Peter Greene here tells the jaw-dropping story of what happened when Forbes convened a group of billionaires to share their ideas about how to redesign American education.
What would it take, Forbes asks, to move our middling international test scores to the top five in the world?
Why not ask some of the richest people in the nation, who never taught, probably didn’t go to public school, and perhaps never set foot in a public school?
Where do the unicorns come in? Here is what Peter says about the Common Core, which the billionaires love:
“Wonder how CCSS is still hanging in there? One likely answer is that rich guys just love it. “While Common Core has critics on both extremes of the political spectrum, those in the sensible center rightly view high national standards, coupled with tools to achieve success, as a no-brainer.” This is unintentionally hilarious to me because I do indeed believe that Common Core makes the most sense if you do in fact have no brain. The Forbes Factoid Squad projects that it will cost $185.4 billion to make CCSS fully happen, but will yield returns of $27.9 trillion. Do you suppose that rich guys smoke really, really good drugs. Laced with unicorn blood?”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Perfect. And hysterical.
LikeLike
It’s very funny. Gallows humor, though.
What I love about it is the generational aspect. We’re now setting public policy based on the demands of the children and grandchildren of really wealthy people.
Glad to see we’re making decisions based on such a broad spectrum of ideas!
It’s quite literally 150 people. That’s it.
LikeLike
150 of the most clueless
LikeLike
I’m so, so sick of it.
If politicians want to know why people think they’re “out of touch” THIS is why.
I’m not voting for anyone who takes direction from this same set of people. I refuse.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.
LikeLike
Every now and then a bunch of hyper-specialized cells convene in a human body with the evident purpose of redesigning the whole physiology in which they reside.
There’s a name for that … and it’s a no-brainer …
LikeLike
I thought you guys might get a kick out of this. It’s about the big bump in bonuses at elite law firms. This is what they’re paying for:
“This year’s bonuses reflect a premium being paid to experience,” said David Lat, founder and managing editor of Above the Law. “There are big bumps at the midlevel and the senior level.”
Charles A. Volkert, executive director of Robert Half Legal, a legal staffing and consulting firm, agreed, noting that experience is what matters when law firms are looking to hire.”
Experience matters a lot unless you’re running public schools or teaching in one, apparently. In that case, 5 weeks of experience is MORE than enough. 🙂
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/big-law-firms-bring-back-hefty-bonuses-for-associates/?action=click&contentCollection=The%20Upshot&module=MostEmailed&version=Full®ion=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article
LikeLike
Did you know (so off topic) that big law is hiring career associates? They will earn less, get little perks, never become partners, and be paid hourly. There is a HUGE turnover in any firm employing this tactic; basically a 6 month revolving door because the grass is greener elsewhere for these career associates. Why be treated as “less” than your co-employees?
It is the new “substitute teacher” mind set – a job, for now, tho permanent and not temp, while waiting to get a real job and be treated like a real employee. The only reason any lawyer would accept a job as a “career associate” is because the market is so terrible and they need the cash now and will use it on a resume to move on, quickly. Management thinks it is a grew idea–the partners, not so much. They like knowing they can count on their associates and building rapport with, and between, them and the clients. Silly managers. Bonuses for the staff? Non-existent or less than last year…maybe even call for a salary freeze.
LikeLike
The Vice President says we need “the most skilled workforce”
I know they think this is some kind of rallying cry for the masses, but all it sounds like to me is people in DC complaining that the “workforce” isn’t meeting their expectations.
LikeLike
“Efficacy would solely be derived from student outcome data.”
It just makes you want to give up, it really does. Just stick a fork in it.
There’s no meaningful dissent and they are bound and determined to treat education like they treat everything else; like a business. There isn’t even language to approach it any other way. I can’t tell the difference between Arne Duncan and any of the CEO’s. They all use the same business-speak.
LikeLike
We could use a few billionaires on our side…
LikeLike
Good one. What are THEY ON is right! Could indeed be Unicorn blood, but only if the Unicorn blood produces and enhances being GREEDY, VERY, VERY GREEDY, arrogant, selfish, and hateful as well. This country is in huge mule muffins.
