David Sirota explains in the journal “In These Times” that there is a conflict between big-time philanthropy and democracy. He describes recent conference where the tech industry wrung its collective hands about inequality without acknowledging that it is a source of frowing inequality.
“Indeed, there seems to be a trend of billionaires and tech firms making private donations to public institutions ostensibly with the goal of improving public services. Yet, many of these billionaires are absent from efforts to raise public resources for those same institutions. Zuckerberg is only one example.
“For instance, hedge funders make big donations to charter schools. Yet, the hedge fund industry lobbies against higher taxes that would generate new revenue for education.
“Meanwhile, Microsoft boasts about making donations to schools, while the company has opposed proposals to increase taxes to fund those schools.
“To understand the conflict between democracy and this kind of philanthropy, remember that private donations typically come with conditions about how the money must be allocated. In education, those conditions can be about anything from curriculum to testing standards to school structure. No matter what the conditions are, though, they effectively circumvent the democratic process and dictate policy to public institutions. While those institutions can reject a private donor’s money, they are often desperate for resources.
In this, we see a vicious cycle that undermines democratic control. Big money interests use anti-democratic campaign finance laws to fund anti-tax policies that deprive public institutions of resources. Those policies make public institutions desperate for private resources. When philanthropists offer those resources, they often make the money contingent on public officials relinquishing democratic control and acceding to ideological demands.
“Disruption theory is usually the defense of all this—the hypothesis being that billionaire cash is the only way to force public institutions to do what they supposedly need to do. But whether or not you believe that theory, Gore is correct: It isn’t democratic. In fact, it is quite the opposite.””

Here’s a notice about a coalition of funders that have pushed hard and somewhat successfully for more funding of early childhood programs:
Media Contacts:
Owen Truesdell
952-851-7262
612-802-2240
otruesdell@tunheim.com
Media Advisory
June 12, 2014
Announcing the 8th Annual Nancy Latimer Convening for Children & Youth
An Event Honoring Leaders and Programs Contributing to Minnesota’s Rise as a National Leader in Early Care and Education
ST. PAUL, MINN — The Start Early Funders Coalition will host the 8th Annual Nancy Latimer Convening for Children and Youth on Tuesday, June 17 at the Science Museum of Minnesota. The event will honor leaders in the field of early learning from across the state who have helped make Minnesota a national leader in addressing the need to invest significantly in effective early care and education initiatives.
This year’s keynote address will be delivered by Pamela Gigi Chawla, MD, the Senior Medical Director of Primary Care at Children’s Clinics and Hospitals of Minnesota and Michael Troy, PhD, Medical Director of Behavioral Health Services Children’s Clinics and Hospitals of Minnesota. Drawing from their frontline insights as a pediatrician and clinical psychologist, respectively, they will speak to the value of understanding the “whole child” and integrating critical cognitive, physical, social and emotional components to build successful outcomes for children.
The event will also feature presentations from numerous leaders in the field of early learning and care, including:
Melvin Carter, Minnesota Office of Early Learning
Marcie Jefferys, Minnesota Children’s Cabinet
Lynn Haglin, Northland Foundation
Denise Mayotte, The Sheltering Arms Foundation
Frank Forsberg, Greater Twin Cities United Way
Special recognition awards will be presented to Ellis Bullock and Cindy Toppin for their years of dedication to early care and education efforts around the state.
Additionally, the “Nancy” award will be presented to a leader from the community in recognition of their special contributions to advancing the cause of early care and education for all of Minnesota’s children. The Award winner will be announced at the event. George Latimer, former mayor of St. Paul and the spouse of Nancy Latimer, will also speak at the event.
The Nancy Latimer Convening for Children & Youth, which was established in 2007, brings notoriety to the outstanding influencers that aim to enhance the lives of young children while honoring the spirit and legacy of Nancy Latimer, whose leadership, passion, and commitment to children are exemplified by Award recipients.
Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2014
Time: 8:30 am -11:30 am (program begins at 9:00 am)
Place: Science Museum of Minnesota, Discovery Hall
120 Kellogg Boulevard West, Saint Paul
Register to Attend: Please contact Owen Truesdell at otruesdell@tunheim.com to register to attend the event.
