Deborah Meier, a long-time leader of genuine school reform and an opponent of standardized testing, read an article by Jim Horn of “Schools Matter” that referenced a simmering feud among allies. The basis for the article was a series of posts (see here and here) and comments on this blog. Several readers watched the angry comments and wondered what was going on.
As you will see in Horn’s piece, he and others are angry at Fairtest, which has led the fight against high-stakes testing for many years. Horn, Mary Porter, and Emily Talmadge warned that Fairtest was taking Gates money and was no longer trustworthy. Lisa Guisbond of Fairtest replied several times on the blog, insisting that Fairtest had not sold out, that it had taken a one-times Gates grant of $5,000 to study performance assessment. There was a lot of back and forth.
Deb Meier wrote this email to me:
“Wow. Shades of past history.
“Many decisions go into finding and financing different strategies. But if we decide its worth attacking each other rather than trying to persuade each other we are truly killing ourselves. Surely some of you have held views that have over time changed…
“I could weep.
“FairTest and Monty have a long long history of exposing bad tests, long before many others were even worrying about the subject. Neither FairTest, nor Monty nor Bob nor Lisa are getting wealthy doing this for so many years, years, and years. They may even occasionally be wrong. I know I have. I amstill unsettled re the issue of the use of choice, for example. And I took money for our small schools from many sources, as long as they didn’t compromise our work. Maybe we shouldn’t have? I’m not sure.
“CCE was founded in the early 90s to support the work of Coalition of Essential Schools that pioneered a very different form of “high stakes” assessment–what we call Portfolio reviews by Panels. (Read the work of Ted Sizer) They were the upfront fighters on behalf of the Pilot schools, and while Dan French and I disagree now and then, I’ve yet to find an ally that I always agree with. If I did I suspect they’d just be holding back to avoid an argument=-hardly the way to build a strong movement. (I actually love argument–especially among friends..)
“Let’s build our alliances in the spirit in which we build our schools–having honest conversation, hearing out those we disagree with, being thoughtful and temperate about our disagreements, and working together wherever we can: holding off creating more enemies than we need. A little affection, even when we disagree, wouldn’t do any harm.
“Let’s cut this tone out–without succumbing to ideas we disagree with. We can’t afford to fight our allies–the real, true long-time historic reformers like Fairtest —and the rich, wealthy, corporate so-called reformers at the same time.
deb
Thank you Diane and Debbie. Fairtest has made and continues to make invaluable contributions to our movement. I have always found them to be an excellent source of sound information. I can quote them or link to them and always feel secure. Wise advice in this blog, indeed!
This isn’t a squabble, it is a serious disagreement. None of you political appointees, bloggers, and grant recipients outrank classroom teachers who are in the line of fire from this new brand of reform. I hope your intent is not to silence the discussion, but to achieve clarity and resolve real differences.
“Serving on the CES Board are such well-known educational leaders as Forum Conveners Linda Darling-Hammond, Deborah Meier, Pedro Noguera, Sharon Robinson, James Comer, among others.”
“The new organization will retain the name of the Coalition of Essential Schools and will soon be launching a new website and newsletter as well as announcing plans for its next annual gathering in November.”
“All current subscribers to The Forum’s newsletter will continue to receive communications from the merged organization.”
http://www.forumforeducation.org/node/1010
Mary,
I am not going to persist in what you call a serious disagreement. I would like to see all students opt out of mandated testing. I see no value in attacking others.
To all true educators:
Regardless of methodology in enhancing public education to the best possibility of a whole child concept, the foundation is to cultivate the democratic spirit, the joy and love in children’s learning, and the protection of QUALITY teaching profession by assurance of teachers’ tenure.
If: 1) children are fear to go to school,
2) teachers are fear for their teaching licence being suspended because of malpractice from BUSINESS -LIKE administrators, and
3) all parents are helpless in seeing schools which are crumpling down or being written off from corrupted politicians to greedy corporate for profit,
then, we, parents and teachers, white and colored work force shall lead the OPT OUT movement until we achieve a whole child concept for young learners at any cost. Back2basic
Deborah, in 2014 I asked you several times about the relationship between the Coalition of Essential Schools and the Great School Partnership. Great School still makes this claim on its website, but the links to the Coalition are broken:
“Working at all levels of the education system, from the classroom to the statehouse, the Great Schools Partnership provides school coaching, professional development, and technical assistance to educators, schools, districts, organizations, and government agencies. We also create tools and resources for educators, administer public and private grant programs, and coordinate large-scale school-improvement initiatives for foundations and states. Read more about our work →
“The Great Schools Partnership is a National Affiliate Center of the Coalition of Essential Schools, a technical-service provider for the U.S. Department of Education, and the lead coordinator of the New England Secondary School Consortium and League of Innovative Schools.”
http://www.greatschoolspartnership.org/about/
The Great School Partnership is the hated organization that has taken over Maine public schools. They used their affiliation with Deborah Meier and the Coalition of Essential Schools to demand support from progressive teachers, until it was too late and the trap had closed. Against them, with their millions of dollars in Gates funding, a young teacher in Maine has taken up her pen. Emily Talmage is risking her livelihood, and you are demanding her silence (again!) instead of supporting her.
The Great Schools Partnership Team
David Ruff, Executive Director
David Ruff is executive director of the Great Schools Partnership… David directed numerous programs and projects, including the School Quality Review Initiative, which created local accountability systems in Maine;
the Partnership Rural Initiative, a curriculum development project that tied Maine’s learning standards to local needs and contexts;
the Learner-Centered Accountability Project, which focused on high school accountability and graduation systems;
the school-improvement efforts of more than a dozen Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration grant schools;
and the school-coaching support for the Great Maine Schools Project, a multiyear effort to transform secondary education in Maine.
David was also a member of the Maine Commission on Secondary Education, the task force that crafted Promising Futures, and he has served on the Executive Board of the Coalition of Essential Schools
http://www.greatschoolspartnership.org/about/our-team/
Deborah writes, ““CCE was founded in the early 90s to support the work of Coalition of Essential Schools that pioneered a very different form of “high stakes” assessment–what we call Portfolio reviews by Panels. (Read the work of Ted Sizer) They were the upfront fighters on behalf of the Pilot schools, and while Dan French and I disagree now and then, I’ve yet to find an ally that I always agree with. If I did I suspect they’d just be holding back to avoid an argument=-hardly the way to build a strong movement. (I actually love argument–especially among friends..)”
That’s not what Dan French is doing in Boston. He may be a nice guy who promoted your success, but he is no kind of ally or friend. This is neither a lovely argument nor a squabble. Teachers are being fired for opposing that turnaround model, and Maine children are in despair, reeling from these student Centered Multiple Measures.
Dan French and Center for Collaboration has contributed to creating many of the problems that traditional BPS high schools and turnaround schools, that were associated with them, have. They undermine teachers and school communities. I will not participate in any organization that is affiliated with Dan French or Center for Collaborative Education.
