I have admired Emily Talmage’s fierce independence and intelligence and have posted many of her columns. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that she attacked me because I was a judge on the MacArthur Foundation’ s competition to award a $100 million gift.
She was astonished that I had anything to do with this dreadful Foundation.
She invited me to respond.
This was my comment on her blog:
“Emily,
“I was invited some months ago by the MacArthur Foundation to be one of hundreds of reviewers for their $100 million contest for a single great idea. The foundation received 2,000 applications. I reviewed 10. A few were not very good ideas. Some were very impressive. They were submitted by well qualified teams of experts with sound ideas about alleviating hunger, poverty, disease, and other major problems, in this country and in impoverished countries. None of the ideas I approved were profit-making ventures.
“I was not paid for doing this. It was an interesting assignment, to which I devoted a few hours one evening.
“I was not asked to review the MacArthur Foundation. In my extensive readings of nefarious organizations, I don’t recall coming across the MacArthur Foundation as a funder. Had I been asked to do a similar assignment for the Walton Foundation or the Broad Foundation or the CZI or the Gates Foundation, I would have said no.
“I know the MacArthur Foundation only for its “genius” awards, which I have never seen as controversial.
“I make no apologies for judging 10 of 2,000 proposals.
“You can reach any conclusion you wish.
“I am not your enemy. You have read my blog. You know where I stand on testing, privatization, and CBE. Frankly, I was surprised that you would write as if I were not on your side. News flash: I am your ally.”
Diane Ravitch
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Diane, you are a champ of the highest order. I don’t know how you do it, but don’t stop. You are an inspiration!!!!
I don’t see the attack. But now that you know what MacArthur is doing will you call them out for it?
If you don’t see the attack, we did not read the same post.
It sounds like the opportunity to review the applicants for the award was something that no reasonable person would turn down. The award was designed to promote solutions to worldwide problems. I cannot see any downside.
Thank you. That was my reaction.
This reminds me so much of some of the attacks on Hillary Clinton during the campaign.
Focus on a few speeches and ignore the entirety of what the person is all about and instead make sweeping judgements about her that are not even close to being an accurate portrayal of the person.
Frankly, I wouldn’t care if MacArthur had paid you an honorarium. They also do many good things. There is nothing wrong with reviewing grant proposals.
And I have no doubt whatsoever that you would not hesitate to call out any program that turned out to be an anathema to what you believe in regardless of whether you had reviewed grant proposals for them.
No one can live up to the standards that some people profess are necessary. And they never do. But there seems to be a double standard as to when an actions needs to be attacked.
I’m glad you responded as you did.
I was not able to “like” Tultican’s comment, but he speaks for me. The indignant implication of purity despoiled reminds me of Ninotchka’s famous line, “The last mass trials were a great success. There are going to be fewer but better Russians.” Emily should have communicated her concerns to Diane personally before assuming the worst. After all, it’s not as though we don’t know where Diane stands and what she’s does every day.
GregB,
The same old purity test that enables those on the left to form a circular firing squad.
We are facing a fierce struggle to save public education, so of course it’s time for an internecine fight over doctrinal purity.
I usually ignore such things. There are bigger issues to deal with.
I decided a while back to ignore arrows in my back, especially those from friendly fire. every so often, it seems best to respond, despite my earlier determination not to do so.
I concur and will add that such purity and absolutism are the enemy of the commons, of the common good itself since it is all too often but a single person or small group standing in outrage at some small insult or imperfection. They are rarely if ever the canaries in the coal mine they claim to be. To take such a position, especially against your allies, is to build the intellectual equivalent of the Maginot Line. Purism/absolutism also presumes to be based entirely on facts and nothing else which is quite silly since the first facts such absolutism ignores are the wide array of those having to do with human neurology, psychology and emotion, followed closely by the unpleasant realities of how those things translate into political maneuvering and competition as leveraged by the realities of the all too human tendency of delusional thinking, writ large and small. It is to let the perfect be the enemy of the great, or even the fantastic. Such blind purity also wrongly rejects any possibility of an institution becoming aware of its mistakes and then accepting it’s obligation to change and improve. If every tiny infraction causes a person to boycott the far greater good that is available, they would starve to death. Sorry for ranting here, but I detest the absurdity of such circular firing squads, especially for the way they give aid and comfort to the true enemy. There is no shortage of those.
“a circular firing squad” –great phrase!
Well. Hmmm… With inordinate respect, Dr. Ravitch, I think this wasn’t meant so much as a slap down as an ironic call-out. And the latter I believe is intended in a friendly, but importantly: informational matter. It is interesting what Ms Talmage claims, isn’t it? Fascinating I’d even say.
The insinuation that you were secretly colluding with the enemy was probably hyperbole rather than an acknowledgment that really under just about any Foundation you uncover, there is an ulterior and often unsavory agenda. And that leaves everyone with the moral dilemma of how you work for improvement: ignore or engage. That’s an age-old quandry.
But pondering that catch-22 or even calling it out, isn’t the same as standing someone in the center of a circular firing squad. It’s just ironic commentary.
She’s calling the golden-halo’d MacArthur Fndtn out, and observing that however well-intentioned or innocently, you are a small cog in that wheel.
I think to understand the interconnected ecology of life, is to know that every babystep usually, perhaps inevitably, kills a living creature. Everyone draws their line somewhere. And she’s not too happy with yours in this instance. Seems to me YMMV without offense. That’s why dilemmas are a quandry.