About the Start Early Funders Coalition for Children and Minnesota’s Future
The Start Early Funders Coalition for Children and Minnesota’s Future represents more than 25 members of Minnesota’s philanthropic community who each provide critical leadership for funding, research, program development, public policy, and grant making to improve early childhood efforts in Minnesota. Participating organizations include: Blandin Foundation, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota and Foundation, Delta Dental of Minnesota Foundation, F.R. Bigelow Foundation, GHR Foundation, Greater Twin Cities United Way, Grotto Foundation, Initiative Foundation, Knowledge Fund, Mardag Foundation, The McKnight Foundation, Medica Foundation, The Minneapolis Foundation, Northland Foundation, Northwest Minnesota Foundation, The Sauer Children’s Renew Foundation, The Sheltering Arms Foundation, Southern Minnesota Initiative Foundation, Southwest Initiative Foundation, The Jay and Rose Phillips Family Foundation of Minnesota, The Saint Paul Foundation, UCare, United Ways of Greater Minnesota, West Central Initiative and The Women’s Foundation of Minnesota. For more information visit http://www.StartEarlyFundersMN.org.
LikeLike
“Philanthropy” — in a Pig’s Eye❢
LikeLike
In a Pig’s Eye is right.
LikeLike
This reminds me of the term “Leveraged Philanthropy,” as described by Chemtchr in the 2 articles on Anthony Cody’s Living in Dialogue blog some time ago: http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/07/the_gates_foundations_leverage.html and http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/07/the_gates_foundations_educatio.html (and apparently there’s a paywall for the 2nd one, at least for me today – sorry!).
LikeLike
Reblogged this on jsheelmusic and commented:
I don’t know if I totally agree with you, BUT I understand how problematic philanthropy can be. Philanthropy, by nature, is reshaping the present and future of a group or society through financial contributions. How do we control or take control away from those that would like to show power through monetary contributions? These are all interesting ideas and concerns.
I think that the bigger one for me, is how do we survive or progress without consensus in regard to education and budgetary concerns, and secondly getting the voices of the people heard?
LikeLike
A person asking for a donation from a billionaire is in a fundamentally different, and lesser, position than a citizen petitioning their government for a particular use of public funds.
We should worry about setting our kids up as competing for grants from private foundations to fund their public schools.
I think it’s profound. It changes the relationship of communities to public schools and it changes the relationship of kids in public schools to their communities.
What’s amazing to watch is the recklessness, the full speed ahead nature of this. How does this end? Is it really 100% win/win or do people generally pay in some way for anything they’re “given”?
Communities are complex systems. I’d be careful before I made an assumption that shifting all these relationships all ends “better!” and everyone is a “winner!”
LikeLike
If you want to give money, give it. But then dont pretend you know something about education when you don’t
LikeLike
“In this, we see a vicious cycle that undermines democratic control. Big money interests use anti-democratic campaign finance laws to fund anti-tax policies that deprive public institutions of resources. Those policies make public institutions desperate for private resources. When philanthropists offer those resources, they often make the money contingent on public officials relinquishing democratic control and acceding to ideological demands.”
I also think it can be way more subtle than that. They’re just outgunned and probably intimidated. If someone from one of these huge national foundations comes into a local school board and starts spouting results from all the studies they fund and the “national experts” they hire (many of whom come from government so carry that imprint of credibility) what is the local board member supposed to do? Fund an alternate study? Produce their own experts? With what money? They’re reduced to saying “you know, this sounds like a bad idea and we’re going to pass” and turning down a giant pile of cash in the process.
LikeLike
Do we really need to have a long discussion about the difference between Genuine Philanthropy (= Love of Mankind) and this ersatz brand of latter day Phil-Atrophy which is really nothing but old-fangled Love of Moneykind in PR disguise?
Seriously?
LikeLike
TAGO!
😎
LikeLike
Unmentioned above is this scary issue at the collegiate level. Large companies fund research – it used to be that colleges funded BASIC research which helped the search for truth in science. Now more and more funding is provided by these large corporations to fund “research” and if funding is to continue, guess how that “research” in something which the corporation seeks info HAS to come out. Then of course “research” shows that there product is harmless and/or beneficial.