To those “new to the conversation,” Center for Collaborative Education is an ed vendor that “onboarded” over 23 years ago to support the Boston Public Schools (BPS) PILOT school network. CCE was supposed to “train the trainer” and then vanish into the abyss. Well it’s like a Catholic marriage…they never left!
In 2015, while BPS was talking about closing schools and warehousing children, BPS paid CCE $1,418,522! BPS pays them to write reports that “identify a problem” then CCE provides “professional development.” CCE does not provide direct service to students, and basically is doing the work that people at the District used to do before they became meeting jockeys.
I’m not going to pretend to know all the ins and outs of this situation and who’s right or wrong or whether we should all just forget it and work together, but I will say that I do heed Mary Porter’s concerns. She was a regular commenter here under a different screenname (which I will leave to her to reveal or not as she chooses) and I always respected the research that went into her posts – I learned a lot from her.
Also, I too am very concerned about how formerly progressive concepts like authentic assessment have morphed into this daily testing nightmare that’s starting to spread across the country known as Competency Based Education (along with other labels). Daily benchmark testing on meeting individual daily targets aligned with Common Core (or any other standards) is not at all what the original idea of authentic assessment was. Competency Based Education is basically training children like monkeys to perform the rephormers’ pre-assigned tasks. Authentic assessment, on the other hand, involves students and teachers working together to develop tasks that demonstrate what a child has learned in an area of his or her own pursuit. A student might, for instance, write a play about Greek mythology or develop their own science experiment to prove or disprove an idea. None of these things can be done via computer or scored “objectively” [side note: standardized tests and other computerized tests also can’t be scored objectively, but that’s a whole other post]. What Gates et al are trying to force on schools is exactly the opposite of what progressive educators like Meier envision, but I can see Gates et al co-opting the language and implementing their plan by stealth. At least, I’d like to think that no progressive educators are knowingly selling out to Gates.
Thanks, Dienne. Yes, I’m chemtchr. My concern is that Great Schools lobbied for their authentic proficiency diploma legislation in Maine under cover of these phrases and “progressive” affiliations, and nobody stopped them. I asked Deborah Meier several times to speak against them, and she just blew it off. Emily Talmage is truly valiant taking them on, and she is taking great risks. They’re fierce and dangerous, and by the way they are in my building, too.
When I saw the exact same pattern emerge in Massachusetts, I truly expected concern and support in dealing with it, in spite of these long undercurrents. instead people stonewalled, sent messages and emails, doubled down, and then all these big names attacked Emily with a vengeance.
Unlike her and many others, I have nothing to lose if Diane Ravitch or Deborah Meier attack me. I’ve been trying to talk them over since 2007, so I’m not intimidated by their claims of ownership of this movement. They were wrong then, and now they’re wrong again.
Mary, if you recall, I have been posting Emily’s blogs. I don’t see the value or purpose of your attacks on allies. I donor claim ownership of the movement to save public education. I was late to the party. I am doing what I can do to help people learn about what’s happening and help them connect and not lose hope. Neither Deborah nor I attacked you. We both asked for an end to attacks and in-fighting. That’s how progressive mivements die. I am not your enemy.
Dienne, I don’t think you have ever read a post on this blog endorsing “competency based education” or embedded assessments or any technological fixes or any form of standardized testing.
I did notice you posting Emily”s blogs, Diane, and it gives me hope. Then you posted calls for her to shut up, and called her toxic.
So, I’m discussing those calls. Lots of people have indeed taken lots of money, and freely built “alliances” with the thousands of money-spewing entities spawned by Gates and Broad. Of course we need to sort that out. Most of them are good people we desperately need. But people who built those alliances prospered and got awards for their blogs and books, and seats at tables. They are offended if we talk about it.
They need to stop calling people out for bringing the question up, because there are rivers of dark money, more bloggers than the market will bear, and organizations claiming progressive intent which are far from it.
And we are in a nation whose low-income communities with their schools and their children are under attack. Look where all these wonderful alliances have gotten us.
Mary, enough. I asked for harmony among allies. I never told Emily to shut up nor did I call her toxic. Stop attacking your allies.
Diane – no, you’re absolutely right, I have not. In fact, you’ve spoken against it. I just think we need to be very cautious because movements can be co-opted, even when people don’t realize that or how they are being co-opted. I’m not accusing anyone of bad intentions, just asking for awareness and vigilance.
I am a Boston Public School Teacher. I stumbled on this, 7 months after it was posted, by accident through a link on Facebook. I don’t know enough about the situation, and could care less about the bickering between allies, but, like Dienne, I am concerned with the organizations people link up with. I’m not so angry as I am deeply disappointed and feel hoodwinked.
As I mentioned, Center of Collaboration has undermined Boston teachers and school communities, our School Site Shared Decision Making Councils, and even the Boston Teachers Union. CCE has exploited the Boston PILOT school network, so much so that PILOT School “autonomies” have negatively impacted our traditional schools that I’m sure has Al Shanker rolling in his grave. What Boston PILOT Schools have morphed into today certainly wasn’t his intent.
I don’t know Mary Porter, but she asked me on Facebook to post this link. I would have posted it anyway.
Click to access PLN-press-release-3_24_16-FINAL.pdf
I’m just jumping in here without reading all of the related posts and comments or knowing a great deal about those directly involved (busy teaching lately), so I apologize to Diane if I’m putting my foot in my mouth, but I am always cognizant and weary of Corporate’s shrewd manipulation of media over the last hundred years. It’s well known that international bankers and their corporate dogs of war own and control all mass media (governments too). They are clearly upset that the internet threatens their control of information available to the public. I can see how, recognizing that Gates, Broad, and Walton have become the public faces of greed and corruption, they still in shadows could infiltrate and deflate blogs and social media with claims, whether true or not, that those discredited faces have control of the bankers’ enemies, us. It’s simple divide and conquer. For example, (not that I like the Donald) “establishment Republicans” could marginalize Trump’s populist appeal by attaching a discredited Tea Party face like Sarah Palin to his campaign. Very tricky! Regarding any claims of lack of independence of the anti-Data-mining/Commercialization/Privatization movement are concerned, I do not buy it. I think it’s safe to say WE do not believe it.
Corporate has underestimated the teaching profession. They thought we were lazy. They thought we were stupid. They were wrong. They still are. We will stop the deform agenda. Fear not. Democracy will overcome the banks and their corporations.
Stealth, embedded assessments? Mass customized learning? Data dashboards? Digital badges? All of these are on our doorstep, ready to provide corporate “solutions” to “fix” the damage caused by high-stakes testing. Who wants to write the white paper on this? Because I think Emily is doing a great job, but it would be great to have more people researching and digging in and talking about the dangers being peddled by tech-driven 21st century digital personalized learning systems.
Yes, standardized tests have done great harm to children and schools, driving many experienced teachers out of the profession. But has anyone considered that maybe that was their true intent?
If you want to usher in a new age of cyber education, the type that the ESSA lays the groundwork for, you need to get rid of all members of the old guard who know what education was before NCLB. And you do that by making the lives of veteran teachers miserable and bringing in young new teachers who come in via alternative certifications, trained in digital learning and scripted curricula and who are fearful of their jobs because they have huge student loan debts. And of course maybe you add in some well-intentioned, but untrained community volunteers who don’t know enough to ask questions and call out bad educational practice.
