The High Cost of Failure: Rethinking the i3 Grant Program and the Future of Education Reform
In his recent thought-provoking article, “BS Test Blows A Billion,” Peter Greene delves into the troubling consequences of the education system’s over-reliance on standardised testing as a measure of success. Greene’s main premise is that the Big Standardised Test (BS Test) is a woefully inadequate tool for assessing the quality and effectiveness of education, leading to a gross misallocation of resources and a distortion of the very purpose of learning.
Greene’s criticism of the BS Test is rooted in the belief that reducing the complex and multifaceted process of education to a single metric is not only misguided but also harmful. He argues that by placing so much emphasis on test scores, we have created a system that prioritises narrow, easily quantifiable outcomes over genuine learning and growth. This, in turn, has led to a host of unintended consequences, from the narrowing of curricula to the marginalisation of students with diverse needs and abilities.
As an autistic gestalt processor (aka, non-verbal) and a special education Resource Specialist Program teacher in a Los Angeles public high school, I find Greene’s critique both timely and essential. I witness daily the detrimental effects of this test-centric approach on my students, many of whom struggle to fit into the rigid mold of standardised assessment. The pressure to perform on these tests often exacerbates their anxiety and stress, while failing to capture their unique strengths and potential.
Moreover, as a gestalt processor, I understand the importance of looking at the big picture and not just focusing on isolated data points. The BS Test, with its narrow scope and limited ability to measure true learning, fails to account for the complex interplay of factors that contribute to a student's growth and development. By relying so heavily on this flawed metric, we risk making decisions that are not only ineffective but also deeply unjust.
The Investing In Innovation (i3) Grant Program
At the heart of Greene’s critique lies the Investing In Innovation (i3) grant programme, a federal initiative that allocated a staggering $1.4 billion to various educational projects between 2010 and 2016. The program’s stated goal was to improve student learning and close achievement gaps by funding the development, validation, and scaling of innovative educational strategies. However, as Greene points out, the program’s reliance on test scores as the primary measure of success led to a series of disappointing outcomes.
According to a review conducted by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), only 26% of the i3 grant recipients demonstrated a positive effect on student test scores. This means that nearly three-quarters of the programs funded by the initiative failed to show any significant improvement in the very metric they were designed to target. Given the enormous sums of money invested in these projects, such lackluster results raise serious questions about the effectiveness of the i3 grant program and the wisdom of using test scores as the sole barometer of success.
As a special education teacher, I am particularly troubled by the implications of this finding. The i3 grant program’s narrow focus on test scores fails to account for the diverse needs and challenges faced by students with disabilities, English language learners, and other vulnerable populations. By prioritising a one-size-fits-all approach to education, the program effectively marginalizes these students and perpetuates existing inequities.
Moreover, the use of test scores as the primary measure of success ignores the many other factors that contribute to a student’s growth and development, such as social-emotional learning, critical thinking skills, and creativity. These skills are essential for success in the 21st century, yet they are often overlooked in the rush to boost test scores. As a result, we risk producing a generation of students who are well-versed in the art of test-taking but ill-equipped to navigate the complex challenges of the real world.
Furthermore, the i3 grant program’s reliance on test scores creates perverse incentives for educators and administrators. Under pressure to deliver better test results, schools may resort to narrowing their curricula, focusing on test prep at the expense of deeper learning, and even engaging in unethical practices such as cheating or manipulating data. These actions not only undermine the integrity of the education system but also do a grave disservice to the students we are supposed to serve.
In light of these concerns, it is clear that the i3 grant program’s approach to measuring success is fundamentally flawed. By placing so much emphasis on test scores, the program fails to capture the true essence of learning and growth, while perpetuating a system that is both ineffective and unjust. As educators and policymakers, we must question the wisdom of this approach and advocate for a more holistic, student-centred vision of education that recognises the unique potential of every learner.
Following the Money Trail
Given the disappointing results of the i3 grant program, it is natural to wonder where the $1.4 billion in funding actually went. Whilst the programme’s stated goal was to support innovative educational strategies, the lack of transparency and accountability in the allocation of funds raises troubling questions about who really benefited from this massive investment.
One possibility is that a significant portion of the grant money ended up in the coffers of what Greene refers to as “BigEd” and “BigTest.” These powerful entities, which include large educational publishers, testing companies, and consulting firms, have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of a test-centric education system. By positioning themselves as the solution to the very problems they help perpetuate, these companies stand to profit handsomely from initiatives like the i3 grant program.
For example, the development and implementation of new educational materials and technologies, which were a key focus of many i3 grants, likely involved substantial contracts with major educational publishers. Similarly, the emphasis on testing and data collection would have necessitated the services of large testing companies and data analytics firms. While these companies may argue that their products and services are essential for improving educational outcomes, the reality is that they have a powerful financial incentive to keep the testing machine running, regardless of its impact on students and teachers.