But of equal or more importance even, collegiate research funded by these corporations usurp the BASIC research for which our universities have been the marvel of the whole world.
Education which was once considered to seek “glimmers of truth” have now become something quite different. Appalling.
LikeLike
It’s not just university research.
Curriculum and faculty selection appear to be influenced by donations. Read about the Koch’s and Florida State University’s Economics Department,
An internet search of the Koch’s and West Virginia University and Utah State, is informative. And, in an internet search of “Koch Colleges”, you may find your alma mater among the 250 colleges listed.
The University of Arkansas has a Department of Education Reform.
If donors dictate department structuring and mission, curriculum, faculty, and research and if trustee appointments, are by plutocratic-funded governors, what next? The sale of public universities to oligarchs and/or, confiscation, by politicians, for delivery to the plutocrats. .
LikeLike
Excellent article on one of the most important issues of our time. A related field that is further along the path of replacing tax payer funding with philanthropic dollars is public libraries. Recently I attended CA Public Library Advocates conference on promoting the virtues of philanthropy and volunteerism. It was enough to make me sick. It might as well have been titled How to Beg and Suck Up to Wealthy People. Our local advocacy group has spent the last couple of years speaking to anyone who will listen within our city explaining why libraries need sustained predictable income; which can only be achieved by citizens paying a little more in taxes. It was significant that the presenters at this conference were linking trends in libraries and public education. A key phrase was that was used repeatedly– these institutions should move from being “tax supported” to “tax assisted”. Philanthropic monies should make up the difference. Of course the other trends are that libraries are laying off all staff, and rehiring and rehiring a few back on a part time basis. The ones not rehired are often the professionals in the field.
LikeLike
The librarians, in counties in the rural Midwest, often brag about being patriots and I infer, they vote Tea Party (based on scanning comments from various sources.)
I’m both appalled and puzzled by it.
Does the quote about most people preferring a beneficent master apply?
LikeLike
I recommend my nephew’s wife’s book…..Follow the Money…..Sarah Reckhow. She has studied this subject carefully….education week was one of many places which reviewed her book…. Sarah Reckhow’s Follow the Money: How Foundation Dollars Change Public School Politics. Reckhow takes a long and hard look at how foundation money has impacted the course of school reform in New York and Los Angeles (readers may recall that she foreshadowed some of the book’s takeaways during an RHSU guest blogging stint last fall here, here, and here.) She points to three key changes: arguing that foundations are giving more dollars, shifting away from school districts and towards “competition,” and coordinating major donations. Philanthropic support for school reform is a fraught topic nowadays, and one that’s mighty hard to address in a “neutral” fashion (on this count, I’ve more sympathy for the aims of key funders and would-be reformers than Reckhow does.) But, whatever one’s views, this is a revealing look at how philanthropy influences education politics and policy. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rick_hess_straight_up/2013/01/putting_the_poli_sci_back_in_the_politics_of_ed_three_new_books_that_continue_a_heartening_trend.html
LikeLike
I recently read her article about this in the most recent Educational Researcher. I kept trying to figure out where she stood on the issue as I read. So thanks for the insight.
LikeLike
Still trying to find out how the conservative NGO Middle States Accreditation organization is involved with the movie “Standardized” and BATS, Chalkface and United Opt Out.
I posted to UOO on FB:
A report on the issues would be more detailed and could be used more effectively. I guess I am the only one disappointed that a prestigious group of scholars have no written position on a media effort that supports so many groups and went to great lengths to produce a movie with them. It begs the question, when there is no communication by these groups with them, who was in touch with them, and how did the movie come about, and what role Middle States played at the moment, if any. There definitely does seem a communication breakdown and minimal transparency. Who would one contact at Middle States to request this information? All of these groups were working with them. A paper from them would be so much more transparent to deliver to political leaders of their alleged support.
LikeLike
Not sure why the article was credited to Ethan Corey when what I read said it was written by David Sirota –God love him.
