ISO Honest Brokers of Information

Can we call the Gates Foundation (GF) an honest broker of information?

Based on the Foundation's mischaracterization of recent survey findings, the answer would be no.  The GF posted the following tweet stating that principals showed "strong support of the #common core."

Where'd they get that idea?   Read the findings as summarized by the organization that conducted the survey, the National Association of Elementary School Principals.



Let's look more closely:

• Could one interpret the high implementation rate of the CC by principals as support?  No.  Principals in states that took federal Race-To-The-Top (RTTF) money -- and that's most states -- must implement the Common Core. They don't really have a choice.  
• How about the finding that "slightly over one half of principals" said the CC standards "hold potential for achieving their intended purpose"?  Is "hold potential" and "strong support" the same thing?  Hardly.
• How about the fact that the 14 states sampled over-represented "states with reputations for strong common core representation"? Uh oh.
• Then, there's this little problem pointed out by the survey's owners:  "Because of the low response rates to the survey, we recommend that readers avoid generalizing to the entire principal workforce." Uh oh, again.

I could keep going.

So, is the Gates Foundation warranted in concluding that "principals [showed]...strong support of the #common core"?  No.

ISO of Honest Information Broker.