I use Microsoft Word. It’s Bill’s evil genesis: that’s the foundation of it all. I’m not going to stop, probably, though I wish I could I guess. We all negotiate compromise with our conscience.
Red Queen ,
I did not compromise with my conscience. Period. I made no sacrifices. I did not consort with or collude with “the enemy.” I use Microsoft Word. I write on Apple machines. There is more collusion in paying Gates and Jobs than anything I had to do in reviewing 10 of 2,000 applications for a grant from the MacArthur Foundation. Yes, I bought products from Gates and Apple!
I am 79 years old. I pick my fights with care. I can’t be bought or controlled or compromised. Like it or not. That’s who I am.
Diane: “I am 79 years old. I pick my fights with care. I can’t be bought or controlled or compromised. Like it or not. That’s who I am.”
………..
GO, GIRL!! I love what you say!!! I wish we had more people with such high standards involved in politics and in our everyday lives. It is an honor to read what you write everyday. I also love the videos of you speaking the truth. Keep it coming!!
“The insinuation that you were secretly colluding with the enemy was probably hyperbole…”
Really? The point of the post was to question Diane’s motivation and demand an explanation from her for why she would collude with the enemy.
Otherwise, it would have been a straight criticism of MacArthur without ending with what was basically a call for Diane Ravitch to explain her questionable actions.
Agreed. I think we just saw the ‘circular firing squad’ in action.
On the back page of today’s NYT Business section there is a full page ad from Citi Bank touting Malala Yousafzai and the Malala Fund. Does this compromise Malala’s mission?
*informational manner
What kind of digital learning is the MacArthur Foundation funding in their Digital Media and Learning Competition grants? The MacArthur Foundation website states that it has funded “Playlists for Learning” which are “innovative learning playlists that close the opportunity gap and help learners succeed in the 21st century. A learning playlist is a curated group of digital and connected learning experiences and resources such as videos, website, books, games, and more that are woven together into a sequenced pathway centered on a common theme.” What other forms of digital learning does / has the MacArthur Foundation funded? The organization has been a long-time funder of digital learning.
I have no idea whether that is good or bad. Digital is not inherently bad. How are we communicating right now?
I agree. Digital is not inherently bad. I am curious to learn more about what the MacArthur Foundation funds in their Digital Media and Learning grants. I want to learn how digital media might be useful for learning.
How are the innovations supported by the MacArthur Foundation different from those supported by Gates? I have seen digital learning projects that are funded by both the MacArthur Foundation and the Gates Foundation. I am not equating these two organizations. I would like some insight into how the organizations are different in terms of criteria and selections for funding developments and new technologies for digital learning.
Ask them.
Oh, please. Now the MacArthur Foundation is the enemy? Let’s keep our eyes on the usual suspects.
Thank you, Bethree.
Diane, the elitism and ageism displayed by Talmage deeply saddens me. I am glad there are women –and men–of her generation more measured, kind, and thoughtful than this. Thank you for continuing your essential work despite these petty snipes.
Diane, the problem is, Macarthur is not what real philanthropy looks like. People need to challenge that claim. Your purity hasn’t been attacked. This is a critique of a specific position you are taking.
Emily asked you to look more deeply into the nature of Macarthur’s philanthropy, and supplies many links. It seems like you have brought that responsibility on yourself, by promoting them in your column. To be on our side, you need to be able to take a side on the enormous damage that investment philanthropy is doing to public governance.
I’m not going to add any arguments about MacArthur, because they are right here, in Emily’s blog. Please address the substance of the argument.
Mary,
I think this discussion has gone on long enough. I will not continue it anymore.
Make love not war.
“Make love not war”.
Man oh man, Diane, you’re starting to sound like me more and more. You ought to be worried 🙂
Frightening!
Mary, I read it. Of course it was a direct attack and it was nasty, not ironic. One of the group that is pushing it called Diane a witch. Very disappointing.
Diane, I’m sorry you read my post as an attack on you personally. It wasn’t intended to be, though yes I did fear it would be perceived that ways – hence the duck and cover GIF. IT was intended to “call out” the claim that the MacArthur 100&Change is “real philanthropy.” That claim was my real concern – less so your involvement, bc I figured either you hadn’t yet learned what I had about MacArthur, or you had some other reason. I really hope readers, especially those who are offended by my piece, take the time to actually read what I wrote about MacArthur and follow the embedded links. Their work with SIBs and their effort to advance it SHOULD be a concern to anyone fighting for public education.
That makes total sense, Emily. Thanks for the explanation. I couldn’t really fathom why you would attack Diane in such a public way.
Emily,
Here is what you wrote:
“Now, I won’t speculate on Diane’s motivation for linking up with MacArthur. Maybe she will explain?”
You COULD have written a post with your criticisms about the MacArthur Foundation. But you didn’t. You wrote a post about the MacArthur Foundation in order to speculate about “Diane’s motivations for linking up” with them. You “speculated” just by writing the words, “I won’t speculate” which made your post even more offensive.
What did you expect Diane to “explain” to you? That she had a financial motivation? You felt it was important to demand a “reason” for her actions. The innuendo in your post was evident for all to see and it was not very nice.
“I demand that Benie Sanders explain why he worked so hard to endorse the DFER candidate in the Virginia primary. Now, I won’t speculate on Bernie’s motivation for linking up with the DFER candidate and fighting so hard to get him elected. Maybe he will explain?”