Anyways, I’m so glad he pointed out how disingenuous and two faced the education venture philanthropists are. Democracy is very inconvenient to billionaires, who are used to buying their way and remaining unaccountable to the public due to the shield of their non-profit (i.e., non-tax paying) foundations.
Thus, it’s not just the GOP that works actively for voter suppression, such as through gerrymandering and voter ID laws. The 1% in both parties aim to eliminate democracy, as indicated in the pitch from Reed Hastings, of Netflix, to abolish elected school boards and replace them with (political) appointments.
The model billionaires support is the business model implemented at the majority of charter schools they so love, which are not democratically run and don’t typically have board members who are the true stakeholders in education, e. g., parents, teachers and community members. Rather, they have appointed boards that are often stacked with the friends and relatives of executives, as well as corporate representatives and venture philanthropists (“reform” activists) from far away:
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=11800
I recently cancelled my Netflix due to this guy’s hubris and whacked out corporate “reform” activism.
LikeLike
Sorry about the error. David Sirota is the author. I corrected it.
LikeLike
Thanks, Diane!
We are so fortunate to have Sirota writing in the popular media, since so many other journalists today have been bought off by the very plutocrats he’s been exposing.
LikeLike
Philanthropy = gaining control.
Altruism = doing good with no personal benefit.
Too many people confuse the two.
LikeLike
In LA, we have no idea or public accountability to how the “donations” that Eli Broad has given to LAUSD for John Deasy’s discretionary spending and supplemental salaries is being put to use or the quid pro quo conditions.
Worse, there has been no media effort to examine the role Broad and other millionaire contributors shape out school system behind closed doors. It seems that people accept the fact that schools are starved by the public (or hoodwinked in a massive bait and switch like our iPad diaster that only further undermines confidence in the school system) and so John Q. Is just happy that someone else is willing to foot the bill. They are much less apt to ask what happens when a society abrogates it’s public responsibility and gives it over to private control.
The entire employment history of John Deasy is a perfect metaphor for Gates and Broad’s hostage taking of LA. His private sector rule makes sure that public control remains cost prohibitive.
LikeLike
At some point I hope that there will be hearings and that the shocking story of how a few wealthy people bought control over the education of a nation, with the collusion of our Secretary of Miseducation, will be told.
LikeLike
Great people like Diane and Sirota are telling that story right now. It might take more alarming elections, like the primary this week lost by Eric Cantor, for there to be an ethical Congress in place that is willing to have hearings and hold corporate funders and cronies accountable for attempting to destroy public education across this country, for private monetary gain, from the president on down.
Keep compiling the evidence, Bob. You should be called to bear witness, too!
LikeLike
This Common Core thing is a powderkeg politically. I think that political operatives are going to start seeing this soon. The Education Deformers flit about from one echo chamber to another and listen only to themselves, so they have NO CLUE HOW WIDESPREAD AND DEEP THE OPPOSITION TO COMMON CORE AND STANDARDIZED TESTING IS. People right, left, and center in the United States are SICK TO DEATH of over ten years of NCLB and SON OF NCLB. They are sick to death of having their teachers bashed. They are sick to death of having their children abused. They are sick to death of having their schools turned into test prep facilities. They are sick to death of the federal overreach. Duncan really should be made to wear a dunce cap and sit in the corner for suggesting that it’s just a bunch of right-wing kooks who are opposed to this stuff. By saying that kind of thing, he reveals the DEPTH of his DISCONNECT. This is an issue that UNITES people traditionally on the right, like Glenn Beck, who just wrote a book slamming Common Core and is holding town halls around the country in opposition to it; people traditionally on the left like Ira Shor; and political centrists like Diane Ravitch. But most importantly, it unites MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF PARENTS and PATRIOTIC CITIZENS WHO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS NOT COMMUNIST CHINA DURING THE CULTURAL REVOLUTION WHERE A COMMISSARIAT CAN BE EMPOWERED TO TELL PEOPLE WHAT THEY ARE TO TEACH AND LEARN AND THINK!!!! People left, right, and center are HORRIFIED by this OVERREACH, by this TOTALITARIAN, ORWELLIAN IMPOSITION OF CENTRALIZED POWER OVER WHAT PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO THINK!!!!