Did you ever consider perhaps the end-of-year tests were never meant to be forever. Maybe they were just a necessary step along the progression to a much greater evil. For example the kind described here: http://www.aam-us.org/docs/default-source/annual-meeting/exploring-the-educational-future.pdf?sfvrsn=0
Reformers play a very long game. They are happy to wait a decade or two until their grand plans come to fruition. Meanwhile we are kept in a constant state of fear and chaos by the same people who planted these seeds. We are intentionally kept in a position of reacting to the next crisis dropped in front of us rather than looking ahead to see what traps have been laid.
Unless educational leaders and organizations in positions of influence speak up, my grandchildren will end up in a bleak, dystopian future described in the story above. And the forces of evil will have been aided and abetted by organizations like our national museums no less. This is a quote from a 2014 American Alliance of Museums publication. Pages 11-12:
“The End of the Neighborhood School: Communities have long been fiercely protective of the schools in their own back yards, valuing the way these schools keep their children close to home, in their own neighborhood, with the support of their peers. Now the economic crisis and state and local funding crunches are driving a wave of school closures and consolidations in New York City, Philadelphia, Detroit, Chicago, Washington and elsewhere in the nation. This may increase the willingness of parents, already unhappy with school performance or school options, to opt out of the public school system and into independent charter schools, private schools, homeschooling or unschooling.
The Decline of FTE: Traditional schools are designed to prepare students for traditional jobs—which are increasingly rare. We are seeing the decline of full-time, long-term employment and the rise of the “gig economy”—one in which more and more people are freelancers, piecing together bits of work. Online services like oDesk, TaskRabbit and Gigwalk facilitate matching workers with employers more quickly and efficiently than the old fashioned temp agency, providing tools for anyone to patch together an income from diverse bits of work. If, in the future, more of our children grow up to be TaskRabbits, that may affect the kind of education, training and real-world experience they need to succeed in the odd-job workforce.” http://www.aam-us.org/docs/default-source/center-for-the-future-of-museums/building-the-future-of-education-museums-and-the-learning-ecosystem.pdf?sfvrsn=2
So as I said yesterday. You all need to figure out what is going on, and find a way to stop this train. No one here is pointing fingers. We are just asking everyone to speak up against this new phase of corporate reform. Can you not see it? Do you not want to see it? Folks like Emily are living it on a daily basis. If you are out of the loop, maybe you should reach out to the teachers in Maine.
Here’s a really interesting summary from a working group sponsored by the US Department of Education in 2011. http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/list/fbci/blendedcbo.pdf
I mean, I’m just a parent advocate and look what we’ve been able to uncover. There are folks online here who have access to many other academic and other resources who could probably uncover much, much more if they put their mind to it. Meanwhile, they are shoving chromebooks down the throats of Philadelphia school children even though what we really want is live teachers. They are quoting “The Christensen Institute” on the District grant application forms. We are in BIG trouble here.
Evidently the ed-tech sector was worried they couldn’t shove enough devices and software into schools, so they planned to bring Community-Based Organizations into the fold, too.
Education Technology Companies and Investors (Phoenix Wang, Startl & Greg Gunn, City Light Capital)
• There is a tremendous (and perhaps unprecedented) inflow of venture capital into education technology ventures
• There is significant concern that there is limited capacity for schools to absorb the technology. CBOs may provide an opportunity to augment that capacity to sustain promising technologies.
• Having access to users is essential in early stage development where things are so iterative for edtech companies. CBOs may be a valuable source for a variety of testing environments and we need to create some ecosystems to facilitate those partnerships.
• Edtech ventures are working on a variety of different focus areas, but one of particular interest is technologies that allow schools to become “team players” and incorporate the efforts of CBOs.
• CBOs working together may be able to aggregate their buying power.
Community-based Organizations (Charissa Fernandez, TASC)
• Blended-learning provides tremendous opportunity for schools and CBOs to partner more closely on improving outcomes
• We should build on the existing infrastructure: 30 statewide after-school networks and numerous citywide systems.
• The workforce of informal educators is 1 million strong, with CBO staff disproportionately young adults who are unafraid of technology. We need to translate ed tech to these potential partners and include them in professional development.
• The tolerance for risk is higher and barriers to entry lower among many CBOs compared to school systems, positioning them as potential R&D partners with industry and innovators.
• CBOs fertile ground for developing badges and electronic portfolios, adapting and broadening assessments
• CBOs are also de-centralized and hard to reach at scale, overwhelmed by possibilities and unsure how to identify quality.
Who knows about the Gates-funded “Power My Learning” platform? See the last two bullets.
Parents and Parent Organizations (Mark Malaspina, Computers for Youth)
• Home is the place of untapped potential in education. Research in the US and UK confirms that strength of the home learning environment is a powerful predictor of academic achievement.
• In the relationship between school, home, and the community, parents are the most motivated actors in the equation.
• Parents need to know what is going on in schools and CBOs to be effective partners.
• Parents are the strongest advocates for their children, regardless of educational attainment or socio-economic status.
• Need to focus on parents and students as learning partners. Parents will often relearn things in order to teach their children.
• Online dynamic is changing for families as interventions are helping many low-income families to gain home broadband access; we see broadband adoption rates of 90% among our participating families in NYC.
• Free online educational activities are powerful tools for both families and CBOs; new PowerMyLearning learning platform funded by Gates can enable easy use.
We need help. Help!!!!
Alison,
Thanks for the post. Your linked article, describes the “blended” approach. Wall Street uses that half-way tactic, to avoid political and social backlash, from an, “all-in” strategy. As an example of its use for pension destruction, a TIAA-CREF executive, interviewed in a Chronicle of Higher Education article, supported “hybrid” pension plans. He literally said, the product would avoid political fall-out from 100% abandonment of state pensions.
Until we break Wall Street and the oligarchy, we won’t get our schools back.
Allison: “Yes, standardized tests have done great harm to children and schools, driving many experienced teachers out of the profession. But has anyone considered that maybe that was their true intent?”
Sure: declare lack of money, drive the protectors of true education away (teachers, profs), then suddenly find the lost money and spend it on technology.
There’s no other stopping this than dismantling the system that allows these criminal manipulations of the public and the public’s money.
Building and sustaining coalitions is a challenge. As a reader of this blog, it is hard to see the disagreements of the past few days. I know some of the players better than others. i have had a deep respect for the work of Fair Test for many years and I admired the work of Ted Sizer ( I am a RI resident) and Deborah Meier in the 1990s. As a former high school teacher, I especially found the “rethinking” the American High School of interest.
I admire the passion for public education expressed by those that post here. I would hope that differences of opinion among good people do not undermine the strength that comes when people of good will work together.