Of course, if I wrote that, I WOULD be speculating on Sanders’ motivation and my post would have many readers question his character, whether I admit it or not. Perhaps your intent to get readers to question Diane’s character was unintentional. But then what you should do is apologize for the character attack on her.
I have no problem with you posting your criticisms of the MacArthur Foundation. I DO have a problem with you using those criticisms to make a gratuitous and unreasonable character attack on Diane Ravitch. And yes, I saw this kind of thing all through the 2016 campaign. It’s a circular firing squad.
NYC: Spot on.
Emily: Egg is on your face. If you wanted to write about MacArthur, you could have left Diane out of it. You truly did the most undiplomatic thing, and your response is a poor attempt at CYA. Lost a little respect for you now.
I think I can read your response as an apology.
If so, accepted.
I think you’re right, Dianne. Sometimes we say things in a clumsy way, and lurch into people and step on toes that we did not intend to harm.
Personally, I’ve always found the MacArthur Foundation a bit suspect.
For example, there is the title of the ‘Genius’ grants. It suggests a definable hierarchy of ability that MacArthur can identify. Not at all likely. It’s simply a method of promoting MacArthur (they give grants to geniuses, whatever they are). Secondly, I recall that for years they ‘supported’ NPR after Congress cut the strings. This is not all that bad, however NPR went from the outfit that covered Watergate, wall to wall, to a rather tepid reflection, very careful to be ‘fair’ to moneyed interests. Once you get paid by the boss, you almost unconsciously fall in line.
As to that second aspect, I’m reading a translation of Morselli’s, “The Communist”. I think the early life of Walter, when he ‘went to America’ spells out the problem. We often plunge into the ethic of a culture unconsciously.
To Emily Talmage:
You are very immature and inexperienced.
Please ask yourself what is your intention and incentive in your assumption to alert Dr. Ravitch regarding every thought and action from a respectful and wise historian, like Dr. Ravitch.
You thought you are smart, but little you know that you are just a tool for corporate to advertise their intention regarding their social impact bonds. Back2basic
I don’t spend much time thinking about if I’m smart or not … I have 24 fourth graders and 2 little boys of my own, so I spend most of my time thinking about how worried absolutely sh#%tless I Am for their future, and wondering how I can help people see and stop what is happening. “Corporate” is actually hiding – not advertising – their intentions with SIBs, so my intention is to shed light on this and help make it understandable for people. Also, as a teacher, ive actually been LIVIng the effects of this stuff every single day for ten years now. so I’d say I actually have a fair bit of experience at this point..: but again, keep slinging the mud. I can take it.
Emily,
I commend you for doing good work trying to enlighten readers about SIBs and all the other admirable work you do. I am grateful that caring teachers like you spend some of their precious free time trying to make things better. And it must be clear from Diane’s original links that she recognizes and appreciates what you do.
But…in your post, you used a rhetorical device that – intended or not – cast aspersions about Diane Ravitch’s motives. You wrote an excellent post about your criticisms of the MacArthur Foundation – which was perfectly reasonable – but you didn’t stop there.
You concluded that post by bringing it all back to Diane again. “Now, I won’t speculate on Diane’s motivation for linking up with MacArthur. Maybe she will explain?”
Whether you want to admit it or not, the words “I won’t speculate on Diane’s motivation” are what people write when they want readers to speculate on Diane’s motivation. If you have any experience with mean girls in your classes you surely know that. If you had not written those words, Diane would have had no reason to make this post at all. She posted that she felt attacked because you did attack her. And I hope you are big enough to recognize the tactic you used to do so — even if it was unintentional. You should still apologize rather than to continue to justify it by saying that it was all about MacArthur. If your post had been all about MacArthur, Diane would not have felt attacked! Most of it was about MacArthur, but you ended by making it about Diane Ravitch.
No one wants you to stop doing the good work you are doing to call out MacArthur or any other foundation.
What we want you to do is stop using rhetorical devices to cast aspersions against people who are ALSO working hard for the same things you are.
We are all on the same side. Sometimes there will be some disagreements among us about what is important or what can be overlooked. Some of us will vote for a candidate who is a favorite of DFER because he is progressive on other issues. Some of us will oppose a candidate who is a favorite of DFER even if he is less progressive on other issues. Those kinds of discussions are important to have without insinuating that someone’s “motives” in either supporting the DFER candidate or not supporting the DFER candidate are so suspect that they should “be explained”.
It is possible to have intra-party discussions without attacking one another’s motives as if they were consorting with the enemy.
Ah?
It seems clear to me that Emily is as justified in contributing to a general conversation as you, and speaking her mind as she sees it. I don’t think that calling someone ‘immature and inexperienced’ promotes communication. Instead, it is intended to stifle it.
I (75) understand that we ‘old folks’ have fewer brain cells, and have, therefore, made more ‘connections’ based on our experience. However, those increased and hardened ‘connections’ also cause us to overlook alternate ways of ‘making sense’. We need a dialogue with our students (and young teachers), not a hierarchy based on age. I think Dianne is wise enough to see the value in that approach, and I think she has shown that to be the case through her rather remarkable life journey.
I’m not sure how old you are, however I suspect you are rather young. You need to listen to the elders, as they have distilled their experience into a refined product, often containing heady whiffs of wisdom that can make your journey easier. However, beware the idea that the wild abandon which with youth casts the net is to no avail. Every so often, naivety is an asset. Consider Einstein, or Kepler.
