I intended to make this the only post of the day, but late last night I learned of the lawsuit in Florida challenging the disastrous HB 7069, a gift to charter operators.
So this is the last post you will see today. I want you to read it in full. The post was written by veteran journalist John Merrow with Mary Levy, a civil rights and education finance lawyer, and an education finance and policy analyst.
One of the key episodes in the short and divisive history of the corporate reform movement was the appointment of Michelle Rhee as Chancellor of the D.C. public school system. Rhee became the public face of the movement. Rhee was idolized by the media because of her take-no-prisoners style and her evident contempt for teachers and unions. Amanda Ripley wrote a cover story about Rhee for TIME magazine, which suggested that Rhee knew how to fix America’s schools. The cover showed her scowling and wielding a broom, ready to sweep out the bad teachers in D.C. Newsweek put her on its cover. I wrote a chapter about her in my book, Reign of Error, describing the adulation she received and the cheating scandal that broke on her watch. As it happened, Rhee identified one elementary school principal as exactly the kind of relentless, data-driven, no-excuses sort of person that she wanted more of. He received bonuses because of the incredible improvement of test scores. Incredible indeed, because his school was at the nexus of the cheating scandal, identified by the unusual number of erasures from wrong-to-right on standardized tests. He was soon gone. Immediately after Mayor Adrian Fenton was defeated in 2010, Rhee resigned, vowing to create a group called StudentsFirst, which would raise $1 Billion and enlist one million members. The name of the group typified Rhee’s divisive approach: education works best when students, teachers, parents, and the community work together. She never raised $1 Billion or one million members, but she actively supported vouchers and charters and gave substantial funding to candidates who would vote in the state legislature for privatization and against unions. She married the mayor of Sacramento, where she lives now. StudentsFirst merged with another anti-public school group.
But the myth of the transformation of the D.C. schools under Rhee and her successor Kaya Henderson lives on, Because to acknowledge the failure of teacher-bashing would harm the movement.
John Merrow contributed to the myth of Michelle Rhee, in a major way. To understand his credibility now, it is necessary to recognize his role in building that myth. As the PBS education correspondent, he featured her work in D.C. about a dozen times. He was a believer. But when he was doing his last show, a full hour about Rhee, he had an epiphany. Was it because she invited him to film her firing a principal? Was it the cheating scandal? Was it the effort to cover up the cheating? I don’t know. What I do know is that Merrow had the courage to change his mind. His admiration changed to doubt then to skepticism then to criticism. I understand his transformation because I have been there. I too once believed in what is deceptively called “Reform.” I saw the light. So did Merrow.
Merrow and Levy call this post “A Complete History” of Rhee’s reforms. It is one part of the history, but it is not THE Complete History. “The Complete History” would be a job of deep investigative research that would determine why Rhee, who had never been a principal or a superintendent and had taught only briefly in a privately-run contract school in Baltimore, was chosen to lead the D.C. system. It would examine the claims she made about the spectacular score gains in her classes (which G.F. Brandenburg debunked on his blog). It would investigate the negotiations among funders like Gates and Broad, who let it be known that their money would be cut off if Rhee left the district. It would delve into the district’s relations with the reactionary Walton Family Foundation, which targeted D.C. for charter saturation.
John Merrow’s knowledgeable perspective is important. The story is not all bad. He calls attention to the positive changes that occurred on Rhee’s watch. But where he comes down hard is on the mistaken idea that the route to success requires administrators who “crack down” on teachers, who offer rewards and punishments for teachers based on test scores. That strategy produces teaching to the test, score inflation, gaming the system, and narrowing the curriculum.
That is why this is the only post you are likely to see today. It is long, and it deserves your full attention.
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education.
I sent a portion to the Mayor in my City; also to the newly elected rep for my City in the State Assembly (the portion about Merrow’s epiphany)
I’m sorry, better late than never, I suppose, and I appreciate Merrow’s change of mind, but really he has never done enough to repent of his role in elevating Rhee in the first place. He talks very little now of his former love for her, as if he’s always had this negative opinion of her.
And love is what it was too. It was an unquestioning, blind devotion that overlooked so many obvious things that should have given him pause. As you said, she “had never been a principal or a superintendent and had taught only briefly in a privately-run contract school in Baltimore”. Didn’t that matter to Merrow upfront? It’s not like he didn’t know it.
