study with racism?
Perhaps, time to go back to Edureformapologist site?
teachingeconomist proves once again, as if it were necessary, that he/she is all about ideological aggression inadequately masked by non sequiturs and willfully obtuse questions.
Michael,
It seems to me that if one is going to publicly condemn all the research done by an individual, one should be able to provide evidence from his best known works. Others may, of course, think that no evidence is required.
TE,
Roland Fryer was not “condemned.” Nor was “all” of his research “condemned.” He was criticized for his work on incentives, which by the way were roundly disparaged by a panel of eminent social scientists at the National Research Council in a paper called “Incentives and Test-Based Accountability in Education.” I am more impressed by the work of the National Research Council than by an economist who devoutly believes in incentives, despite the fact that all his experiments have failed. In the world of scholarship, criticism is to be expected. No one is immune, not even a professor at Harvard.
TE, you maintain your record of irrelevant objections and purposeful misreadings.
“Roland ‘Nobel-less Ed lab’ Fryer” (apologies to the late great Warren Zevon, RIP)
Roland was a warrior from the land of the Crimson sun
An econ man for hire, fighting to be done
The deal was made at Harvard on a dark and stormy day
So he set out for the White House to join the Edu-fray
Through merit pay and testing he fought the Edu-wars
With his finger on the figure, knee-deep in the scores
For days and nights he battled, the unions and their ties
He tried to earn his living, with some help from Condi Rice
Roland the Ed Lab Fryer
Roland the Ed Lab Fryer
His comrades fought beside him, Raj Chetty and the rest
But of all the Ed Lab hires, Roland was the best
But his merit-pay experiment went belly-up to hell
That son-of-a-gun experiment, blew up his Nobel
Roland “Nobel-less Ed Lab” Fryer, Harvard’s bravest hire
They can still see his Nobel-less body stalking through the night
In the brilliant flash of Roland’s Ed Lab fire
In the brilliant flash of Roland’s Ed Lab fire
Roland “Nobel-less Ed Lab” Fryer
Roland “Nobel-less Ed Lab” Fryer
Roland “Nobel-less Ed Lab” Fryer
Talkin’ about the man, Roland “Nobel-less Ed Lab” Fryer
Respectfully, I would change this sentence in the last paragraph of the posting:
“They measure gaps, they don’t close them.” —
To this:
“They put a number on test score gaps, they don’t close them.”
😎
Not surprisingly, controversial free market economist, Steven Levitt (graduate of Koch’s alma mater, MIT), said about Fryer, “He’s more than just a friend, he’s part of the family.”
Levitt is on the Board of Blueprint (charter) Schools with two people from the Harvard School of Government.
6/24/2015 post, at Levitt’s website, “Is it OK for Restaurants to Racially Profile Their Employees?” ” We seem to have decided that ethnic food tastes better when served by people of that ethnicity.” Comments following the post explain why the Freakonomics conclusion is wrong, on many levels.
EdLabs and the like are simply private/public partnerships, steered through universities to enable the collection of data. They encourage High school kids to do the work for them as they compete to bring the best option forward. Here’s one example:
This is run through universities who get to collect the data on the kids via the FERPA adulteration. http://www.projectecho.org/assets/project-echo-annual-report-2012.pdf
http://www.firstgiving.com/fundraiser/evan-bartelheim/project-e-c-h-o
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:waZZ7FB7SPUJ:www.elon.edu/e-net/Article/109994+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
tax exemption status http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/954/954580212/954580212_201206_990EZ.pdf