OK, so how do you all feel about this “Future Ready Schools Pledge?” Because my Broad Academy superintendent Dr. Hite signed it and the UPenn Graduate School of Education is a regional partner. I can say without a doubt that I am going to be very upset if technology and digital learning is prioritized in our District, which has been starved of the most basic resources for the past four years. Based on my understanding of the folks who are grilling Emily, I would say the things listed below probably wouldn’t be their priorities either. So what’s the deal? Policies like those outlined in the Future Ready Schools Pledge and the National Education Technology Plan are what we should be sounding alarms about. http://tech.ed.gov/netp/
“Fostering and Leading a Culture of Digital Learning Within Our Schools.
Future Ready district leadership teams work collaboratively to transform teaching and learning using the power of technology to help drive continuous improvement. We work together to protect student privacy and to teach students to become responsible, engaged, and contributing digital citizens.
Helping Schools and Families Transition to High-speed Connectivity.
Future Ready districts conduct comprehensive diagnostic assessments of the district’s technology infrastructure and develop a sustainable plan to ensure broadband classroom connectivity and wireless access. Future Ready districts work with community partners to leverage local, state, and federal resources to support home Internet access outside of traditional school hours.
Empowering Educators through Professional Learning Opportunities.
Future Ready districts strive to provide everyone with access to personalized learning opportunities and instructional experts that give teachers and leaders the individual support they need, when they need it. Future Ready districts provide tools to help teachers effectively leverage learning data to make better instructional decisions.
Accelerating Progress Toward Universal Access for All Students to Quality Devices.
Future Ready districts work with necessary stakeholders to ensure that all students and educators across the district have regular access to devices for learning. Future Ready districts develop tools to support a robust infrastructure for managing and optimizing safe and effective use of technology, so students have opportunities to be active learners, creating and sharing content, not just consuming it.
Providing Access to Quality Digital Content.
Future Ready districts align, curate, create, and consistently improve digital materials and apps used in the support of learning. Future Ready districts use carefully selected high quality digital content that is aligned to college and career ready standards as an essential part of daily teaching and learning. Teachers are able to share, discover, and adapt openly-licensed materials and teaching plans.
Offering Digital Tools to Help Students And Families #ReachHigher.
Future Ready districts make digital resources available that help access expanded college, career, and citizenship opportunities. Future Ready districts promote ways to leverage technology to expand equity through digital activities such as completion of the FAFSA online, virtual counseling services, college scholarship search tools, and online advising access, all of which help to return America to the nation in the world with the highest college completion rate by 2020.
Mentoring Other Districts and Helping Them Transition to Digital Learning.
Future Ready districts work to design, implement, and share their technology plans. Future Ready districts join regional summits, participate in an online Connected Superintendents community of practice, and publish their Future Ready technology plan at a site such as http://www.MyDistrict.org/FutureReady.”
http://www.futurereadyschools.org//site/Default.aspx?PageID=114
Having once been a target of Mary’s ire, I understand the passion with which she defends public schools. Having said that, I would say that there’s nothing wrong with holding your friends to a higher standard. We spend much time pointing out the faults and issues of our enemies that perhaps we neglect our own. Maybe there’s something to be said in Mary and Emily taking the time to point out some questions surrounding the integrity of those we align ourselves with. We are only as strong as our weakest link, so we must be vigilant in making sure our links are as strong as possible.
If the voices of those such as Mary and Emily are shut down, then perhaps we truly have an issue. I get the desire to defend our friends, but shouldn’t that be done through discussion rather than shaming? Calling out Jim, Mary, and Emily on your blog is an interesting tactic, and one that reeks of initimdation and bullying. I find myself incredibly disappointed in you, Diane.
Michael,
I called for harmony among allies. No one was silenced.
Jim contends he’s been blocked from posting here. No matter, as he has his own blog. But to openly call out Mary and Emily is an incredibly passive-aggressive move and can only be meant to bring the exact form of criticism that you’re suggesting we not partake in.
And I disagree- Deborah Meier called for unity, not you.
Diane, are you blocking me? I need to know if the Great Schools Partnership and the Center for Collaborative Education are included among the allies you think we shouldn’t challenge.
I’m asking their partners, if you are progressives, to call out GSP and CCE. What I asked for last week was an assurance that the mail lists and reputation of Massachusetts Opt Out would be protected from access and exploitation by CCE, which is a current Gates- funded lobbyist for all the data driven products you never mention yourself.
I believe Massachusetts opt-out has achieved that. A very reliable group has formed to manage the site, with no connections to CCE. if, as Lisa says, Fairtest is just one small office with few employees, it should be willing give up control over the opt-Out movement, and still support it.
No, (thank God) I’m not being blocked. The router went down.
You know, Mary, I have no issue with you quesitoning anything any time anywhere. It’s what critical minds do.
But, having been attacked by you many months ago, here’s what I do not understand about you:
Yes, you are an ally, but do you really think you can find other allies who are 100% accurate all of the time in their understanding and reporting out on issues? For that matter, are you able to find allies who are 100% aligned with your POVs?
I mean 100% aligned 100% of the time?
I once said to my wife, who wanted me to eat, think, and sleep the same way she did, “If you want me to be exactly like you, why not just clone yourself and marry yourself? What do you need me for?”
I could rip into Diane big time for her soft style (perhaps not soft “stance”) on Randi Weingarten, and other major union leaders, but I don’t. Diane chooses to play her politics the way she believes to be most fruitful. Do I agree with ti? NO! But do I cut into her, put her down, cast doubt upon her big idea intentions here (or even her specific idea intentions)?
NO!
How crazy would that be!
Ravitch is not exactly who I want her to be, but she certainly is enough of who I need her to be. Thank goodness.
I know how angry you are, Ms. Porter, but we all need to focus our anger on the right and most deserving target.
I cannot throw out Diane with the bathwater because the overall bath is too sudsy, clean, and empowering.
Don’t you either . . . . You’re better than that.
BTW, Mary, I hope you are voting for Sanders. I am in Berkshire County part time, and MA needs all the help it can get from him . . . .
I agree with Robert that we know how angry the teachers are; and how frustrating it is for them every day. People here have a lot of understanding and empathy. This frustration and anger needs to be channeled through the political system.
As Robert mentioned, I am also leaning my support to Bernie Sanders and have his bumper sticker on my car etc. I have shared with all my friends and colleagues that I would not want to be entering the profession of teaching at this time.
I also agree with Robert Rendo: “we all need to focus our anger on the right and most deserving target. ”
In previous comments I have named a few and they are in the corporate world and the political system that feeds from the corporate power (with lobbying, dark money and all the intrigue). And, the interlocking directorate of who serves on what boards …
Robert Rendo: wise counsel.
