Lisa Guisbond of Fairtest wrote to inform me that the opt out movement in Massachusetts is growing and has noconnection whatever to the Gates Foundation. As we know, state officials are terrified of a massive parent opt out; they threaten, they cajole, they will try anything to con parents into staying away from opt out. The most powerful tool that parents have is opt out. The state can’t force your child to take the test. Parents have the Power of No.
Fairtest released this statement.
“This Saturday’s opt-out meeting is sponsored by Citizens for Public Schools and the Less Testing, More Learning Campaign and will be at the office of Center for Collaborative Education (CCE), 33 Harrison Ave., Boston, 6th floor.
“Because the meeting is at CCE, a few people have attacked LTML, Citizens for Public Schools and the meeting itself in a blog and on Facebook. It will take a lot of focused, hard work to get a strong opt-out campaign going. We want to include as many interested people as possible and don’t want misguided attacks to undermine and confuse activists. But because such attacks are circulating (in MA and even in other states), and to avoid confusion and damage, we want to clarify a few things.
“First, the main basis for the attacks is the list of funders on the CCE website, which includes Gates, the Boston Foundation, Barr and Nellie Mae. Dan French from CCE (who is on the CPS board and has for decades battled against MCAS and for locally-controlled performance assessment) has been open about when CCE received specific grants and for what. The Gates and Boston Foundation grants are not current (e.g., a Gates grant in 2000 to develop pilot schools, a Boston Foundation grant to support pilot schools granted before Boston Foundation switched to boosting charters).
“At a minimum, attacking a meeting and a campaign because we are using an organization’s space is very misguided politics. Beyond that, CCE and Dan have been long-standing allies in the testing resistance and reform movement.
“These attacks are an unfortunate distraction. We’d rather use our energy and resources to build a strong opt-out campaign to stop the misuse and abuse of testing in our schools. We look forward to working with others who share these goals.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
CCE works at the state, district and school levels to create professional learning communities of educators who are deeply engaged in the work of continuous improvement. Data-based inquiry with an equity lens is at the heart of our work, with a particular focus on the challenges that most impact curriculum design, instruction, and assessment.”
http://cce.org/about/data-driven-inquiry
Dan French, Executive director of the Center for Collaborative Education, has in fact sat on the board of CPS for years. Lisa’s salary is split between Fairtest and CPE, and there is considerable other organizational overlap.
French did indeed attend the Opt Out launch meeting personally, and attempted to take a leading role, pitching his organization’s data-driven embedded accountability products as part of the opt out movement.
Other participants spoke out against French’s proposals. It actually took some courage, because as you can see, there is now a Fairtest campaign to discredit opponents. It’s those people Lisa is attacking in this letter.
We are going forward full force with the Massachusetts Opt Out movement, and are determined to insulate it from exploitation by Fairtest and CPE’s data-driven partners.
Mary Porter,
I think it is poisonous for supporters of opt out to make war on one another. Sectarian fights are the plague of progressive movements. The best hope for success is a big tent with many groups working together.
Diane, it is you and Fairtest who are attacking the honest people working in this movement.
I’ve worked with CPS for years. I always though it was just their association with the “Teacher Union Reform Network”, that made them so limited. Lisa once told a conference workshop we couldn’t publicly support parent actions against the Boston public school closings, because we “couldn’t get out ahead of the unions”, which support CPS financially.
This is sad but true. Please don’t attack Emily for her courage in following through on it, or the parents who spoke up at this meeting.
The Boston Federation of Teachers, and the MTA under former presidents Toner and Waas, were major players in supporting the disastrous Massachusetts education reform legislation of 2010 and 2012.
http://www.turnweb.org/about/
To my knowledge, there is no such organization as the Boston Federation of Teachers.
I’m sorry, Christine, I know it’s the Boston Teachers Union. I’m working hard to present these links cogently, and again I apologize. I had been working to support the Minneapolis effort for several hours.
But you know I am raising a real issue. Unity behind corrupted insider influence doesn’t strengthen our movement. Please take a minute to open this this link and for once, somebody, please address the content. Defend it if you find it defensible, as apparently Diane does.
We have to free our own organizations from this river of dark money, because it delivers our public schools again and again into their grip..