John Wund,
FYI, m4potw is a refugee from Vietnam who escaped unbelievable tragedies that you cannot imagine. She has life experiences that none of us has had. She is old (like me) and wise. Please do not insult her.
I wrote here about May King: https://dianeravitch.net/2016/11/10/a-hero-of-our-time-may-king-our-reader/
She wrote about her story here:
Dearest Dr. Ravitch:
I failed many attempts to leave VN from 1975, then escaped many jail terms in 1976 and 1977, until my first shipwreck in China Sea in 1978 and second shipwreck in water area between Thailand and Malaysia in 1979.
Finally, I arrived in Canada in 1980. It took me 5 years to work all odd jobs to pay rent, bus, food and tuition fee in order to graduate from College. After working 3 lowest paying jobs non-stop, I had a lucky break from college degree to work two jobs with better earning wages. This opportunity has helped to save enough within 10 years for my university degree from 1990 to 2010 due to having my only child at the age of 40 and two major illnesses: severe kidney infection and a mild stroke.
I am glad to go through all challenges with success so that I am able to sustain my hope in humanity and my belief in the universal law of karma.
You and all of your supporters are the main reason that has given me the hope and belief in the American Freedom Spirit in order to have a courage to escape Communists.
I do not expect all immigrants can be as strong will as I am in treasuring democratic freedom and spirit. However, I am truly disappointing in the majority of today immigrants who follow and support the dark money for an easy way to earn their living without shame, without appreciation of American people’s kindness and without concern of their offspring’s future to live like “a cog in machine” society that they inadvertently help to build today.
Very respectfully yours,
May King
Maybe May will be flattered that you think she is young.
I certainly agree that Emily should write whatever she wants, as I do.
I also hope she will take a bit of advice about the importance of coalition building. We are in a desperate fight for the survival of public education. Those on the same side need to stick together even if we don’t agree about everything.
I agree with you, Emily.
While I felt this opposition to the particular participation on this grant award was a bit over the top, I defend the right of your detractor to suggest your lack of understanding. She should have done it in private, however, so that specific differences might be fleshed out.
Tangential to this discussion is the issue of what is becoming the United States of grant writing. Most of the schools I know of that receive grant money are wealthy schools. This is true across the spectrum of public and traditional private institutions. It seems to me that those rich enough to had a grant writer get richer and those not rich get underfunded.
Finally, allow me to delight in your general direction over the image of the circular firing squad. Great turn of words.
Diane, It strikes me that we need to have each other’s backs, now more than ever. Both you, who I do not know personally (though you might remember my brother Scott Brooks who was roommates at Yale with your son many moons ago) and Emily who I do know personally, are fiercely intelligent, caring educators with much integrity. Blogging is all about getting “hits” and making the loudest noise. Emily is highly aware of how privatization is marching forward, eating up the last vestiges of the “public” in our schools. There is so much going on behind the scenes with the high rollers that it’s impossible to keep up. I applaud you both for your good work and encourage everyone to cool down. How can we ever score a win when we are attacking one another?
Thank you, Robin. People who are allies should not attack one another. I was gobsmacked and blindsided. I have always said that we who agree on the essentials should work together.
My reply to your comment on Emily’s blog:
Diane,
Did you go through the links on my post about what MacArthur funds in the area of digital learning and they role they have played in the development of the impact investment sector? If you have not, now is the time. Many still look up to you as an expert in this arena, and remaining uniformed of these forces is doing a grave disservice to your readership. If we (including you) do not begin educating people about the dangers of ed-tech and impact investment schemes immediately, the forces of global finance and cloud-based computing will wreak a level of havoc practically unimaginable, not just on education, but on EVERY public service sector from pre-k to addiction treatment, to homeless services. You owe it to your readers to revisit your position on MacArthur.
Please take the time to read this: https://dissidentvoice.org/2016/11/social-impact-bonds-the-titans-of-finance-as-the-altruistic-merchants-of-schooling-and-the-common-good/
and this https://dissidentvoice.org/2016/10/education-technology-surveillance-and-americas-authoritarian-democracy/
Both are by Tim Scott. He has done ground-breaking work. I expect after reading them and looking at the links on my post you will have a very different opinion of the MacArthur Foundation. I hope you will consider recanting your support for the type of philanthropy they pursue and advocate against the digitally-mediated, gamified version of educational surveillance they are promoting. MacArthur is no different from Gates; at the moment they are simply flying under the radar. I look forward to reading your response to Tim’s articles. Feel free to drop me a line on my blog. I don’t block comments.
This movement should never be about personalities. This movement must be only about children, the teachers who teach them, the fight to save public education, and the goal of the Reformers.
There are many folks out there uncovering the tentacles of destruction. And to many trying to understand it’s overwhelming. Mini ignore but many know the truth but don’t want to accept it.
There is so much information that I start my reading at 5 o’clock every morning in order to comprehend and even that is not enough time.
Talk about circular firing squad. THOSE who dare to speak truth are the ones being demeaned and silenced through shaming.
Ohio and Michigan get all the attention for terrible ed reform, but Arizona is a real up and comer:
“A report by an Arizona think tank found that most charter schools in the state abused public funding by engaging in business transactions that involved their owners, board members or their families.
The Grand Canyon Institute report indicated that 77 percent of all Arizona charter schools engaged in some form of related-party transactions, and that the state’s regulatory system failed to ensure that tax dollars given to the schools are primarily used for the education of students, The Arizona Daily Star reported (http://bit.ly/2fi8DI6 ) on Monday.