Enough. At some point we have to draw the line. NOT HERE. NOT IN THE UNITED STATES. We do not need, emphatically do not need, a COMMON CORE CURRICULUM COMMISSARIAT AND MINISTRY OF TRUTH owned by a few billionaires.
When the political operatives figure out the DEPTH of the ANGER in the country about this, there will not be a single election won by someone who supports this outrage. I can see the campaign commercials now.
“Senator _______ thinks that a few powerful people ought to be able to get together in a room and decide what your child can be taught. You know who else believed that? Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. Mao Zedong. Senator _______ thinks that your child is not taking enough tests. That a few powerful people ought to be able to get together in a room and decide what tests he or she has to take in order to go to the next grade, graduate from school, or get into college, or get a job. Senator ________ thinks local parents and teachers aren’t smart enough to make these decisions for themselves, that they need him and his billionaire cronies to make these decisions for them.
Tell Senator _________ what you think of him and his tests this election day. [split screen: picture of the good Senator wearing a dunce cap; close-up o the Senator’s “report card”: Citizenship: F. Respect for democratic values: F. Respect for students and teachers: F. Respect for local autonomy: F. Recommendation: Indefinite suspension.
LikeLike
Love your commercial, Bob! Maybe you could put up the script on YouTube so others could use it?
If I ever win the lottery, I plan to use a substantial portion of it to fund initiatives like that, so we can take back education and our country from the oligarchs!
LikeLike
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I would like to hear from lawyers on this subject. It strains credulity to imagine that Rockefeller, Carnegie, et al were simply more ‘philanthropic’ by comparison to Gates, Walton, et al. What has changed in our laws– the laws promulgated by the representatives we, the People, send to DC– that makes it possible for today’s ultra-wealthy to dictate policy, whereas kindler gentler philanthropists of yore simply funded libraries, institutions of learning etc w/o micromanageing how they would operate? Methinks it has something to do with 501(c)3, 4, etc? Has the electorate once again shot itself in the foot?
LikeLike
There was a lot of policy-making by philanthropists in the past, too. And some of it was truly frightening. The Cold Springs Harbor Eugenics Laboratory was funded by the U.S. government and by Carnegie. It issued a report recommending that the bottom 10 percent of the population, as measured by IQ tests, should be euthanized. I am not making this up. Read about this in Edwin Black’s brilliant history War against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race. Carnegie did some great stuff–he funded libraries all over the country, for example. But he also did stuff with an agenda. He backed, big time, Booker T. Washington’s approach to educating ex-slaves and the sons and daughters of slaves–training them to join the economic ladder at the bottom, at the level of the trades. This was also philanthropic social, political, and economic engineering. There’s nothing new here.
LikeLike
At the level of the semi-skilled trades. This was a HIGHLY CONTENTIOUS ISSUE at the time.
Booker T. and W.E.B.
By Dudley Randall
“It seems to me,” said Booker T.,
“It shows a mighty lot of cheek
To study chemistry and Greek
When Mister Charlie needs a hand
To hoe the cotton on his land,
And when Miss Ann looks for a cook,
Why stick your nose inside a book?”
“I don’t agree,” said W.E.B.
“If I should have the drive to seek
Knowledge of chemistry or Greek,
I’ll do it. Charles and Miss can look
Another place for hand or cook,
Some men rejoice in skill of hand,
And some in cultivating land,
But there are others who maintain
The right to cultivate the brain.”
“It seems to me,” said Booker T.,
“That all you folks have missed the boat
Who shout about the right to vote,
And spend vain days and sleepless nights
In uproar over civil rights.
Just keep your mouths shut, do not grouse,
But work, and save, and buy a house.”
“I don’t agree,” said W.E.B.
“For what can property avail
If dignity and justice fail?
Unless you help to make the laws,
They’ll steal your house with trumped-up clause.
A rope’s as tight, a fire as hot,
No matter how much cash you’ve got.
Speak soft, and try your little plan,
But as for me, I’ll be a man.”
“It seems to me,” said Booker T.–
“I don’t agree,”
Said W.E.B.