Principal Member Union Locals
The National Teacher Union Reform Network members represent a total of 30 AFT and NEA locals:
Albuquerque Teachers Federation
Boston Teachers Union
Castaic Teachers Association
Cincinnati Federation of Teachers
Cleveland Teachers Union
Columbus Education Association
Decatur Education Association
Denver Classroom Teachers Association
Douglas County (CO) Federation of Teachers
Elgin (IL) Education Association
Fairfax (VA) Education Association
Hart District Teachers Association
Jefferson County Education Association
Memphis Education Association
Milwaukee Teachers’ Education Association
Minneapolis Federation of Teachers
Montgomery County (MD) Education Association
Newhall Teachers Association
Organization of DeKalb (GA) Educators
Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers
Portland (ME) Education Association
Poway (CA) Federation of Teachers
Prince George’s County Educators’ Association
Providence Teachers Union
Rochester Teachers Association
San Diego Education Association
San Juan (CA) Teachers Association
Saugus Teachers Association
Springfield Education Association
Syracuse Teachers Association
Toledo Federation of Teachers
United Educators of San Francisco
United Teachers of Dade
Westerly Teachers Association
http://www.turnweb.org/members/
Nellie Mae, current funder of the Centr for Collaborative Education, is a huge money laundering conduit for the Gates Foundation. Emily Talmage describes how she traced it.
“within a very short time, it became unmistakably obvious that the Common Core Standards, our new Smarter Balanced test, and Maine’s one of a kind (but not for long if they have their way, so watch out!) proficiency-based diploma mandate were all linked like pieces of a puzzle to a corporate-driven agenda to transform our schools into “personalized” (digital!) learning environments. (If you’re not sure what I’m talking about, see here for more.)
Quite literally sick to my stomach, I emailed a union rep to ask if he knew anything about the paper I had found.
“It’s ghastly,” he replied, “but in Maine, it has been the Nellie Mae Education Foundation and the Great Schools Partnership that has been behind these policies.”
“Just to be sure, I went to the “Awarded Grants” section of the Gates Foundation website, and typed in the words “Nellie Mae.”
http://emilytalmage.com/2015/10/22/gates-undercover/
I came across this video archive for “Redefining Teacher Education for Digital Age Learners.” It was held in 2009 and AFT was “convening partner.” There were two speeches that I found particularly devastating. The first is by Susan Patrick of iNACOL, and a former employee of the US Department of Education. Note that it is broken into four parts for some reason. http://redefineteachered.org/?q=videoarchiveview/50/1
The second is by Tom Carroll of the Center for Education Reform. In his speech it is clear that the test and punish system was an effective strategy for creating a teacher shortage crisis that will force people to adopt cyber education and tutoring with “volunteers” on a widespread basis. This video is in three parts: http://redefineteachered.org/?q=videoarchiveview/16/1
So I ask-did the AFT as a convening partner know about these presentations? Did they support the proposals being made? It’s been six years since that time, and many pieces of the puzzle have since been put into place.
Or maybe the AFT folks just did not know and arrived at that conference without a clue. An organization’s reputation revolves around the company they keep. If you hang out with folks who are funded by the groups that are undermining public education for profit, then maybe you should reconsider going to their next event. Because if you don’t people are going to start questioning your motives.
Please watch the videos (all the little pieces). It’s astonishing this was six year ago. These plans have been in place for a long, long time. The ESSA is the culmination of much of this work, sadly.
Here is a direct quote from a paper Monty Neill co-authored, in case you wondered how you got fired when your school was turned around.
May 14, 2010
Common Elements of Successful School Turnarounds: Research and Experience
Gary Ratner, Esq., Executive Director, Citizens for Effective Schools, with
Monty Neill, Ed. D., Interim Executive Director, FairTest
“D. Replacement Non-Participatory and Ineffective Teachers with Motivated, Capable Teachers –
Principals closely observe teachers in their classrooms, help them improve their teaching and encourage them to collaborate with other teachers.
Teachers who are not motivated to participate in the school‟s turnaround efforts frequently leave voluntarily to avoid close scrutiny; if not, and they are persistently ineffective, they must be removed.xv
Schools seek capable teachers who want to participate in the school‟s reform.xvi”
Click to access CommonElementsSuccessfulSchoolTurnarounds.pdf
If you follow their web pages, you’ll see that Fairtest has become affiliated with an organization called The Forum on Educational Accountability, which is using it as a mouthpiece to promote turnaround models. These are the new participatory, personalized formative accountability products already rolled out for the new ESEA.
THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE ALREADY DOING TO HOLYOKE AND LAWRENCE
From Fairtest’s “Forum on Educational Accountability”
“FEA Recommendations for Successful School Turnaround Efforts”
“See the FEA statement, “A Research- and Experience-Based Turnaround Process,” that focuses on flexible local use of elements common to school improvement, and that Congress should include in ESEA/NCLB reauthorization.”
“See Ratner and Neill, “Common Elements of Successful Turnarounds: Research and Experience,” for analysis and summary of research on successfully improving schools.”
http://www.edaccountability.org/
FairTest’s current projects include the following:
Working with other groups in Testing Resistance and Reform Spring to help local activist builds their campaigns and link up with one another.
Leading the national Forum on Educational Accountability, which seeks to overhaul the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act/No Child Left Behind and related programs.
http://www.fairtest.org/about
Diane, I don’t understand the comments! Fairtest has been a reliable info source for me and one with great credibility.
By its name FairTest believes in educational standards and standardized testing. Bob S pooh pawed Wilson’s study both times I brought it up with him at the NPE conferences. My take is that the folks at fairtest are those who have benefited from those standardized tests and therefore the tests are valid and good (which we know they are not) I’ve gotten a very GAGA take on testing from them.
Thank you or being awake, Duane. Hi, I’m just chemtchr using my own name now.
Fairtest’s argument in conferences and workshops has been that “accountability isn’t going away”, and we would expose ourselves to opposition if we argued against the concept. They promoted an accountability system of “locally-controlled performance assessment”, which has now merged with the corporate NextGen competency-based wraparound products Emily Talmage has seen implemented in Maine..
This letter is part of an aggressive attack, against parents and teachers in Massachusetts and Maine who have been active and effective long before Fairtest’s sudden corporate-sponsored conversion to Opt Out.
No, they were not transparent about their alliances or funding until Emily Talmage (and I) pointed it out. Shame on them for disrespecting that courage.
Far from merely offering a nice office, “Center for Collaborative Education” tried to hijack the movement, and put forth a campaign to lobby the state for imposition of his data-driven embedded assessment by force of law, as part of Opt-Out!.
Parents did have to stand up to Dan French at the Opt-Out launch meeting, where CCE and Fairtest tried to dominate and co-opt a much larger authentic popular movement.
“a few people have attacked”
“misguided attacks to undermine and confuse activists.”
” attacking a meeting and a campaign”
“to avoid confusion and damage”
“an unfortunate distraction”
” poisonous for supporters of opt out to make war ”
” Sectarian fights are the plague”
Daring to follow their corporate money and challenge their corporate agenda is not “toxic”, as no less than Diane Ravitch now accuses on their behalf.
Opt-Out Massachusetts is going to move forward without their control.
An honest answer from Fairtest would be,
“Okay, we will support this movement even if we can’t dominate it, and we promise will allow activists to assure that Opt Out listings are independently controlled, and will never be be diverted to lobbying for corporate “alternative assessment” legislation”.
Anyone whose eyes are open to where the next phase of education reform is headed knows why the end of year tests have to go. Folks like Tom Vander Ark cannot move ahead with competency-based education and constant data-mining with stealth assessments if states hold onto end of the year tests and Johnny is four months ahead of Sally. They want to be able to mine all of Johnny’s and Sally’s data in real time.Their own planning documents say as much.
I have been active in Opt Out in Philadelphia for several years. I wondered through much of last year why our Broad superintendent didn’t try harder to squash us. In fact, District officials were very accommodating, almost like they wished us well in our endeavors. I simply couldn’t figure it out until Obama did his song and dance about high-stakes testing right after appointing King AND our District wanted to start an Assessment Task Force to look into these “bad” tests.
About the same time I began to uncover the extensive groundwork that had been laid for CBE. It’s all throughout New England. I reached out to those I know at Fairtest to say that the work they were doing/had done was in the process of being co-opted. Sad to me, they did not seem very open to considering the implications of CBE as it related to what they were doing. They are very smart people. I can’t speak to why they chose not to hear or see it, but there it is. They can’t say they weren’t notified.
CBE and Mass Customized Learning is being rolled out across New England right now. The end of the end-of-the-year big test is inextricably linked to CBE. Wake up people. Wake up. I am not going to stop talking about opt out with parents, because kids shouldn’t be taking these harmful tests, and they don’t have to. Plus, it is an easy entry point that empowers parents. But it is going to have to move way beyond that if we have any chance to stop the grand, scary plans that folks at Global Education Futures have planned for us.