😎
http://www.endcommoncorema.com I need to offer more time to this group. The MA Business Alliance brings in Sir Michael Barber with a phony study on “PARCC” superiority to MCAS. Measured Progress in NH (formerly a research firm) conveys the Sir Michael Barber infiltrating through MA Business Alliance directly to the Board of Ed. Fordham Institute is actively pursuing this avenue. David Driscoll, of NAEP, is going to be testing our kids on “grit”. The MA Business Alliance is tying up the grass roots effort of parents (in the courts) who have diligently gathered signatures to put common core/testing onto the November ballot. People in Worcester County, Essex County, Hampshire County may not be aware of all of the intricacies/ circumstances of groups in Boston but in particular, I prefer to spend my time on calling out (a) Fordham Institute and Education Next (Michael Petrilli, Andy Smarick, Education Next) for their constant pushing on vouchers/charters and tests (b) NAEP measurement of “grit” (thanks, David Driscoll) © Measured Progress ( a “research” firm tied up with West Ed and Pearson) and the (d) MA Business Alliance trying to defeat the grass roots efforts of parents. These are some pretty powerful foes or public education as I know it. If we fight amongst ourselves, these major elements will proceed with their own agenda and their own special interests.
Not in New England but I agree with your last line 100% and your pointing ou key players who thrive on preemptive action to undermine public education.
Governor of MA tells of his passion for charter schools in his State of the Union speech……so this s another area where I would be spending my time … Just learned about these grants in an article from Center for Media and Democracy where they posted the power point from U.S.D.E.. They have a whole “Office of Innovation” that awards charter school grants CFDA # is listed. This provides three more names Eddie Moat, Erin Pfeltz, Lourdes Rivery … (in the special ed office is Melody Musgrove)…. These are the bureaucrats/edu-crats pushing the “reform” agenda from the billionaires.
Charter Schools Program Non-State Educational Agencies (Non-SEA) Dissemination Grant
Additional Info
Main
Applicant Info and Eligibility
Funding and Legislation
Awards
ContactsEddie Moat, Erin Pfeltz, and Lourdes Rivery
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Ave., SW, 4W255
Washington DC 20202
(202) 453-7060
(800) USA-LEARN
CFDA Number: 84.282C
Program Type: Discretionary/Competitive Grants
Also known as: Charter Non-SEA Dissemination
thanks Laura; that has been a big positive about this particular group of people writing here with Diane ; identifying in the different states what is happening and sharing the information across the states. It is very helpful to me to understand what is happening and how people are experiencing this “reform” taking over of public education . The expertise and knowledge of the shared values is extremely important here –sometime we feel isolated on the front lines. Here one can find the people where one can say “We Agree” on the problems that we are facing in public education . The more this includes parent groups the better in the “grass roots”. As I pointed out the Measured Progress /WestEd affiliation I know that crosses the state lines; these agencies that are supposed to be supplying “research” (and some formerly did) have been co-opted . So many of the professional groups have been co-opted and the colleges and higher ed have always been in a fierce competition (at least in this area where we have so many ) . For example, the Dean of Leslie will write an article to show how his organization is vastly superior to any other in the state (not just to single him out but to illustrate the fierce competition).
Sir Michael Barber is the Chief Education Officer for Pearson. He was a Partner at McKinsey & Company, a major player in corporate education reform. https://goo.gl/Oc2k0N Last year he coauthored “Deliverology 101: A Field Guide for Education Leaders” http://goo.gl/8nhjpp
Does anyone really believe that Gates is giving money to supports of public educaton to fight Barber? It is against the laws of economics and psychology to think one of the richest men in the world is not giving money to buy influence with the money he gives to various groups claiming to support public education. Not only does he buy influence it compromises and discredits them.
Reblogged this on twopowers1 and commented:
The schools’ future is in our hearts and in our hands!
The end of year tests are going to be over, because the reformers (see iNACOL’s take) want them to be over.
They’ve done their job and can now be phased out, not because it’s the right thing to do for children, but they have run their course. These tests cleared the decks of a large numbers of veteran teachers and have driven many families out of public education altogether. They are moving on now. That is the reality.
It’s time to gear up for the next battle front, which will be student data privacy and the right of our children to be taught by live human beings with other children. And it’s not a coincidence that one of the people running the webinar below is from Maine. Emily sees this happening and is trying to get everyone to pay attention-even though she has a full-time job other than her advocacy and a small child at home. Her blog is an amazing resource.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/inacol-webinar-to-explore-how-the-every-student-succeeds-act-supports-personalized-learning-300191802.html
“iNACOL Webinar to Explore How The Every Student Succeeds Act Supports Personalized Learning
WASHINGTON, Dec. 11, 2015 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., the International Association for K-12 Online Learning (iNACOL) is hosting a Special Edition webinar to examine and discuss the new federal K-12 education law replacing No Child Left Behind, The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), and how it supports personalized learning. Yesterday, President Obama made history by signing The Every Student Succeeds Act into law which reauthorizes and updates the nation’s guiding federal education policy, known also as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
In a statement released yesterday, iNACOL applauded President Obama and the United States Congress for their historic, bipartisan effort to improve federal k-12 education law for all students.
The Every Student Succeeds Act gives states increased flexibility to redesign assessments for student-centered learning, to rethink accountability for new learning models, and to modernize educator and leadership development. The law also provides funding to states and districts to implement personalized learning and invests in research on the digital equity gap.
In this webinar, iNACOL’s Vice President for Federal and State Policy Maria Worthen will provide an overview of the bill’s key provisions and discuss the implications for states, addressing what this shift in policy means for competency-based, blended and online learning.
“The historic action by President Obama and the United States Congress to reauthorize ESEA removes federal barriers and opens opportunities for states to shift toward personalized learning,” said Susan Patrick, iNACOL President and CEO. “The Every Student Succeeds Act aligns federal K-12 education policy with state and local efforts to develop personalized, competency-based education systems—to close achievement gaps, prepare more students for college and career and reduce inequities in K-12 education.”
This webinar is free to attend. iNACOL invites participants to register here for final details and login information.
Webinar Title: The Every Student Succeeds Act—How Will the New Federal K-12 Education Law Support Personalized Learning?
Presenter(s):
Maria Worthen, Vice President for Federal and State Policy, iNACOL
Aisha Woodward, Legislative Assistant to Senator Angus King (I-ME)
About iNACOL
The mission of the International Association for K-12 Online Learning (iNACOL) is to catalyze the transformation of K-12 education policy and practice to design powerful, personalized, learner-centered experiences through competency-based, blended and online learning. iNACOL is a non-profit organization focusing on research, developing policy for student-centered education to ensure equity and access, developing quality standards for emerging learning models using online, blended, and competency-based education, and supporting the ongoing professional development of classroom, school, and district leaders for new learning models. Visit our website, like us on Facebook, and follow us on twitter.”
Exactly right, nonstop testing via perfected alignment of instruction and testing, made possible by enthusiasts and funders of online programming of instruction merged with non-stop data gathering on student performance. iNACOL is among many cheerleaders.
“The Every Student Succeeds Act gives states increased flexibility to redesign assessments for student-centered learning….”
This is what I’m talking about with the co-opting of progressive education. I mean, what could possibly be more progressive than assessments designed specifically for student-centered learning? I mean, I think of all the projects that my daughters do to demonstrate what they’re learning, in line with their interests, strengths and needs. Boy, I really could get behind rephorm if this is where we’re heading, right? Finally, the rephormers are getting it!