And maybe he had qualms about filming her firing a principal on air, but he let her do it. What kind of human being does that? When I was a supervisor (briefly) I had to fire exactly two people, both of whom had it coming. Nevertheless, I was sick to my stomach doing it – they were still people, after all, people who had children to support and bills to pay. I know firing is a necessary evil of being in management, but I can’t fathom how anyone can take pleasure in it, let alone do it on air in such a blatantly humiliating manner.
I get the seductive power of love (and the love of seductive power), but when one comes to one’s senses, one has an obligation to repent of the evil done under that power. Merrow never has.
This problem of individuals never taking responsibility for their obvious wrongness is at the root of much of what ails our country.
And for some odd reason, we (the public) still give such people a megaphone.
This same pattern appears over and over.
The people behind the invasion of Iraq are still treated as foreign policy experts.
The people behind the financial collapse of 08 are still treated as economic experts.
And the people behind NCLB and other disastrous “reforms” are still treated as education experts, though they never even acknowledged their own complicity.
John Merrow singing Rhee’s praises in 2010
“what happened to Michelle Rhee. she’s politically tone deaf” –
“It was great fun following her on the news hour…including the [episode] where she fired someone” — John Merrow in the above video
I think there are probably a lot of teachers who did not consider Rhee “great fun”.
you are correct; I don’t consider it fun… and the teachers who are in jail for “cheating” the tests….
Incidentally, that last comment by Merrow proves that he not only had no problem with the on air firing, but actually enjoyed it.
Firing someone on air is completely unprofessional and callous.
And enjoying it is just perverse. Sick, actually.
I’m starting to think PBS is the culprit, not Merrow. I can see them pressuring their reporters to make their corporate billionaire funders happy. He SHOULD repent publicly, but at least he changed his tune the moment he retired from PBS.
Speaking as a newsroom veteran, I think InService has a good point. And at many workplaces, including media, retiring employees sign nondisparagement agreements, so he may well not be able to say.
“Even if the graduation rate increase is real, given the minuscule percentages of students in most high schools who are proficient by the Common Core PARCC standards, what significance could it possibly have? If undereducated students are being graduated, how is that anything but a hollow triumph?”
First, why do the authors assume that “proficiency” based on the Common Bore PARCC means anything? Second, what would they consider a “real” triumph? Not graduating those students? Sending them out into the world with no way to earn even a minimal living? I get the concern with “grade inflation” and credit recovery and what a high school diploma really means, but in this day and age where a young adult can’t even function without a diploma, I think we need to reckon with the issue of graduation rates in a whole different way.
“First, why do the authors assume that “proficiency” based on the Common Bore PARCC means anything? ” MA is chasing the competitive record of being “first”. … being “First” has a goal in and of itself — people who want to make a name for themelves (or , in the case of Pearson, make profits)…I keep trying to remind the governor we are about #28 in equity….. And I know I wrote here before the Fordham I. says “students in christian countries do better on these tests” … Barbara Madelonihas stated the tests are white supremacist and I agree with her. But even before making that conclusion , they have not been able to prove validity and reliability — that is why they get so angry when students/parents opt out.
The article points out that some of the gains in scores are due to gentrification. Washington D.C. like New Orleans has experienced a turnover of neighborhoods to yuppies, most of whom are white. D.C. now has several mostly white charters. As a result of the population shift and privatization in Washington D.C.,schools have become more segregated in a two tiered system, an imbalanced result of “choice.”
to get the test scores up, more brownstones, more $3 million dollar homes; and more kids with names like those on the law firms and banks/hedge funds… yes, gentrification will do the job… and as Romney stated: “get them to self-deport” and your test scores will zoom
Just a few points, writing from California: Sexual harassment scandals popped up around Rhee’s husband, now-former Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, and he chose not to run again and slunk into obscurity. Not that this is Rhee’s fault, of course.
