The thumbnail image, which you should click on to enlarge, displays the relationships between the following organizations:
* Achieve
* Alliance for Excellent Education (Alliance)
* Broad Prize
* Center on Education Policy (CEP)
* Citizens’ Commission on Civil Rights (CCCR)
* Ed Next
* Ed Sector
* Ed Trust
* Fordham
* KIPP
* National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS)
* National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ)
* New Leaders for New Schools (NLNS)
* New Schools Venture Fund (NSVF)
* New Teacher Project (NTP)
* Teach for America (TFA)
The education policy/advocacy world represented here looks a lot like a tangled spiderweb. Let me give a few examples.
The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS) shares members with 10 of these organizations. Their board includes
Jonathan Williams (Accelerated Charter School of Los Angeles), who also sits on the Education Sector board;
Bruno Manno (Vice Chair, Annie E. Casey Foundation), who also sits on the Ed Sector board as well as the Fordham board;
Mashea Ashton (of New Leaders for New Schools);
Mike Feinberg (KIPP);
Checker Finn, who also sits on the boards of Fordham and the National Council for Teacher Quality, and serves as the Senior Editor of Education Next;
Ted Mitchell of the New Schools Venture Fund (NSVF is also represented on the Ed Sector board);
Chris Nelson of the Don and Doris Fisher Fund, which is also represented on the Teach for America and KIPP boards;
Andy Rotherham, who sits on the boards of Education Sector, the National Council for Teacher Quality, and served on the Broad Prize Selection Committee.
What does it mean? Some would contend that a small group of people are running the education policy show. Others would argue this type of coordination is no different than in Fortune 500 companies, where board interlocks are common. Moreover, they might argue that interlocks, particularly in the case of service providing organizations, serve a useful purpose. Still others might note that this is simply a picture that observers should have in the back of their head when they listen to education policy debates and evaluate the claims made by these groups, i.e. can a think tank claim to be an independent evaluator given these interlocks?
Comments:
What's troubling about these connections is the degree to which these organizations serve as echo chambers for each other. One can be sure that whatever comes out of one of these organizations will be hyped to the skies by its friends elsewhere.
Each of these organizations compromises itself when it cites supporting evidence and opinions from elsewhere, without acknowledging being in bed with staff and board members from "elsewhere."
First, these organizations often give the impression of a grassroots groundswell of support for radical change in education. That may well be true, but this "small world" of interlocking advocacy groups should hardly be taken as evidence of this.
Second, the "indpendent analysis" of policy organizations such as Ed Sector or Ed Next really should not be considered "independent" at all. What kind of independent "analysis" should we expect of policies promoted by the very people who sit on these organizations' boards?
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/eduwonkette/2008/02/its_a_small_world_after_all_1.html