The powers that be, including it seems many familiar faces, are going to do what they want no matter what. Sure it would be convenient for them to be able to point to very high opt out numbers and say, see we knew those tests were “bad” and parents know it, too. Now, we are going to do “better” tests online with real time actionable data that measures the whole child including socio-emotional data and we’ll measure them ALL year, so they don’t have to stress about end of year tests.
The players involved are too numerous to count. The wield great power. They’ve built some unexpected alliances. It’s all starting to come out now that the ESSA has passed and plans made in back rooms can roll out publicly. There is a lot of money in the mix. I think some people may think that they can influence these forces and mitigate the harm, but I honestly think that is entirely the wrong approach.
I am helping facilitate an Inquiry to Action Group this spring in Philadelphia about reclaiming authentic assessment, but the first part will be understanding this new education landscape and the players involved. People ask me often, how did you find out all of this? My answer is that it isn’t hidden. These folks are very proud of what they are doing, and if you know the right words and who the players are, it’s all over the internet. Here’s my draft word list. Feel free to get in there and poke around and see what you find. I keep turning up amazing things. So many hands are in on this. This goodie if from this morning, a 2012 discussion document from the Future of Museums Initiative of the American Alliance of Museums. We are headed for dystopia if we don’t take the time to recognize their game and stop it. So many pieces are already in place: http://www.aam-us.org/docs/default-source/annual-meeting/exploring-the-educational-future.pdf?sfvrsn=0
Terms:
Competency / Proficiency Based Education
Anytime Anywhere Any Pace Learning
Student-Centered Learning
Personalized Learning
Stealth Assessment
Digital Badging
Big Data
Extended / Expanded Learning Opportunities
Non-Cognitive Assessment
Adaptive Learning Systems
Learning Relationship Management System
Mass Customized Learning
Data Dashboard
Pathways to…education…higher education…training…careers
21st Century Community Learning Centers
Learning is Constant, Time is Variable
School-Level Autonomy
NeuroWeb
Transhuman
Community Based
Cradle to Career
Players
Nellie Mae Foundation
Lumina Foundation
Tom Vander Ark
Center for Secondary School Redesign
Global Education Futures
Christensen Institute
McArthur Foundation
iNACOL
What does CBE stand for?
Duane, CBE is Competency Based Education. Here’s a recent post about it by Peter Greene
Pearson’s New CBE Product
Performance Based Education (or Competency Based Education or Outcome Based Education or personalized learning– I do hope the industry comes up with standardized jargon for this soon) is coming. It has been given an extra boost by leveraging the anti-test movement in a clever ju-jitsu manuever. “Yes, we should get everyone out of that testing frying pan,” declare policy makers and thought leaders and test manufacturers, as they usher the fleeing mob straight toward the CBE fire. Instead of one Big Standardized Test, why many standardized tests and quizzes and worksheets, all hooked into a giant data-hoovering monstrosity.
http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2016/01/pearsons-new-cbe-product.html
CBE is all data mining all the time. It is also a step closer to all computer instruction all the time. It is harmful to to students as the best learning occurs through forcing relationships and exchanging ideas with real people. This approach has failure written all over it, but it does help to sell lots of Microsoft and Pearson products.
I realize I am implicated in all of this. As a teacher, mother, and staunch opt-out advocate, I assure readers that I have no intention of harming this authentic grassroots effort – only to bring more clarity to what is a far more complex movement than many realize. For now, I just want to point out the following: The defense above is not accurate. It claims that CCE grants from Gates are not current, but this is untrue. A quick search of the Gates Foundation’s awarded grants section reveals a grant of 350k made in 2014. Also, the Nellie Mae Education Foundation, which has served as a funnel for Gates money and is part of the corporate push toward competency-based education, awarded FairTest 5k for a “performance assessment” event.
Emily Talmadge, nothing is gained by smearing Fairtest, which has been fighting standardized testing for 40 years. The enemies of opt out would like nothing better than to divide and conquer. Don’t help them.
Emily is not smearing anybody. Her research is correct, and the information about in the letter is wrong.
My thesis: assessment reform is corporate reform.
Opt all the way out. Refuse the tests. We have to stop the drive for embedded “competency-based” corporate oversight of kids’ every keystroke.
Hello, it’s me, Lisa.