I was in Sacramento, 90 miles from my San Francisco home base, a couple of years ago just before StudentsFirst supposedly “merged” (aka folded). I was insanely curious, so I went to look at their HQ. It was an office, marked only by its name on a list on the entry-code pad, over a T-Mobile store in a neighborhood of downtown Sacramento called Alkali Flats. Not that I would admire glitz, but StudentFirst did rake in a whole lot of money and it makes you wonder where it all went. I would speculate that Rhee and Johnson are living quite nicely on the proceeds.
Rhee and Johnson, partners in child molestation and cruelty.
https://janresseger.wordpress.com/2017/11/15/14655/
Thanks, Jean, for posting this link to the janresseger blog above. Very informative!
“The adults who changed answers, coached students during testing, and shared exams before the tests were not thinking about their students, just themselves, their jobs, and the appearance of success.”
So, it was the teachers’ fault. Those teachers, y’know, always thinking about themselves first.
Does it occur to the authors that those teachers might have felt that they had to do what they do for the students? What good would it do to get themselves fired? They had to generate the numbers in order to remain employed. Perhaps they wanted to remain employed because they felt they were helping the students? If they got themselves fired for not making the numbers because they refused to cheat, there would just be others brought in who would cheat.
I’m not condoning cheating (although, since the tests are meaningless anyway, I don’t really give a rat’s patoot), but the blame for it belongs solely with the administrative climate created by Rhee and Henderson. Merrow even admits that they filmed meetings between principals and Rhee in which their jobs were threatened if they didn’t make the numbers (and still his love affair continued). What does Merrow himself think he would have done in such a situation?
Perhaps that would be more accurately titled “A complete Rheewrite of Rheeform”
Anyone who actually looked into that whole sorry test affair understands that it is plausible that least some of those teachers genuinely believed that changing answers was the ONLY way they could save their schools.
I have an idea.
How about we hold “journalists” (i use the term liberally) to the same standard to which they hold everyone else?
What we know is that the higher the stakes, the more likely there will be cheating. It becomes a coping mechanism for some that are concerned about themselves, their class or even their school. There are often cheating scandals in Asia because those young people are carrying the burden of the entire reputation of their families on their shoulders. For some the way to “save face” is to cheat.
Thanks, Dienne, for going through and reading that nonsense. I have read the first couple of paragraphs and find myself utterly amazed that the authors believe they know about public education, just more of the same ol same ol in regards to the fiasco in DC.
THANK YOU for this extremely important question: “So, it was the teachers’ fault. Those teachers, y’know, always thinking about themselves first. Does it occur to the authors that those teachers might have felt that they had to do what they do for the students?”
John Merrow once asked: who created Michelle Rhee?
Jersey Jazzman answers:” John Merrow did”
http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com/2013/04/who-created-michelle-rhee-john-merrow.html
Thanks for the link. Very telling.
Ouch.
Reblogged this on Crazy Normal – the Classroom Exposé and commented:
This is about the fraud and lies behind the REAL Michelle Rhee, and her links to Bill Gates, Eli Broad, and the Walton Family Foundation. It was all smoke and mirrors.
In briefly reading the article and in attempting to read Merrow’s book “Addicted to Reform” (which I struggle getting through more than a paragraph or two without shouting “What a bunch of Bullshit” with Merrow’s self adulation and little grey paragraphs about what he has done to attempt to save the schools, ay ay ay) about all I can say is Merrow is addicted to mental masturbation in regards to the public schools.
The thing I find very bizarre is the idea that someone who calls himself a journalist would see his role as “saving the schools”.
Isn’t a journalist supposed to maintain a distance from the subject he is reporting on?
Shouldn’t his role have been restricted to reporting on the background and qualifications of people like Rhee, reporting on what they were doing and assessing the accuracy of the claims that they were making?
Where did journalists get the idea that it is OK for them to be involved in making and pushing particular policies?
IMHO that’s too complicated an issue to slam Merrow on. Commentators are free to espouse positions. Journalists are still allowed to participate in democracy. Journalists who write about a cause are free to hope to change policy: For example, co-workers of mine have exposed abuses in publicly run institutions that house foster children, and they are free to hope that laws and practices will improve those institutions. As a highly opinionated person who’s also a newsroom journalist, I would urge you to think more deeply about that notion.