Well, except that what progressive educators mean when they say those words is exactly the opposite of what Gates and the rephormers mean. We really are living Orwell’s nightmare.
Incidentally, this was my reaction when I read MOST LIKELY TO SUCCEED (or started to read it before I threw it out the window). All the right progressive language is there and it sounds great until you look at the reasoning behind it, which is all a bunch of neoliberal survival of the fittest, education = economics sort of claptrap. Chilling.
Dienne, I agree. So how do we fight this co-opting?
Boy, I wish I knew, Ed Detective. But it starts with listening to niggling little tendrils of doubt, even when we think it can’t possibly be true. I have a lot of respect for FairTest, I think they’ve done a lot of good work and I’m sure reluctant to believe that they are involved in this takeover of Competency Based Education, at least knowingly and willingly. But we have to listen to the people like Emily Talmadge on the front lines who are living on the forefront of what we’re now seeing happening in other locations and we have to be willing to ask the uncomfortable questions of our allies like Mary Porter is doing. While I agree with Diane that we can’t attack our allies, at the same time our allies have to be transparent and forthcoming – we can’t just assume that anyone is on our side. Just nine months ago I listened to Randi and Lily loudly and proudly proclaim their support for teachers and their opposition to Gates, along with their promise not to accept any further Gates funding, to wild cheers from the audience at the NPE conference. And look what they’ve done since. Fool me once….
Dienne, we can listen to all voices who work to support public education as a right, not a consumer good. But there is no value–none–in attacking your allies. Progressive movements are know for getting into a circle and shooting. Fairtest is a great organization, and I see no point to questioning its credibility other than to hurt our movement of resistance to standardized testing. A good and open discussion requires civility.
It’s possible, and desirable, to strongly debate issues without being personal and disagreeable. I agree with Diane about the historical track records of progressive movements disintegrating because of circular firing squads.
When we see educationally unsound ideas pushed, I think it is also important to determine how much is due to an agenda and how much is due to following the money. Going for resources to support your school or organization doesn’t lessen the stink of an educationally unsound idea, but it tells me that the argument may need to be presented differently.
I have great respect for Deb Meier and know that she is not about curtailing speech.
CBE/DL is just another snake oil solution doomed to FAIL.
It’s not a matter of if . . . only when.
And how much damage and destruction the system must endure before this latest pendulum reaches its peak.
OUR CHILDREN, OUR LOCAL TAXES, OUR COMMUNITY, OUR NATION.
DemocracyAwakening.org More than 100 organizations, together in D.C. in April.
Techniques of persuasion, called the engineering of consent by Edward Bernays (credited with founding professional PR) have been refined to the point of being a major art form of our era.
Orwell was prescient on the power of double speak but he could not have imagined, for example, software designed to create “sentiment analyses” from the content posted on the Internet, making inferences about trending sentiments on any topic bases on rapid and bid data analyses of words and images, add clicks, dwell times, and analyses that include You Tube sounds and motion.
Theft of words and phrases once taken for granted to have a limited range of meanings in one context, say education, have be transformed in meaning just by repeated use for a different purpose.
Consider how economists and statisticians have pushed forward a new definition of growth defined as a change in test scores between two points in time, with a lot of unstated assumptions about the content, validity and reliability and comparability of scores.
Torn away and trashed (under the banner of accountability) are concepts of growth and human development as vital in educational thinking, where understanding the interplay and disjunctions between physical growth, emotional and social development, are as important as pushing students to “master” test-taking skills for a narrowly defined module of content, and on time.
The new rhetoric from the Gates foundation is “teachers know best.” Under that cover the foundation is still trying to shore up the Common Core and salvage the multimillion dollar “Measures of Effective Teaching” project as if that was legitimate (economists in charge of ” proving” that the discredited VAM calculations based on test scores, and invalid observation protocols, and dubious student surveys) and perfectly fine.
Among new projects from the Gates Foundation are “transformative” teacher preparation programs, free of any opportunity for critical thinking and scholarship. The transformation means dump that in favor on the job training and repeated practice in using “high leverage” tricks of the trade to maintain discipline (Doug Lemov- style), raise test scores, instill grit etc.
Another Gates Foundation project is a multifaceted campaign to gather data from social media platforms keyed to teaching, and to reshape these on order to as push forward tech, online learning, and so forth AS IF there were grass roots initiatives from teachers.
I totally agree. I feel like I need a degree in semiotics sometimes to figure out how to “reclaim” many of the terms they are using.
People need to be aware that the long-game fight is with cyber charters. ALEC has numerous cyber-schooling bills they are shopping around. Ones like this: http://www.alec.org/model-policy/the-virtual-public-schools-act/ A lot of virtual school enabling language has been introduced as part of a new bill in Pennsylvania. HB530 inserts “regional charter schools, and cyber charter schools” wherever there was a reference previously to simply “charter schools.” It is really troubling.
For those of you who understand the implication of stranded costs in school districts like Philadelphia where we are saddled with a huge burden of charter payments, the only thing holding the whole house of cards up is that there are not currently enough seats in brick and mortar charter schools and a bit of regulation remains in place to limit the number of new charters. Those limits are under constant attack and they try to introduce bills to create new charter authorizers that are not LEAs.
If they can create an environment where “virtual schooling” via charter companies is an acceptable norm and get people to flow into the cyber school arena, our current district funding will be totally destabilized to the point that they will not be able to turn on the lights anymore-even for the highest performing schools. I know cyber schools get terrible results and do not offer quality education, but that does not stop corporate interests from buying public policy. Their intention is not to give poor kids a “good” education, but to make a profit off of them and create widgets to meet the needs of the low-wage service sector.
And when your Broadie superintendent allows chaos to be created in your schools that makes parents feel unsafe sending their children to them (see this article on what happened at George Washington in Philadelphia: http://mobile.philly.com/beta?wss=/philly/blogs/school_files&id=360885411) you really cannot blame parents for jumping over to virtual schooling out of concern for their child’s well being. And that is the bigger plan. Cyber charters have no cap on the number of students they enroll. They can take students all year. Create a scenario where parents feel they have no other choice and step back and watch what happens.
Confronting data-driven, online education, I believe, needs to be a major focus activism in the near future.
The latest study of cyber charters by CREDO is devastating. It says for every 180 days of instruction, students lose 180 days in math, and 44 in reading.
Yes! But that didn’t prevent the addition of “cyber school” enabling language throughout this PA bill: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=PDF&sessYr=2015&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=0530&pn=2696
Thank goodness it hasn’t yet passed, but it’s still hanging around under consideration.
The push into cyber education is not about good educational policy, it’s about marginalizing poor children and denying them a real education.
They are lining up Community-Based Organizations and online learning providers to ultimately kill off neighborhood schools. That Center for the Future of Museums is all about that. It will start slowly with blended and hybrid personalized learning. There will be additional campaigns to use dangerous situations like what we seen in Detroit’s schools to encourage parents to opt into cyber schooling out of the sheer and understandable need to keep their children safe. People will not accept 100% cyber, so the Community-based partners will expanded from the morning and after care programming to provide human contact during the day. I truly believe that is what the 21st Century Community Learning centers in the ESSA are being set up to do. The staff of those organizations will replace school-based teachers, and the neoliberal foundations will control them through grant funding in a way that they cannot control unionized public school teachers.