The report is based on a three-year forensic audit of the charter schools’ finances, and it focused primarily on related-party transactions. The report defined these transactions as the schools spending tax dollars on non-competitive bids with companies that are owned by the charter operators, board members or their immediate relatives.
While the practices are illegal for public schools, they are legal for charter schools because they are not subject to competitive-bid laws.”
They are never, ever going to regulate these schools because by the time they do all of these scams will be embedded and impossible to dislodge.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/article174143026.html
The ability to question things is not only respectable, it is a necessity. I do believe that this is what Emily has done, to question something.
And even though I proofed my response it seems that I have to apologize for technology. Mini should be many and I did not capitalize the letters in “those”.
I agree. I actually read Emily’s piece after I read others which included very informative links about this foundation.
I saw Emily’s piece as a question but I did not see a response to that question. Only a reprimand of the author. A public shaming.
I only know about McArthur “genius” awards, which seems to be a bit of a PR stunt. Given the work of some of the recipients, I have my doubts about it’s value.
“Chetty Pie”
To bake a Chetty Pie
You pick the ripest cherries
Enticing folks to buy
The Chetty data queries.
“True Grit”
Angela has grit
And peddles piles of it
While most would bend
And reach an end
Ms. Duckworth just won’t quit
“The Chetty Picker”
The Chetty picker’s standard
Is lower than Death Valley
And even for a VAM nerd
That’s quite a lowly tally
“The Gritwit”
I really am a Gritwit
I really have allure
To every single nitwit
Who seeks an edu-cure
“For whom No bell tolls”
A Nobel Prize in hubris
Is what I do deserve
And though it may sound humorous
I’ve really got some nerve
I won’t let major sticking
Points get in my way
My trademarked Chetty-picking (TM)
Will surely win the day
SDP,
You are on a roll today!
Those are all old.
From A Damthology of Deform (volumes 1 and 2)
http://damthology.blogspot.com/
I could probably have made a volume 3 (and maybe 4) as well, but I quit compiling them and it’s very time consuming to go back through old blog comments.
The scary thing is that I actually remember them without having to look them up.
Some day I will probably have Alzheimer’s but still remember the goofy poems I wrote about Raj Chetty et al
Funny, when I think of the MacArthur awards, I think of Deborah Meier.
Wait. There’s a Damthology? Nice!!! I know what I’m doing this weekend. I am sitting on the sand at Venice Beach, reading Some DAM Poems!
Then again, maybe I already have Alzheimer’s.
Or DAMsheimers
Or poetsheimers
Or DAMpoetsheimers
If you find yourself getting forgetful, just give yourself an annual, high stakes, standardized, multiple choice test on your poems. According to Coleman and Gates, you’ll be learning your poems by being tested on them and getting feedback months later in the form of a single numerical score. A cow birthing algorithm can track your progress compared to a predicted score. If you forget a poem, you’re fired. No more poems. The competition will inspire you to do better. That’s the devalue of data. Alz- Devalue Added Method -heimers.
SDP,
I have never reviewed the work of every recipient of a MacArthur award. If Chetty and Duckworth were representative, I would say it was money wasted. Would you say the same of all the scientists, artists, and philosophers they have supported? Maybe they only select frauds? Is that the case? I am eager to know so I can denounce them, if true.
The only two recipients of the award I am familiar with are a joke when it comes to research. They are not real scientists.
But they could be an anomaly.
Frankly, I think these types of awards to just a few people are ridiculous. Surely, there are lots of deserving scientists, artists, authors, historians, teachers, etc.
Why not give $6,250 to 100 people?
I know the idea is to free them up to do whatever they want, but obviously, that is not always a positive thing.
To maximize the chance of good outcomes, better to spread the wealth around.
Besides, academics like Chetty already get a salary from their universities and can apply for grants like everyone else. Actually, the grant process from organizations like NSF provides some check on nonsense.
If you look at the recipients for 2016, many of them are University academics, including some from Caltech, Stanford and Rice.
These would probably be able to do and or study what they want without the award.
Especially those at places like Caltech and Stanford
Dans ses écrits, un sage Italien
Dit que le mieux est l’ennemi du bien.
We need to be having honest discussions. I believe Emily’s piece is questioning MacArthur (and really all ed philanthropists) who have a seat at the table… a seat, which doesn’t include parents and teachers, those closest to the student.
No, Emily’s piece used legitimate questioning of MacArthur to question Diane’s “motives” for actions that Emily found so offensive that she felt they needed to be “explained” in order for Diane to clear her name.
I wonder if there was any explanation that Diane could have offered that Emily would have accepted to clear the taint of her character attack. What possible explanation was she expecting from Diane?
I didn’t “demand” that Diane do anything, and I most certainly wasn’t “expecting” anything. I wondered if she might explain – hoped she would, actually, because I know she sometimes reads my posts – and she did. And I appreciated it.
My goal was to use Diane’s post about MacArthur, which I disagreed with for all the reasons I wrote, as a way to expose MacArthur – NOT the other way around.
Emily,
You could have written a post about MacArthur without questioning my motivations.
I don’t question yours.
I accepted your apology.
Let it go.