Moreover, the opaque nature of the grant allocation process makes it difficult to determine how much of the funding actually reached classrooms and students. With limited oversight and accountability measures in place, there is a risk that a significant portion of the grant money was absorbed by administrative costs, consultant fees, and other expenses that have little direct impact on student learning.
This lack of transparency is particularly concerning given the high stakes nature of educational funding. As a teacher, I have seen firsthand how limited resources can impact the quality of services and support available to students with disabilities. When large sums of money are diverted away from the classroom and into the pockets of corporate interests, it is our most vulnerable students who suffer the consequences.
Furthermore, the i3 grant program’s focus on test scores as the primary measure of success creates a perverse incentive structure that rewards gamesmanship over genuine innovation. By prioritising short-term gains in test scores over long-term improvements in student learning and well-being, the program may have inadvertently encouraged the development of narrow, test-focused interventions rather than holistic, student-centred approaches.
To address these concerns, we need a much greater level of transparency and accountability in the allocation of educational funding. This means requiring grant recipients to provide detailed reports on how funds are being used, establishing clear metrics for success that go beyond test scores, and involving educators and community stakeholders in the decision-making process.
Only by shining a light on the money trail and holding powerful interests accountable can we ensure that educational funding is being used in a way that truly benefits students and supports meaningful, lasting change in our schools.
The Intersection of BigEd, BigTest, and Government
The troubling lack of transparency and accountability in the i3 grant program points to a deeper, more systemic problem: the undue influence of BigEd and BigTest on government decision-making. These powerful corporate interests have effectively captured the policymaking process, using their vast resources and political clout to shape educational policy in ways that serve their own bottom line, rather than the needs of students and educators.
One way in which BigEd and BigTest exert their influence is through the revolving door between government and industry. It is not uncommon for high-level officials in the Department of Education and other key agencies to have previously worked for major educational publishers, testing companies, or consulting firms. These individuals often bring with them a corporate mindset that prioritises market-based solutions and standardised metrics over more holistic, student-centred approaches.
Moreover, BigEd and BigTest use their deep pockets to lobby policymakers and fund research that supports their agenda. By pouring millions of dollars into think tanks, advocacy groups, and political campaigns, these entities are able to shape the public narrative around education reform and drown out dissenting voices. This creates a feedback loop in which corporate interests dictate the terms of the debate, whilst educators and community stakeholders are left on the sidelines.
The result is a system in which government policies and funding decisions are often more responsive to the needs of corporate interests than to the needs of students and schools. The i3 grant program, with its emphasis on test scores and its lack of transparency, is a prime example of how this dynamic plays out in practice. By directing vast sums of public money to initiatives that align with the priorities of BigEd and BigTest, the program effectively subsidises these corporate interests whilst failing to address the underlying inequities and challenges facing our education system.
In many ways, this represents a form of fascism, in which corporate power is fused with state power to create a system that serves the interests of a narrow elite at the expense of the common good. When educational policy is dictated by the profit motives of BigEd and BigTest, rather than by the needs and values of educators, students, and communities, it undermines the very foundations of democratic governance.
Me being me, I am deeply troubled by this state of affairs. The dominance of BigEd and BigTest in educational policymaking reinforces a narrow, one-size-fits-all approach to learning that fails to account for the diverse needs and strengths of students with disabilities and other marginalised groups. It perpetuates a system in which conformity is prized over creativity, and where the unique potential of each individual is sacrificed on the altar of standardization.
To break free from this corporate stranglehold, we need a fundamental shift in how we think about education and its role in society. This means rejecting the narrow, test-centric view of learning promoted by BigEd and BigTest, and embracing a more holistic, student-centered approach that recognizes the inherent worth and potential of every individual. It means building a system that is responsive to the needs and values of educators, students, and communities, rather than to the dictates of corporate interests.
Ultimately, this will require a sustained effort to challenge the influence of BigEd and BigTest at every level, from the classroom to the halls of power. It will require a willingness to speak truth to power, to hold policymakers accountable, and to build coalitions of educators, parents, and community members who are committed to a more just and equitable vision of education. Only then can we begin to create a system that truly serves the needs of all students, and that honors the transformative power of learning in all its forms.
The Impact on Students and Educators
The dominance of BigEd, BigTest, and their allies in government has had a profound and often detrimental impact on students and educators alike. By prioritising standardised testing above all else, this corporate-driven approach to education has created a system that is deeply inequitable and that fails to meet the diverse needs of learners, particularly those with special needs.
For students with disabilities, English language learners, and other marginalised groups, the focus on high-stakes testing can be especially damaging. These students often require accommodations, modifications, and individualised support to thrive academically, yet the rigid, one-size-fits-all nature of standardized testing leaves little room for such flexibility. As a result, these students may experience heightened anxiety, frustration, and feelings of inadequacy, as they struggle to keep pace with their peers and meet the narrow metrics of success imposed by the testing regime.