LikeLike
And centralization of control of media is an old story, too. One name:
William Randolf Hearst.
LikeLike
oops. Randolph, of course
LikeLike
Yeah, I doubt there were just “kinder gentler” philanthropists in days of yore, especially given how ruthless those robber barons were in other arenas.
I’m no lawyer and I’d like to know, too. I read that the number of 501(c) 3s and 4s has risen dramatically in recent years, while budget cuts have resulted in fewer IRS employees, so there’s virtually no regulatory oversight of all those supposed “non-profits.”
What really gets to me is that even when people have blatantly flaunted their noncompliance with regulations for non-profits, the government has done nothing about it.
For example, in Chicago, Juan Rangel, CEO of a non-profit charter school chain, served as co-chair of Rahm Emmanuel’s mayoral campaign. That was highly publicized and it is not permitted according to 501(c)3 regs. Plus the guy lied about it on his 990s. He’s chums with many city and state politicians and had been awarded a $90M state grant for charter school expansion –the largest on record. Ultimately, his goose was cooked because it was revealed by an astute local reporter that he gave non-competitive contracts and jobs to friends and relatives, so he stepped down.
However, the political campaigning and fraudulent 990s have yet to be addressed. So, it seems that enforcement is often lax for cronies even when it’s public knowledge.
LikeLike
This Common Core thing is a powderkeg politically. I think that political operatives are going to start seeing this soon. The Education Deformers flit about from one echo chamber to another and listen only to themselves, so they have NO CLUE HOW WIDESPREAD AND DEEP THE OPPOSITION TO COMMON CORE AND STANDARDIZED TESTING IS.
People right, left, and center in the United States are SICK TO DEATH of a decade and a half of NCLB and SON OF NCLB. They are sick to death of having their teachers bashed. They are sick to death of having their children abused. They are sick to death of having their schools turned into test prep facilities. They are sick to death of the federal overreach.
Duncan really should be made to wear a dunce cap and sit in the corner for suggesting that it’s just a bunch of right-wing kooks who are opposed to this stuff. By saying that kind of thing, he reveals the DEPTH of his DISCONNECT. This is an issue that UNITES people traditionally on the right, like Glenn Beck, who just wrote a book slamming Common Core and is holding town halls around the country in opposition to it; people traditionally on the left like Ira Shor; political centrists like Diane Ravitch; and people like me who could give a $*$&*@ about politics but who care deeply about teaching English well.
But most importantly, it unites MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF PARENTS and PATRIOTIC CITIZENS WHO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS NOT COMMUNIST CHINA DURING THE CULTURAL REVOLUTION WHERE A COMMISSARIAT CAN BE EMPOWERED TO TELL PEOPLE WHAT THEY ARE TO TEACH AND LEARN AND THINK!!!! People left, right, and center are HORRIFIED by this OVERREACH, by this TOTALITARIAN, ORWELLIAN IMPOSITION OF CENTRALIZED POWER OVER WHAT PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO THINK!!!!
Enough. At some point we have to draw the line. NOT HERE. NOT IN THE UNITED STATES. We do not need, emphatically do not need, a COMMON CORE CURRICULUM COMMISSARIAT AND MINISTRY OF TRUTH owned by a few billionaires.
When the political operatives figure out the DEPTH of the ANGER in the country about this, there will not be a single election won by someone who supports this outrage. I can see the campaign commercials now.
“Senator _______ thinks that a few powerful people ought to be able to get together in a room and decide what your child can be taught. You know who else believed that?
“Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.
“Mao Zedong.
“Senator _______ thinks that your child is not taking enough tests. That a few powerful people ought to be able to get together in a room and decide what tests your child has to take in order to go to the next grade, graduate from school, get into college, or get a job.
“Senator ________ thinks that local parents and teachers aren’t smart enough to make these decisions for themselves, that they need him and his billionaire cronies to make these decisions for them.
“Tell Senator _________ what you think of him and his tests this election day.
[split screen: picture of the good Senator wearing a dunce cap; close-up o the Senator’s “report card”: Citizenship: F. Respect for democratic values: F. Respect for students and teachers: F. Respect for local autonomy: F. Recommendation: Indefinite suspension.