As I shared on Facebook: Here is the thing. There is probably nobody in the entire world that I agree with 100% of the time, including, of course, Diane Ravitch. If I were to examine anyone else’s published work, I could probably find the basis for a critique, where I might lay out reasons why the person has missed an important aspect, or supported something I don’t think is worthy. But we are in a fight for the future of public education, and we need allies. We need leaders. We need thinkers. We need critics. So I don’t object to anyone pointing out where they disagree with Diane Ravitch, or anyone else. But I hope at the end of the day we can work together for the future of our schools and children. I think Diane is a valuable leader, and has done a tremendous service in shedding light on the dangers of privatization. If you are looking for someone that reflects your views perfectly, go find a mirror.
I agree. There is nothing wrong with saying that someone missed some aspect. There is something wrong about speculating about the motives of why they did that (while saying you are not) and demanding an “explanation” for why he missed that aspect.
Emily’s post did that. And I think progressives need to understand how to discuss disagreements without turning them into character attacks.
A “gratuitous and unreasonable character attack” ?? What in the actual heck??
Are people actually taking the time to read what I wrote, or are they only reading Diane’s headline?
Like I said, it was Diane’s claim that MacArthur is engaging in “real philanthropy” that I aimed to refute.
I AM VERY CONCERNED THAT FOUNDATIONS LIKE MACARTHUR ARE GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER.
I have absolutely no reason in the world to randomly “attack” Diane Ravitch, but I do have EVERY REASON IN THE WORLD to point out that the foundation she said is engaging is “real philanthropy” is NOT ENGAGING IN REAL PHILANTHROPY.
That is my message, and I’m sticking to it.
Please read the embedded link in my post detailing the way that foundations are “seeding” the Social Impact Bond market if you don’t know what I mean.
Anyone else who wants to put words or ideas in my mouth, or tell me I’m ageist or elitist or stupid or whatever else you want to sling at me, go ahead. I had a feeling this would happen. It’s why I included the duck and cover gif.
But you know what? I’m not gonna duck and cover. I’m gonna keep doing what I do – which is teaching kids, reading and researching and writing, and doing my best to help people understand where the threats to public education lie… because they AREN’T always the usual suspects, as someone above said.
SHEESH!!!
Emily,
There you go again. The post I wrote was not a review of the MacArthur Foundation and all of its grants ever.
My post was a report on a single competition, in which I reviewed 10 of 2,000 entries. As I explained, the goal of the competition was to find a project that was feasible and would have a large impact on improving the lives of millions of people. I called that “real philanthropy” and you respond that I should have done a critique of the MacArthur Foundation. If they funded a cure for AIDS and made it freely available throughout the world, should I denounce them because of other grants that I know nothing about?
“Anyone else who wants to put words or ideas in my mouth….”
No one can do that quite like NYCPSP. Don’t take it personally, it’s just his/her speciality. Consider it a badge of honor, actually.
““Now, I won’t speculate on Diane’s motivation for linking up with MacArthur. Maybe she will explain?”
You wrote a very good post about your criticisms of the MacArthur Foundation. You could have even written something “I don’t think Diane Ravitch knew all this.”
But instead you felt it was necessary for Diane to “explain” her “motivations” for linking up with them.
After all, what is implied in your post is that Diane must have some “motivations” for linking up that need to be explained.
Think about how Diane write THIS post. She wrote what she didn’t like about what you posted. She didn’t speculate on your motives for writing it in a way that implied that you were in bed with the people who hate public education.
I personally think you wrote it that way because you weren’t thinking about how much of a character attack it was.
If it hadn’t been written to question Diane’s motives, she would not have reacted the way she did when she read it.
^^and it is certainly appropriate that dienne77 would turn my defense of Diane Ravitch and an attempt to explain why she would be offended by the post that Emily made into an attack on me.
Circular firing squad, indeed
Well said, Anthony. My only quibble is that I am often offended and embarrassed by that someone I see in the mirror. And I find that my former self was quite a dolt, something I’m sure my future self will also think of my current self. Can’t even trust a mirror these days!
So very well observed, GregB!
amen to that, Anthony
As I see it, the state-finance nexus (banks/financial markets/corporations; state, federal and municipal governments; NGOs; philanthrocapitalists; DNC/RNC; white supremacy, colonialism, militarized austerity, etc.) that’s driving Ed Reform 2.0 is maintained by duplicitous mission statements, promotions, pronouncements, marketing agendas and ideological/cultural narratives. This profiteering web of deceit also relies on dedicated pundits like Ravitch, who earnestly, implicitly and duplicitously promote and normalize this agenda, while presenting themselves as benevolent agents of the common good.
Tim,
One of the rules of the blog is that I don’t post comments that insult me. The blog is my living room, and I expect people to act civilly, even though we debate, disagree, and hash out our differences. It is a lively room, and I try to keep the conversation civil, which is not always easy.
I am making an exception in this case because it is useful for other readers to hear your voice and understand that those of us who fight privatization, high-stakes testing, standardization, and the replacement of teachers by algorithms are not united. If you think I am your enemy, you have a very strange understanding of what I have written in books, articles, and daily blogs for the past several years.
Since you have identified me as an enemy of the cause I fight for every day, I will ask you not to return here again.
“A Ravitch behind every Bush”
To normalize
Deformer lies
The work of spies
With Ravitch ties
LOL.
Tim, do you have any notion to whom you are mansplaining here? Diane Ravitch devotes herself, every day, to working hard to fight precisely the profiteering that you decry from the lofty perch of your ideological purity. Don’t write–especially in that tone–about that of which you know nothing. Ignorance and arrogance are a toxic cocktail.