LikeLike
CEO’s, the scions of wealthy families and government leaders got together and decided that the reason the US middle class is declining is because of the quality of the middle class workforce. It isn’t just teachers. This forum is about how workers have to create more value,and when they do their incomes will…rise.
That’s what they’re saying. They’re deeply disappointed in the mediocrity of the US workforce.
What I love about it is how it’s a complete and total dodge of accountability by everyone who has any actual power. It’s breathtaking. The middle and working class THEMSELVES are to blame for this predicament they find themselves in! Jeez, That’s convenient, huh?
LikeLike
These guys are just intolerable.
Separately, isn’t it about time that somebody started up a Rotisserie Education League?
LikeLike
Peter Greene is the funniest person ever.
I love his posts.
LikeLike
“Do you suppose that rich guys smoke really, really good drugs. Laced with unicorn blood?”
Doesn’t Green know anything? Doesn’t he watch the movies?
Rich white guys don’t smoke drugs.
They snort them
…which is why they never do any time in jail.
LikeLike
Dear Diane, your premise, oft-repeated, is that people who haven’t taught, who haven’t gone to public school or who have never set foot in a school, can have no valid opinion about public schools — about as anti-democratic and elitist an opinion as I have ever encountered. Peter Green’s humor notwithstanding, the fact is that the public owns public schools (just as they own the highways, the medicaid system, social security, even Amtrak — and that same public includes plenty of people who are not teachers, etc. To disparage the 90% — whether they are billionaires, millionaires, middle class business owners, hardworking shopowners or single parents on food stamps — reveals a significant misunderstanding of the meaning of America, not to mention a failure to appreciate the ownership realities of our public school system. Thank you. –peter meyer
LikeLike
Peter Meyer, I believe that everyone–the entire community–“owns” the public schools. That is what “public” means. That is why I don’t believe that charter schools are “public” schools, because they are “owned” by corporations and private boards of trustees. That is why I oppose the “parent trigger,” because the community’s public schools belong to the community–to those who have gone before and those who will come later, not to the parents who happen to be there right now and may be gone in a year or two. Everyone is entitled to an opinion about education, but the billionaires use their money to buy the Legislators and members of Congress so they can have the free-market policies they like–not for their children–but for other people’s children. I still cling to the old-fashioned idea of one-man, one vote. What we have now is a small group of plutocrats deciding how to arrange public education, about which they know nothing. Even if they were experts in education, rather than hedge fund managers and philanthropists, they still should not have the power to destroy and privatize public schools.
LikeLike
Dear Diane, I was with you until you got to the “buy the Legislators” part. The unions don’t? I will always recall a school budget vote we had in my small upstate NY town, when I was on the school board. There was quite a good turnout at the polls and the budget was defeated 3 to 1. Within 5 minutes of certifying the vote results, however, the board overrode the will of the people (I was the lone dissenter) and passed the budget anyway. How could it do that? It was because a state law, passed by the legislators, with “wheelbarrows full of union money,” according to a friend in the legislature, allowed them to do it. You are right that there is “a small group of plutocrats” involved in the process, but we need to expand the definition plutocrat to include the unions, the textbook companies, the bus companies, the construction trades, and a whole bunch of other private sector lobbyists that camp out in our legislative corridors and collaborate in the destruction of public education. I’m all for public education, but in truth, it disappeared a long time ago. Thanks, –peter m.
LikeLike
“Billionaires and Unicorns?”
While that might be the (insipid) face they show the public, “Billionaires and Leeches” might be more accurate.
LikeLike
“While Common Core has critics on both extremes of the political spectrum, those in the sensible center rightly view high national standards, coupled with tools to achieve success, as a no-brainer.”
This concise summary of a key argument used by Common Core supporters reveals the logical fallacy: it is a classic example of begging the question. Who wouldn’t be in favor of high standards and “tools to achieve success”? The points at issue though are what high standards really ought to look like, what kinds of tools are needed, and what kind of success we want for our children, not to mention whether or not our standards ought to be national. These are the things we should be talking about, but the rhetorical trick diverts our attention from them. It aims to get us to abandon the real heart of the matter: that the architects of the Common Core are far from the only or even the best qualified group to answer these important questions, and moreover, that the answers they have provided are profoundly troubling.
LikeLike