Reformers will continue their assault on education funding at all levels. We narrowly missed having our school property tax taken away in November here in PA. Undoubtedly the ALEC folks are busy buying the votes they will need to pass is next year. http://www.pottsmerc.com/article/MP/20151123/NEWS/151129856
Eventually even affluent districts in our state will be hard-pressed to pay for librarians, art teachers, extracurriculars. It’s such a terrible cycle. Maybe they’ll even start to rely on social impact bonds to cover those costs. Harvard Business Review says SIBs are the new Venture Capital. It’s hard to paint this huge, scary picture all at once. There are so many moving parts. But that is why we need great minds to start figuring it out and how to explain it to others.
My impression is that these conflicts among anti edreform groups are mostly about poorly managed anger. Anger is good and bad: it gives us great energy, but we still need to be able to control that energy and aim it to the correct target.
According to Gandhi: “I have learnt through bitter experience the one supreme lesson to conserve my anger, and as heat conserved is transmuted into energy, even so our anger controlled can be transmuted into a power that can move the world.”
According to Seneca: “Although anger be contrary to nature, may it not be right to adopt it, because it has often been useful? It rouses and incites the spirit, and without it bravery performs no splendid deed in war — unless it supplies the flame, unless it acts as a goad to spur on brave men and send them into danger. Therefore some think that the best course is to control anger, not to banish it, and by removing its excesses to confine it within beneficial bounds, keeping, however, that part without which, action will be inert and the mind’s force and energy broken.”
According to Hulk: “That’s my secret, Cap. I’m always angry.” (hence his aiming is not always correct)
One needs enough anger to motivate the propelling of oneself out of a toxic situation and into a healthy one. Anger has an excellent and effective use that way.
Other than that, anger sustained becomes toxic and will poison the very muscles and brain that are suppsed to move, stretch, strengthen, and problem solve . . . .
As for accepting Gates’ money: it works for some, it won’t work for others. Chalkbeat is funded by Gates, and I know some completely corrupt journalists working for them. But I also personally know a journalist at chalkbeat who will do her own reporting no matter what.
We also know that Chomsky has been funded from military $, but it has never prevented him to speak out against them.
One of the best research done on framing the education debate for progressives was funded by the Lumina foundation.
The aim of edreformers is to take public money. We can look at the above examples as the reverse: take private money and benefit the public from it.
Pecunia non olet. At least sometimes.
The problem we face is the incursion of cyber education into public schools, by force of law. Here is iNacol’s map showing how far it has come in which states. Massachusetts is a little piece of clear, surrounded by lost territory. We’ve been fighting it.
I am assuming, Mary wanted to link to this map (the FB map is not accessible) http://cybereducationmap.org/
Mary—A thanks to you and Emily for keeping us informed about how iNacol plans to use the Reauth to gain support in public education. Cyber Education has not faired well in PA. Alison above has point out how cyber schooling support keeps showing up in PA legislation. Thank you lobbyist, said sarcastically. It is important to keep parents informed so they can help fight this and win support for traditional public schools in PA.
Fairtest has done good and important work for a long time, but should have known better than to accept a penny from Gates, if not on general moral principles, then because of the truly awful politics optics of accepting money from him or any of the so-called reformers. They should have known and expected that they would be (rightfully) challenged for doing so. And for what, besides some chump change?
And with all due respect to Deborah Meier, saying that she accepted money from a wide range sources, so that accepting money from Gates is no big deal, is not a historically valid analogy, since the times were very different, and the strategy for the hostile takeover of public education was not in place; now, however, it is, and no one can credibly claim ignorance or innocence about it. Any way you cut it, money from Gates is treyf, haram, blood money, call-it-what-you will…
I think there is much merit to the analysis which says that the current charter school/high stakes testing regime is merely a transitional period before the Deep State of so-called education reform goes to the next stage of their hostile takeover, which is to digitize, mine and monetize as much of the school experience as they can. They see immense financial, social and political benefits to themselves for doing so, the Common Good be damned.
And, speaking only for myself, I would not support any organization that prominently features a log-rolling, entrepreneurial academic like Pedro Noguera, who has the political and moral principles of a weathervane.
My understanding is that Fairtest never asked for or obtained Gates funding. If Deb ever received Gates funding–and I don’t know if she did–it would have been in the 1990s, when she was opening small high schools that had no standardized testing. Deb has always been a critic of standardized tests, and her schools used portfolio assessments, projects, and other interactive demonstrations of mastery. Her major funding source was the Annenberg Foundation.
I think it is important to stop looking for purity among our allies. We don’t want to be a tiny band of zealots. We want—I want, maybe not “we”–everyone who shares a commitment to children, to the teaching profession, and to public schools, to join together to change the climate of opinion. We can’t do that by demonizing those who approach the issues differently but share our goals. Progressive social movements die when they spend as much energy criticizing their allies as they do with their adversaries.
Michael: “Any way you cut it, money from Gates is treyf, haram, blood money, call-it-what-you will…”
I don’t think it’s bad to take blood money and use it to prevent more bloodshed. OK, so money doesn’t get returned to the same people it was taken from, but this pragmatism is acceptable even in fairy tales like the Robin Hood legend.
I say, let’s take Gates’ money, and use it to fight his uninformed attacks on us.
Diane, I’m writing this days after the original post, so you may not see it, but I’ll clarify my comment anyway.
I have no interest or desire in attacking Fairtest, which does important work. My point was that if they had accepted money from Gates, it was a mistake (as indicated by the passions stirred up this thread); I had no intention of impugning their motives. If indeed they have never cashed a check from Gates, then I stand corrected. However, if they have ever accepted any money from his foundation, whether solicited or not, then I stand by my comment
As for my comment about Deborah, I did not intend to suggest that she has/had accepted money from Gates or other so-called reformers, only to point out that circumstances are very different now from when she was running her schools, and the political economy of education was less clear, meaning that the motive for private contributions is very different from what it was even ten years ago.
I understood her to mean that we can remain agnostic about the source of contributions; I disagree, and think that ultimately those paying the piper call the tune.
In no way was I trying to suggest that she had received or solicited “tainted” funds, only that her comment seemed to suggest that taking money from him might not be such a bad idea.
I think the bad feelings generated by even the suggestion that Fairtest might have done so is proof that it’s a bad idea..
Michael, at this point, taking money from Gates or Broad or Walton is a clear and indisputable sign of acquiescence to the privatization of public education and the destruction of the teaching profession. But I would not say the same of any group that solicited or took money from Gates ten years ago, when his main focus was small schools. And I repeat, my understanding is that Fairtest never received Gates funding. Note that Broad and Walton have shared an overlapping agenda for many years; Walton has always been about union-busting, Broad has always been about replacing educators with business-trained CEOs.