“Stop _______ and his cronies. Stop the Common Coring of our country.”
LikeLike
It’s little wonder that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (“All your base are belong to us”) just called for a delay in the implementation of the CCSS tests. If these hit just before the next election, there will not be a single Common Core-supporting politician elected in the entire country. The tests are so awful that they will bring about a public policy meltdown the like of which we have never before seen in this country. Parents will grab their shovels and pitchforks and chase the education deform monsters to their lairs.
LikeLike
What stuck out to me the most was how some of those mentioned are fighting against paying taxes that fund things such as education, while simultaneously giving money through philanthropic efforts.
Would it be accurate to say that they have more control of education when the money is given philanthropically than they would otherwise have if the money went toward education via their taxes? (Of course that doesn’t even address the tax write-off from philanthropic giving.) And I guess money given philanthropically trumps money paid in taxes when it comes to how much influence different stakeholders have? I’ve read the chapters on venture philanthropy, so I guess I’m just thinking in print… Not to ask the obvious, but the power structure is interesting to say the least.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Pilant's Faculty Senate Page.
LikeLike
One of the most insidious forms that PR and propaganda for the Common [sic] Core [sic] State [sic] Standards [sic] takes is that of the supposedly objective survey that shows some huge level of support of the standards among teachers or superintendents.
So, here’s a challenge:
From now on, when anyone does one of these surveys, let them ask a few questions about the content of the standards themselves. Not vague questions, mind you, but questions designed to be answered correctly only by people who have actually read and understood them.
Then, let’s disaggregate the numbers. Let’s sort them into two piles:
1. Those who know what they are talking about, and
2. Those who haven’t a freaking clue what they are talking about.
Now, that would be very, very interesting indeed.
LikeLike
Examples, true/false:
1. The Common Core State Standards for ELA are divided into six domains: Phonics and Early Reading; Genre Studies; Critical and Interpretive Studies, General and Academic Vocabulary; Grammar and Usage; Writing, Research, and Media Skills; and Critical and Creative Thinking.
2. The Common Core State Standards for ELA call for a shift in focus from teaching Argument to teaching Persuasion because Argument focuses narrowly on logos whereas Persuasion focuses on logos, ethos, and pathos.
3. At every grade level, the Common Core State Standards for ELA stress that the standard dealing with specific claims in a text, including the validity of the reasoning, applies both to literary and nonliterary texts.
4. The Common Core State Standards for ELA do not use the term point of view to refer to attitudes, beliefs, or opinions but, rather, reserve the term for use in its literary sense to refer to the narrator’s position vis-à-vis the story being told (first-person, third-person, limited, omniscient, etc).
5. The Common Core State Standards for ELA contain specific standards calling for the reading of substantive texts in American literature by Longfellow, Hawthorne, Emerson, Thoreau, Dickinson, Poe, Twain, Fitzgerald, Steinbeck, Hemingway, Hughes, and Angelou.
6. The Common Core State Standards for ELA call for students to read foundational works in American literature in the 11th grade and foundational works in British or world literature in the 12th grade.
7. The Common Core State Standards for ELA contain specific standards calling for the reading of substantive texts in British literature by Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Swift, Pope, Burns, Blake, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Keats, Shelley, Bryon, Browning, Austen, Dickens, and Orwell.
8. The Common Core State Standards for having students read texts of grade-level complexity as measured by the Dale-Chall, Fry, or ATOS readability formulas.
9. Recognizing that a given text can be narrative, informative, persuasive or any combination thereof (narrative and informative, informative and persuasive, narrative and persuasive, etc.), the Common Core State Standards for Writing avoid the error made in previous standards of treating narrative writing, informative writing, and persuasive writing as distinct modes.
10. Recognizing that grammar is primarily learned by automatic, implicit processes, the Common Core calls for a deemphasis on rote, explicit teaching of grammatical terminology (e.g., “What is a gerund?”)
11. The Common Core State Standards in ELA call for students to be able to identify and characterize the major periods in British literature, including the Anglo-Saxon Era, the Medieval Era, the Elizabethan Age, the Neoclassical Period, the Romantic Age, the Victorian Era, and the Modern Era.