Moreover, the pressure to perform on standardised tests can lead to a narrowing of the curriculum and a devaluing of subjects and skills that are not easily measured by multiple-choice questions. For students with Individualised Educational Plans (IEPs), who may have unique strengths and interests outside of the tested domains, this can be particularly limiting and demotivating. It sends a message that their talents and passions are less important than their ability to fill in bubbles on a scantron sheet.
Educators, too, face immense challenges in this test-centric environment. Teachers are often judged and evaluated based on their students’ test scores, creating a high-pressure situation that can lead to burnout, stress, and demoralisation. This is especially true for special education teachers, who may be held accountable for the test performance of students with complex learning needs and challenges.
Furthermore, the emphasis on testing leaves little time or resources for the kind of individualised, differentiated instruction that is essential for meeting the needs of diverse learners. Teachers may feel pressure to “teach to the test,” focusing on rote memorisation and drill-and-kill exercises at the expense of more engaging, student-centered approaches. This not only undermines the joy and curiosity that should be at the heart of learning but also fails to prepare students for the complex challenges and opportunities they will face in the real world.
To address these issues, we need a fundamental shift towards a more holistic, student-centred approach to education. This means recognising that learning is about more than just test scores and that each student brings unique strengths, interests, and needs to the classroom. It means providing educators with the resources, support, and autonomy they need to create inclusive, differentiated learning environments that meet the needs of all students.
In practice, this could involve a range of strategies, such as:
Emphasising formative assessments and performance-based tasks that allow students to demonstrate their learning in multiple ways.
Providing targeted, individualised support and accommodations for students with IEPs.
Investing in professional development and collaboration time for teachers to develop and share best practices for inclusive education
Engaging students, families, and community members as partners in the educational process, and seeking their input and feedback on key decisions
Advocating for policies and funding streams that prioritise equity, inclusion, and student-centred learning over narrow, test-based accountability measures
By embracing a more holistic, student-centred approach, we can create an education system that truly serves the needs and potential of all learners, including those with special needs. This will require challenging the entrenched interests of BigEd and BigTest, and building a broad-based movement for change that includes educators, students, families, and community members. It will not be easy, but it is essential if we are to create a more just, equitable, and inclusive future for all.
Concluding thoughts
In light of the numerous concerns raised throughout this review, it is clear that the i3 grant program and its reliance on standardised testing as the primary measure of success have been a costly and misguided endeavour. The programme’s failure to produce meaningful improvements in student learning, despite the $1.4 billion investment, raises a crucial question: Can we get our money back since it didn't work?
Whilst it may be unlikely to recover the funds already spent, this question underscores the urgent need for a reevaluation of our approach to education reform. The dominance of BigEd and BigTest in shaping educational policy has led to a system that prioritises narrow, test-based accountability over genuine student learning and growth. This corporate-driven model has proven to be both ineffective and deeply inequitable, failing to meet the diverse needs of students and educators, particularly those from marginalised communities.
Moreover, the lack of transparency and accountability in the allocation of educational funding, as exemplified by the i3 grant program, has allowed powerful interests to profit from public resources without delivering meaningful results. This is not only a waste of taxpayer dollars but also a betrayal of the public trust and a disservice to the students and families we are meant to serve.
If we are to create a more equitable and effective education system, we must reject the narrow, test-centric view of learning promoted by BigEd and BigTest and embrace a more holistic, student-centered approach. This means recognising the unique strengths, needs, and potential of each individual learner and providing educators with the resources, support, and autonomy they need to create inclusive, differentiated learning environments.
Central to this vision is a shift away from high-stakes standardised testing as the primary driver of educational policy and practice. Whilst assessments can play a role in monitoring student progress and informing instruction, they should be just one tool in a broader toolkit of strategies for supporting student learning. Instead of reducing students to test scores, we must prioritise the development of the whole child, fostering critical thinking, creativity, social-emotional learning, and other essential skills and dispositions.
Furthermore, we must empower educators as the experts in their field, trusting in their professional judgment and providing them with the resources and support they need to meet the diverse needs of their students. This means investing in high-quality teacher preparation, ongoing professional development, and collaborative learning communities that allow educators to share best practices and innovate in response to local needs and contexts.
Ultimately, creating a more equitable and effective education system will require a sustained effort to challenge the influence of BigEd and BigTest and to build a broad-based movement for change. This movement must include educators, students, families, and community members, all working together to advocate for policies and practices that prioritize the needs and potential of every learner.
Whilst the failures of the i3 grant program and the costly influence of BigEd and BigTest are discouraging, they also present an opportunity for reflection, reevaluation, and renewed commitment to educational equity and excellence. By learning from these mistakes and embracing alternative approaches, we can begin to create an education system that truly serves the needs and aspirations of all learners, and that lays the foundation for a more just and prosperous future for all.