I think that’s more specific than plain mansplaining. Something more like HumanitiesPhDsplaining, maybe.
FLERP! Is that as bad as JDsplaining?
Close call. JDsplaining is usually, “well, it depends.”
“They were submitted by well qualified teams of experts with sound ideas about alleviating hunger, poverty, disease, and other major problems, in this country and in impoverished countries. ”
……………..
This dialogue is getting ridiculous. Why are so many arguing about Diane’s having simply studied 10 applicants who are in a competition to be rewarded for doing good work? ANY type of good that helps people should be respected. Isn’t there a saying that goes something like, “Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water?”.
I could accept that Emily was simply trying to raise awareness of the dark side of the MacArthur foundation and that she just used some in-artful rhetoric if this was the first time she attacked Diane. It is not. So, I believe this was a conscious attempt to undermine Diane’s character.
For something to be completely evil or completely just and pure is rare to non-existent. It seems that foundations which do a lot of good things have become anti-democratic institutions representing wealthy elites. Because of their economic power, they protect the existing political structures and ideologies. Diane is certainly not a perfect being or she would have never been part of the top down standards movement in the first place, but her willingness to self-reflect and change are inspiring. Since no-one is perfect, I want to have imperfect friends like Diane.
Tom, when in the good lords name have I ever “attacked” Diane? What on earth are you talking about? Yes – I have questioned some of her alliances and friendships before. Yes, I have had some concerns about what she does and does not choose to disclose and expose. Yes – I have disagreed with her. But attack? Undermine her character? Really?? Can you think of any reason why I would even bother to do that?
Please, Emily. What do you think I “failed to disclose”? Your insinuations are unwarranted. You repeatedly question my credibility with this language that smears even as you pretend to not smear.
Please stop.
Having just finished Jane Mayer’s astonishing and disheartening book “Dark Money,” I think it’s easy to see conspiracy theories everywhere . . . and for good reason, since the Koch brothers and their cronies often use “philanthropy” to cover up the real harm they do. It’s quite possible that the MacArthur Foundation uses some of its funding to pay for studies that are related to education “reform” and a glance at their partners for some of their education projects (MasterCard, Intel) shows that they work with major corporations as well. But this is a complicated world we live in now; it’s very difficult to untangle the many strands of influence. It reminds me of that old song by Sweet Honey in the Rock about the simple act of buying a white cotton shirt as part of a global web that includes the oppression of workers (“Are My Hands Clean” if you want to listen to it).
All this to say: we are all trying our best to support educational practices that are child-centered and not profit-centered, and we are all indebted to Diane for her efforts in that fight. Let’s move on, united in that cause, even when we may have disagreements from time to time.
Emily is correct about the Charity-Industrial complex and the harm they do. Personally, I suggest The Revolution Will Not Be Funded https://www.dukeupress.edu/the-revolution-will-not-be-funded as an example of what she was trying to say.
That being said, most people understand PPP (Public Private Partnerships) and Privatization as being a “republican thing”.
What they don’t understand is SIB (social impact bonds) are the ‘democrat thing’ for the same end result.
You want to know what DFER is doing…it’s SIB stuff.
Having worked, once, for a foundation, I know that many of them are not monolithic. Foundations typically have a set percentage of their assets that they must bestow in grants each year. They are staffed by differing people with differing motivations, and those interests vary a lot within a given organization. Foundations also differ considerably from one another–sometimes as a matter of their charter/type–in how tightly they are controlled by their founders and benefactors. A given foundation can be doing some things that are very, very good and some that are heedless and stupid. I would rather have Diane Ravitch reviewing applications for grants than just about anyone I know–intelligence, worldly knowledge, and a good heart are a wonderful mix, and Diane knows as well as anyone on the planet about the potential for unintended consequences in philanthropy.
Yes, but, as Tim points out above, it is all an act (for which Diane deserves a MacArthur genius award)
And you fell for it.
Hook line and sinker.
A witchin’ power she has.
Don’t you mean a ‘vitchin power?
I just want to be understand this. Whether you support tech in schools are not, the problem, for me, is that these foundations are influencing public policy with their money when the actual communities are the ones that should be influencing the policy.
So Emily is lying about MacArthur. I thought the heading of the MacArthur post was exactly about how amazing MacArthur is. I don’t care if you reviewed grants. But I do care they you are saying they are altruistic when evidence shows they are not.
Or can you say while you like a lot of what MacArthur does, you hope they will stay away from digital learning influence, as the community should be making that decision.
Also what is the difference between not compromising and being pure?
Tutucker,
I am not pure.
I see life as shades of complexity.
I am not perfect.
I do my best.
I make mistakes.
You should find someone who is perfect and follow them.
Let me know who it is.
Possibly Jesus.
Definitely not me.
Sweet!
I’m not following any almighty leader. There are many leaders in this fight and I just don’t understand the purist statements other than it shuts down the conversation around issues.
My issue is simple IF schools want to use technology etc. It should be their decision and not forced on them. If organizations want to give money do it with no strings attached.
I agree.
Jesus had his moment of doubt. What a hypocrite that guy was.
That’s what the H stands for in Jesus H. Christ
I have sent you several links to articles about what has been going on in Delaware but i haven’t seen much response from you in the past year. I think the battles we all fight deserve all coverage and like it or not, you are the go-to education blogger. I know i questioned you on some things a year ago but I thought we worked that out. I don’t believe Emily was tryng to tarnish your rep, but with your presence at the top of education blogs questions are okay given your sphere of influence. Corporate ed reform is all over the place and sometimes it feels like I am chasing shadows of shadows.