Diane: “Michael, at this point, taking money from Gates or Broad or Walton is a clear and indisputable sign of acquiescence to the privatization of public education and the destruction of the teaching profession.”
Emotionally, I understand what you guys are saying, but logically? Is the origin of money more important than what it’s used for? The reformers are taking tax payers’ money, so it’s all good since it’s good money, isn’t it?
I am not playing brain twisters. I have colleagues taking Koch and Gates’ money, and my immediate reaction was “traitors”, but not sure anymore.
Michael: ” My point was that if they had accepted money from Gates, it was a mistake (as indicated by the passions stirred up this thread); I had no intention of impugning their motives. ”
What’s wrong with spending Gates’ money on good stuff?
Every professional group was co-opted with some amount of funding with huge mounts from Gates. I did not drop my faith in ASCD products as a result of this article. http://www.ascd.org/news-media/Press-Room/News-Releases/ASCD-Awarded-Gates-Foundation-Common-Core-Grant.aspx
On the other hand, I have called out West Ed, Measured Progress and the “firms” that used to do research and now do hyper-marketing studies. I saw the erosion in Massachusetts with donations from computer firms pushing the deus ex machina. One of the 3 men I worked with (as a colleague) took a grant from Gates — there were many other political “deals” going on at the time. The only person who went to jail was DiMasi (a different technology firm, not Gates). Digital was in the competition and they gave us a “free” computer but from that day on we were told to market/ merchandise/sell; I asked my immediate supervisor and he said the computer was awarded from the marketing division of Digital (whereas we were in curriculum/instruction etc; DEC was liberally “donating” computers to colleges across the country and of course they expected results. Everything that I wrote in an article/newsletter had to be reviewed by the Digital person and the edits would come back to me…Educators feeling they lacked status in the public sector suddenly became CEOs and gained IT status and larger salaries (in some cases). When I refused to follow the marketing plan set out by Digital it was the end of my role in that organization.
It wasn’t until later that the overall strategy of IT working directly with business managers invaded the school districts. We did one study in Burlington Public Schools and , even though there was a proven teacher effect, the technology effect was hyped because it would “sell” and it was “sexy.” Because of my role (very limited in the overall picture of technology in the state– I was an observing unknown) I could see what was happening but I realize that others didn’t recognize it until later and there are still many “neo-liberals” that believe in the IT promises in the extreme that we see now being pushed. A case study could be built from the technology developments especially as the Great Recession took place; the man Di Masi who is still in jail (now suffering from cancer) and the others who didn’t go to jail. In scanning the horizon the education service centers are also hyper-marketing for the various technology firms and again they go through the Purchasing systems… and the business office not the curriculum office. Professional autonomy has been eroded .
I hope you can see my points here as I don’t want to start or continue bitter attacks. But ASCD was co-opted …. NCATE got pushed into CAEP and they have all been devoured at this point. (it reminds me of the story of Little Black Sambo and he watches the tigers all turn into butter — at some point Gates will be yellow melting butter )…. but MANY were co-opted. Many neo-liberals still don’t see it so we have a lot of work to do.
Know Michael that I have always respected your posts and have forwarded your information especially on the Bread and Roses (and the college students who took the sides of the mill owners). We are on the same side.
“comment “charter school/high stakes testing regime is merely a transitional period before the Deep State of so-called education reform goes to the next stage of their hostile takeover, which is to digitize, mine and monetize as much of the school experience ” this is where we need to understand ….. the teachers and students are experiencing the “front lines” . The Commissioners are not doing the appropriate role of a professional with several advanced degrees and they make deals with the governors, the hand picked boards , and the monopolies (where we used to have many airlines we now have about 4; where there were several banks it is vastly reduced; the computer/technology firms are fighting this same battle and a Pearson monopoly is not good for education in the U.S.
Diane and Mate Weirdl,
If Fairtest did not accept money from Gates, then that’s that, and the criticism is badly misdirected.
I must disagree with Diane, however, about what Gates was doing ten years ago. His small schools initiative was immensely destructive (at least in NYC, where I teach), as it accelerated the destruction of comprehensive neighborhood high schools (granted, some of which were troubled, but most were community institutions with deep, deep roots and history) with small, under-resourced schools, based largely on bogus, boutique “themes,” which proceeded to engage in inevitable turf battles and student cherry picking. It was all of a piece with everything Gates has followed up with since.
Mate Weirdl (I’m a big mate drinker, too, if that’s what your first name alludes to),
I’m skeptical of accepting money from adversaries (though I’d go further and call Gates an enemy), even if it can aid good work; in the end, the contradictions and conflicts generated outweigh the potential benefits.
Jean, thank you for your kind words, and I likewise look forward to your comments and insights.
Michael Fiorello’s description of the future is what I see here in this seminar offering; they offer business managers in the schools seminars on Procurement and Implementation of Administrative and Instructional Improvement Systems. ” “This by-invitation-only summit provides a unique forum for business managers, procurement directors, and IT leaders to collaborate with industry thought leaders around many emerging trends in contemporary systems procurement.” [end quote] And it extends well beyond Gates into other major companies/vendors.
At these seminars they probably are handed the specs along with the filled in boiler plate to “Buy” /purchase…. (replying to Michael’s comment “charter school/high stakes testing regime is merely a transitional period before the Deep State of so-called education reform goes to the next stage of their hostile takeover, which is to digitize, mine and monetize as much of the school experience as they can. They see immense financial, social and political benefits.)
Jean, this announcement made yesterday very much supports what you are saying. Everyone should take note. A new phase of ed-reform that is now upon us. The ESSA passage has unleashed a whole new brave world of digital “learning.” https://thejournal.com/articles/2016/01/25/k12-launches-foundation-for-blended-and-online-learning.aspx?m=1
“K12 has launched The Foundation for Blended and Online Learning, an independent charitable organization designed to advance online and blended learning opportunities and outcomes.
The foundation will have three goals:
To offer scholarships for post-secondary students;
To offer grants for individuals and organizations advancing online and blended learning; and
Bringing together stakeholders for collaboration.”
thanks, THE journal has been a major “window” for looking in on the new data gathering… “data mining”…. a whole group of professionals in the business admin office, the IT office who don’t pay much attention to ASCD or curriculum etc… One of the Gates supported firms here in MA has been spurring on these goals for about 20 years now….
On the issue of whether or not it’s OK to take “an adversary’s” resources to fund “good” things: Let’s not kid ourselves, this is a deep philosophical quandary and there is no easy answer. It will also depend highly on context, so there is not necessarily one right answer. It is one of those things we’d have to take on a case-by-case basis…
http://lawyerscom.org/lawyers-committee-moves-to-intervene-in-charter-cap-case-on-behalf-of-students-of-color-students-with-disabilities-and-english-language-learners/
I love the fact that lawyers start activating themselves. Thanks for the link, jeanhaverhill.
this is where we can stand together in MA… with the parents, with the civil rights leaders….. not through infighting and canon wars….. (i tried to address this on BATS this week and someone with a PH.D. in linguistics took it back to the canon wars of whose vision of curriculum should be taught in Reading in elementary etc.)