It feels very odd to be described as colluding with both Bill Gates and teachers unions against the interests of schoolchildren, but politics ain’t beanbag and stranger things have definitely happened.
I got involved in fighting high-stakes standardized testing in the late 1990s because of my concerns about my own children and about the harm to children with learning disabilities from these tests. I did my own research and quickly learned that high-stakes testing hurts just about every kind of student, teacher and school. I opted my older son out of Massachusetts’ high-stakes exam and have long been a believer and a supporter of opting out as a tactic in the fight against high-stakes testing.
I’m not paid by “CPE” (not sure what that is) but work part-time for and am paid by Citizens for Public Schools and FairTest, neither of which get any money from Gates or other corporate reformers. (We wouldn’t ask them for money, and they almost certainly wouldn’t give us any.) I am grateful for the support of teachers unions and the hundreds of individual teachers, parents and others who support our work.
I don’t recall ever saying or thinking any such thing as this and can’t understand why I would have:
“Lisa once told a conference workshop we couldn’t publicly support parent actions against the Boston public school closings, because we ‘couldn’t get out ahead of the unions’, which support CPS financially.”
In fact, I spent two hours in the bitter cold Tuesday night picketing Boston Mayor Walsh’s State of the City address, WITH hundreds of Boston parents, students, teachers and union members, decrying the budget cuts to the Boston Public Schools! I was proud to do so and believe that one of the great harms of high-stakes standardized testing is the use of the results to close down public schools that serve low-income communities of color.
And the work to build a strong MA opt-out movement goes on. With input from our recent opt-out meeting, we revised our opt-out fact sheet, which you can see here: http://www.citizensforpublicschools.org/the-facts-on-opting-out-of-mcas-or-parcc/
FairTest has fought against overuse and misuse of standardized testing for more than three decades. It helped form and lead the Forum on Educational Accountability to bring together educational, disability and civil rights advocates to fight and help push for reform of No Child Left Behind’s test-and-punish approach.
Mary pulled out a quotation from an FEA document written by Monty Neill and Gary Ratner. This was included in a summary of common elements from a review of research on successful interventions in struggling schools. The point of the piece was to argue against NCLB’s recommended turnaround strategies such as replacing half or all of a school’s teachers or using the so-called value-added measures to judge teacher quality.
If anyone would like to read the quotation in its original context, it is here: http://www.edaccountability.org/pdf/CommonElementsSuccessfulSchoolTurnarounds.pdf
I said it before and I’ll say it again: “These attacks are an unfortunate distraction. We’d rather use our energy and resources to build a strong opt-out campaign to stop the misuse and abuse of testing in our schools. We look forward to working with others who share these goals.”
I honestly believe that allies can disagree about some aspects of strategy without automatically becoming enemies.
Best,
Lisa
Lisa,
I wonder if perhaps you haven’t followed the money behind the organizations you work with? I saw that you co-authored the “Glossary of Ed Reform” with the Great Schools Partnership here in Maine. Are you aware that they receive most of their funding from the Gates Foundation and Nellie Mae Education Foundation?
I also saw that FairTest got a grant directly from Nellie Mae. Are you aware of this foundation’s role in the next wave of corporate reforms?
I also saw on FairTest’s website that you advocate the same assessment reforms as the Council for Chief State School Officers – yet another organization that receives millions from Gates.
I certainly don’t mean to criticize you or your work personally, but these connections are concerning. I am a teacher in Maine whose district is being remade by these next-gen reforms, with much support from Great Schools Partnership, and I can assure you that they feel even more oppressive than the annual high stakes testing regime we have been subjected to.
Perhaps you would at least clarify some of these connections.
Thanks,
Emily
Lisa,
“FairTest has fought against overuse and misuse of standardized testing for more than three decades. . . . We’d rather use our energy and resources to build a strong opt-out campaign to stop the misuse and abuse of testing in our schools.”
I’m confused about all the back and forth bickering, namely because I don’t know enough of the particulars of that bickering. I have neither dog nor pony in this race.
All I do know is that there can be no fair standardized test nor any measurable standards upon which those standardized tests are supposedly based. As you stated Lisa: “I did my own research and quickly learned that high-stakes testing hurts just about every kind of student, teacher and school.” Exactly!