Kevin,
I post from 5-10 times a day. I have to make choices. If you send me something from Delaware that’s a breaking issue, I will post it. Please don’t think I’m asleep at the wheel. I am only one person. No Assistant. Just me. If there is an important education election coming up in Delaware, the NPE Action Fund will activate our members in the state.
Thanks Diane.
A funny coincidence, Diane….
I looked at this blog once more before going to bed last night. I thought about trying to add some comment to this discussion about the MacArthur Foundation. But it’s been a LONG week teaching and my mind was just too addled.
One low point came yesterday. We’ve had some beautiful summer weather here but my room gets super hot. It must have been 90+ degrees and I was attempting to keep a packed class of antsy 8th graders focused on going over a quiz they’ll be taking today on Lincoln, Reconstruction, and civil wars of various sorts. The 1860s…today.
Then, the WASP flew in. I don’t know what crack in the window screens it must have found entry through but there it was, swooping like cursive handwriting, dodging towards the easily distractible students. Whatever lesson plan I’d artfully crafted -my room was now controlled by…. Mr. Wasp.
TEACHER TRIVIA: How do you get rid of wasp in your classroom? Years ago a wonderful colleague of mine taught me this trick. Open one of the shades up fully then turn off the lights. The wasp will eventually seek out the light and land on the window. And so it did. Then, I sauntered over, fly swatter in hand purchased just for this sort of occasion. And, as I continued to talk about President Andrew Johnson, without skipping a beat, I dispatched the lesson-ruiner. Then, I pounded it for good measure with my fist.
Cut, to somewhere around 2 a.m. this morning when I woke up thinking about the WASP, now swooping around my bedroom -or was it in my head. Yeah, the middle-of-the-night, pondering what happened in school bewitching hour.
I have a stack of books next to my bed which I use in such instances so I picked up a collection of short stories by George Saunders. I don’t read a lot of fiction but a really cool guy I’d been drinking beer with at a party back in July had told me about Saunder’s great novel, Lincoln in the Bardo. My wife already had this collection of stories so I finally cracked it open after all these weeks. And, the first thing I saw on the inside cover was the fact that Saunders was a “MacArthur ‘Genius Grant” fellow….”
Damn!
So, I’m reading this crazy good, harrowing story about a middle school-aged girl being abducted all the while kind of also thinking about Diane Ravitch and Emily Talmage and the very real possibility that even more wasps will return to my 8th grade classroom this morning. What the hell?
I don’t know what the moral of this whole story is? Diane, George and Emily are surely smarter than me. Though, we’re also all very HUMAN, too. And, thank God for that! Could we really have geniuses like you if you were not so human???
I scrawled something on a piece of paper at some point this week….a scrap of a thought from school that I’d misplaced until now. “They don’t want a good teacher, they want a good machine”.
No human can do what is being asked of teachers today. To standardize and personalize everything for everyone at the same time, oh-so-quickly. It’s crazy.
But, you know, I killed the WASP. Like to see a computer do that!
The topic of MacArthur grants is now one of the “older posts” on your blog so it’s sort of on it’s way to the archives, so to speak. But I want you to know how much I appreciate you, Diane. I hope you have a wonderful first day of autumn.
John O.,
You brighten my day.
Wasps are a nuisance but you stuck by your plans and responsibility. Strange to have such warm weather after Labor Day, but then so many strange things are happening.
I went to Rosh Hoshana services a couple of days ago, and the rabbi–a brilliant, diminutive, charismatic woman–prayed for those who are suffering in the Caribbean and in Mexico. Hurricanes, earthquakes, forest fires. And she said the earth was crying out, crying because of the way we abuse it.
Yes, strange times.
Wonderful post, John. Indeed, those not in the classroom have no notion how INSANE the demands have become–as though Tim Burton did a remake of Chaplin’s Modern Times.
Very funny, John.
If only dispensing with deformers were as easy as wasps.
Just remember: Deformers fly toward the dark, not the light. So you’ll want to open the closet door.
Didn’t Diane post something about closets recently?
There are no coincidences.
The broom closet door in the case of folks like Michelle Rhee.
Let’s not make any sweeping generalizations, now. 😛
You’re right.
Reformers like Bill Gates don’t fly toward the closet but toward your wallet.
I suggest you be careful with those wasps. My wife was trying to get rid of one at school and fell, fracturing her pelvis.
A related story about the animal kingdom:
My father once told a story about senator Albert Gore Sr. Making a speech some time in the fifties in front of the Farm Bureau picnic. This was a big affair, outside at the American Legion, and Gore was on a farm wagon speaking at a podium when a dog ran headlong across the grass in front of the crowd chasing a rabbit. Every head turned. Gore droned on. Soon he was back into it when they came back across, dog flat out in pursuit, rabbit hellbent for leather. The crowd watched the chase. Gore doggedly stuck to his speech, but on the third pass, he gave up and said “sic’em boy”. I guess he figured he had lost the rabbit vote anyway.
The animal kingdom always garners more attention than the best lesson.
Good advice, Roy. Thanks. I’ve had a few somewhat minor injuries in the classroom over the years. Dumb stuff I did. It happens. Great story about Al Gore, Sr., too.