12. In keeping with its call for more complex, more substantive texts, Common Core State Standards in ELA require, starting in grade 7, that students read a minimum of two complete novels per year and demonstrate familiarity with the events, characters, and themes of these novels.
13. The Common Core State Standards in ELA cover the following literary terms: allegory, canon, catharsis, dead metaphor, genus and differentia, didacticism, dystopia, elegy, Imagism, mimesis, montage, muse, naturalism, oxymoron, pathetic fallacy, prosody, romance, stream-of-consciousness, understatement, vernacular.
14. The Common Core State Standards in ELA introduce students to the following critical approaches to literary and informative texts: Intentionalist Criticism, Deconstruction, Formalism, Freudian Criticism, Historicism, New Historicism, New Criticism, Reader-response Criticism, Structuralism, and Textual Criticism.
15. The Common Core State Standards in ELA call for grounding in the foundational literatures of U.S. ethnic minority populations, including native American, Jewish, Hispanic and Latino, and African-American literatures.
16. The Common Core State Standards in ELA call for grounding in the early grades in a wide variety of types of oral literatures, or oratures and the archetypes and motifs present in those oratures; types covered include but are not limited to proverbs, legends, folk songs, tall tales, trickster tales, myths, parables, fables, folk tales, fairytales (marchen), jokes, nursery rhymes and jump rope rhymes, ballads, folk songs, oral histories, urban legends, oral epic literatures,
17. The Common Core State Standards in ELA call for equal time to be given to work in handwriting and in keyboarding.
LikeLike
Oh, and add this one:
18. Recognizing that narrative is a primary means by which people make sense of the world, the Common Core State Standards call for increased emphasis on reading of narrative texts, analysis of the structure and techniques and purposes of narratives; and production of narrative writing, both fiction and nonfiction, by students.
LikeLike
If these questions were put to MOST of the defenders of the Common Core State Standards, you would soon find that most of them are not familiar with the actual content of the standards AT ALL and so are just making crap up.
LikeLike
It’s really breathtaking how many complete IMPOSTERS there are in EduPundit La La Land–people who will go on and on and on about how great the “standards” are but who know ALMOST NOTHING SPECIFIC OF THEM.
LikeLike
And so the defenses of these puerile, hackneyed, unimaginative, regressive new “standards” are always couched in the most blitheringly vague, general terms: they are “higher”; they involve “an instructional shift toward more complex texts”; they are “rigorous”; they require “deeper, more critical thinking.”
Utter hogwash.
LikeLike
Try those questions out on the next defender of Lord Coleman’s List you encounter. You will soon see what I mean. Imposters, often imposters in high positions.
LikeLike
You have outdone yourself this time with some poignant questions about these shoddy standards. I would love to see this list go viral, become a meme or a poster or a full-page ad in USA Today. I would love for a true journalist to ask these to Obama, Duncan, Jeb Bush, that woman, anyone really who has been a cheerleader for the core. What most people don’t understand is that there is NO CONTENT attached to these standards. The standards themselves are the curriculum.
LikeLike
One of the huge issues with the Common Core is that it puts texts LAST. It starts with these vague skills statements and then treats texts as mere occasions for exercising those skills. Interestingly, what the Common Core does is therefore in direct contradiction to the very admonitions that it makes in the Publishers’ Criteria accompanying the standards, which say that skills should be treated incidentally. Of course, every educational publisher in the country is now beginning every project by making a list of the CCSS skills in one column and a list of the places where these are “covered” in the next column over, and so, as you say, Lord Coleman’s List becomes the curriculum. And worse yet, whatever happens to be going on in the text itself–which is why one would read the text to begin with–becomes SUBORDINATED to studying the standard in relation to the text because THAT’S WHAT WILL BE ON THE TEST.
In this way, Lord Coleman’s List, even if it weren’t hackneyed, unimaginative, puerile, and often just plain wrong about in its assumptions about how kids learn, ends up dramatically distorting curricula and pedagogy–distorting it in ESSENTIAL WAYS by undermining its foundations–the text as vehicle for communication.
LikeLike