My question then is why fairtest does not acknowledge those facts? I have given them (specifically Bob S.) the Wilson information more than once only to have him sluff me off with something to the effect of “No one understands that, we looking at what will work politically.” Political expediency shouldn’t trump the truth of the injustice of the educational standards and standardized testing regimes-which is what all of these nuevo edu-deformer proposals are dominated by. It seems to me that fairtest is being played rather well by those whose monetary interests trump all else. Either that or they choose to disregard/ignore damning evidence and prefer to gain that infamous “place on the table”.
Forgot to link to Wilson’s damning evidence before hitting enter:
“Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700
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 description of a quality can only be partially quantified. Quantity is almost always a very small aspect of quality. It is illogical to judge/assess a whole category only by a part of the whole. The assessment is, by definition, lacking in the sense that “assessments are always of multidimensional qualities. To quantify them as unidimensional 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 the descriptive information about said interactions is inadequate, insufficient and inferior to the point of invalidity and unacceptability.
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 words 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. And 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 attempts to measure “’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.
Hi, Lisa. Thanks for participating. My hope is that we can actually resolve this disagreement on the road ahead, through openness and transparency. I apologize again for any typos, it was a CPS conference of course. What I mentioned was the 2009 conference where CPS disappointed me so badly in its response to Boston social justice teachers:
“A lively discussion followed, in which those closely connected with urban schools in several cities discussed how to reach parents who see charter schools as the only answer, how to develop “cultural competency” in those teachers who are insensitive to students’ racial and ethnic backgrounds, how to work for an equal distribution of resources in schools across a school system, and how to put forward a positive vision of the kind of education we want for our children.”
“Barbara Fields, who formerly headed the Office of Equity in Boston Public Schools for 25 years, handed out a policy statement and plan “Eliminating the Achievement Gap” which she and other staff had developed in 2006. She said that while some progress has been made, the policy has never been truly implemented and the measures it recommends are needed now more than ever.”
It was a riveting presentation about racial justice in Boston, I thought it was one of the most important things I had ever seen in my life. And then, CPS couldn’t even consider a statement in support, you and Ruth said, like it was a routine question. Instead you just handed around a 2006 “achievement gap” reform proposal.
I was sitting there stunned, shaking, trying not to cry. The Boston teachers came over and hugged me to make me feel better, and gave me the contact info for TAG Boston. Six years later, we can see the fruit of their work even though much was lost in the interim. I am fighting now to defend it, because it is more precious than the big tent.
http://www.citizensforpublicschools.org/editions-of-the-backpack/special-backpack-issue-fall-conference/conference-workshop-participants-tackled-public-eds-big-challenges/
Mary,
I urge you to work with all allies to bring about a major opt out. It harms the cause when allies squabble. Don’t enable those who would divide us. None of us is without sun or error.
Progressive movements have repeatedly been destroyed by pointless in-fighting. Don’t let this happen. Our side has no money. We have people power. Only we can defeat us.
Mary,
I have minimal rules for participating on this blog. First, don’t insult your host; you are in my living room. Second, no unnecessary cursing. Third, no nutty conspiracy theories (e.g., Sandy Hook was a hoax, 9/11 was a government plot). That’s about it. I tolerate people who disagree with me but I don’t tolerate breaking the house rules.
Fairtest must know what is going on with iNACOL, Vander Ark, Lumina, and CBE. Nellie Mae is headquartered in Boston for goodness sakes. Much of this transition is happening right now in Massachusetts, among other New England states. I would be very interested in:
1) Are they aware of how much of the language in the ESSA preferences “innovative” “blended” and “digital” learning (along with charter expansion) over human instruction with real portfolios (not online collections of digital badges). If they are not, they need to start researching that.
2) If they do know, why are they not concerned given the levels of influence of the parties involved? Why are they not being more pro-active to let people know that their good work is very likely to be taken off the rails by corporate interests. I would very much appreciate an answer to these questions.
Think about charter schools. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on me. I won’t be fooled twice. Educate yourselves people. And do your own research. Go to the source. Don’t rely on intermediaries to interpret things for you.
Lisa,
What is Fairtest’s position on stealth assessment and online digital portfolios/badging? Also I would like to hear what you think of credit-bearing “extended” “expanded” learning opportunities and the role they should or should not play in this new education landscape. I think if you all had a clear white paper that outline the dangers mentioned briefly in the ESSA write up you did and raised attention to the parties involved in embedded standardized assessments in a more pro-active way, it would be helpful. I mean really delve into CBE and how you all see authentic assessment and what parties are involved in co-opting that language and taking it in another corporate-driven direction. Is that something you all could do?
Mary,
Thanks, that’s what I thought it was but being Acronym Impaired I need confirmation:
Duane, CBE is Competency Based Education.
And yes Wilson destroyed the late 90s version of that (and any other version) in chapter 18 of the above referenced dissertation.
Dear Emily,
No, I was not aware that my one-time, short-term freelance gig in 2013 writing neutral definitions of assessment terms was partially underwritten by Gates.
Nellie Mae gave FairTest a modest grant of $5K for an alternative assessment conference featuring Ann Cook and students from Urban Academy, who spoke with passion about the power of an education freed from high-stakes testing and supported by performance assessments.
I don’t know what you mean by “the same assessment reforms as the Council for Chief State School Officers.”
A few other things to note and then I’ll move on. (Emily, if you want to talk offline, you have my phone number.)
– FairTest advocated opting out back more than a decade ago, supporting campaigns in places such as Cambridge and Scarsdale, before there was a national movement. (FairTest was also invited to speak at the first and second Opt Out National conferences.)
– FairTest has repeatedly said that the “performance assessment” model we advocate is that practiced by the New York Performance Standards Consortium. Check it out. It bears no resemblance to the kinds of corporate reforms you, and we, reject. http://performanceassessment.org/
– The fact that corporate reformers are trying to co-opt our vocabulary shows the impact of our advocacy, not that we have sold out. We don’t think we should concede language that we have long used (e.g. our popular 1990s guide to “Implementing Performance Assessment”) simply because opportunist profiteers have adopted it any more than we gave up using terms like “formative assessment” when test-makers started applying them to standardized benchmark exams.
Lisa
Diane, thank you for providing this space. You once bravely wrote that you switched sides because you didn’t want to die with the destruction of public education on your conscience. This blog and your work were the only visible banner that was publicly raised to defend it for several years, and that’s put you a position that may seem to allow you to determine the grounds for unity of the millions of people who have rallied to this final battle.
You know already how deeply opposed activists were to the decision by NPE, AFT and NEA leadership to embrace Lamar Alexander’s renewal of NCLB. We’ve actually seen the traps laid already in our states, and will be doing battle to defend the hungry, stressed children in our decrepit public classrooms, and the teachers losing their livelihoods while their own families are vulnerable, and against the suspension of democracy itself in Title I schools under this filthy law.
Please bring our banner to the field, and join us. I do still trust you, if you are again willing to examine the faulty premise and destructive intent of this new corporate accountability system.
It won’t be like last time. We are going to fight, and we’re going to win.
Mary,
I am as opposed to corporate reform as you are. I am not the problem. Fairtest is not the problem. Fight your enemies, not your allies.
The recent passage of ESSA illustrated where the biggest stumbling block is (aside from Gates, Broad, and Walton, who supply the money to fuel the destruction of public schools). Democrats in Congress wanted more “accountability” than Republicans. Even Sanders and Warren defended the NCLB punishments.
Political high-rollers could and should have been lobbying for a suspension of NCLB accountability while real public discussion took place. There is no legitimate reason to ram through a 1000+ page law, hammered out in backrooms by corporate lobbyists, in the current corrupt, corporate dominated environment.
As I commented on your “Bottom 5%” post today:
What happened to the democratic control of low-income schools, by the communities whose children are in them? Can you not even IMAGINE that equal representation is worth considering, let alone defending? Do you agree that such communities are somehow unqualified for democratic governance?
There is no justification on earth for mandating that any state will identify, target, and take control of the public schools of low-income and minority children!
Allison,
Many people who know the work of FairTest and Citizens for Public Schools understand that we have never and would never support stealth assessment and online digital portfolios/badging, and so on. (As a parent, I find it repugnant, especially the notion that this is a good approach for students with learning disabilities.)
Monty and I have tried to explain, repeatedly, that we advocate a very different educational approach. That’s why we often point to schools like Urban Academy, part of the New York Performance Standards Consortium, which bears no resemblance to these online perversions of educational practice.
The white paper you propose is a good idea, but I ask you all to consider how our tiny organization, with less than a handful of staff, is expected to accomplish all the worthy things we must do if we’re also expected to respond to all these accusatory questions from people on our own side, let alone those who actually disagree with us?
Again, the fact that powerful people are coopting language we’ve used for decades does not mean they have coopted us or what we believe in.
I’m ready to move on.
Best,
Lisa