And Merrow retired (or was retired?) from PBS and is now pursuing his own interests as a commentator. I was an outspoken education advocate during a long hiatus from my own newsroom career, am now largely mum after returning to my career, and plan to be a huge loudmouth after retiring. I hope you’re not saying I can never ever express opinions for the rest of my life, SomeDAM Poet.
In my opinion, when a journalist essentially acts as a cheerleader for a policy or person, it is not journalism.
Perhaps journalists need to take a good look at their own profession before they criticize the professions of others.
But it really matters not what I think.
Journalists will continue to do and write whatever they want.
Which is your right, of course.
Puff pieces and cheerleading are always crap journalism. But I have to dispute the notion that journalists are banned for life from expressing opinions or advocating for causes.
John Merrow used the considerable resources, reach and influence of his PBS platform to advocate for Rhee’s policies.
Such advocacy was not not based on research on and an analysis of the likely efficacy and repercussions of such policies. In fact, if Merrow had acted like a real journalist, he would have easily (within a matter of minutes) found considerable research (by Campbell and others) predicting precisely the cheating and other outcomes that were observed in DC.
I don’t believe that Merrow’s advocacy was OK.
And I certainly don’t believe it had anything whatsoever to do with real journalism.
But others are free to disagree.
Agreed that it was poor journalism. I’m challenging the notion that journalists and retired may never have opinions or engage in advocacy as long as they live (I’m pretty sure you’ve dropped that claim, SomeDAM Poet, or didn’t realize that’s what you were actually espousing). I’m a working newsroom journalist and I have opinions now, though I carefully stay within ethical bounds; and I fully intend to engage in all the advocacy I want after I retire — and I’m pretty sure you aren’t actually saying I don’t have that right.
Sorry, dropped a word. Journalists and retired JOURNALISTS.
carolinesf,
The issue isn’t isn’t, or shouldn’t be, about whether journalists are allowed to express their opinions on matters of public importance. Of course they should be.
The issue is, what about opinions that masquerade as journalism? That’s what this is about, that Merrow used his platform, under the guise of reporting, to promote a particular set of policies that were being administered by someone who was clearly a sociopath.
The irony is that Merrow was a good enough reporter that he showed us things about Rhee – the sadistic public firing of a Principal on TV, for example – that he himself was blind to. Or told to promote by PBS/Gates Foundation TV.
Merrow either thinks he had nothing to do with the creation of Rhee, or dishonestly wants us to believe that, now that she has been so thoroughly discredited.
Personally, I choose Door #2.
Personally, I choose the goat behind door number 3.
At least I know what I’m getting.
Merrow is trying to launder his reputation, without taking any responsibility whatsoever for his role in creating the malevolent Rhee. The article opens with talk about how a hot air balloon cannot stay afloat without constant infusions of more hot air; true enough, but what he conveniently neglects to mention is that he and PBS/Gates Foundation TV were among the largest pumps providing that hot air.
In fact, I have even less respect for him than I did before, since this is an obvious case of him sensing which way the wind is blowing and, political weather vane that he is, turning so that it’s at his back.
I think you hit the nail on the head!
I think he hit the balloon on the nail.
Take pity on the man. He has a book to sell, after all.
Too cynical.
Merrow knows where the money and power are.
He crossed the street.
That makes two of us.
Diane, you admitted that you were wrong and spent a whole book exploring the what, how and why of that. Merrow has done no such thing. He’s just pretending he’s been on this side all along. You can’t cause harm to thousands of people and then pretend that you’ve been a friend to those people all along.
Diane, you suffered real-world, professional consequences for your apostasy.
Merrow, in the other hand, was a loudspeaker for so-called reform up until he left PBS, and only now is making partial attempts to remedy that, while still refusing to accept responsibility for the damage he did.
Your actions highlight your integrity, while his speak of opportunism, cowardice and hypocrisy.
Michael Fiorillo,
What kind of “opportunism” led John Merrow to have crossed over to the other side as Diane Ravitch did?
There is none. He came to realize that he was wrong. In doing so, he made a decision that was not “opportunist” at all. On the contrary, he made a decision that would close the door to many opportunities to enrich himself.
Changing one’s mind is not always about opportunism — especially when any unbiased person who looked at the facts would understand that there was no financial or career incentive for Merrow to change his mind. Just like there was none for Diane Ravitch.
Maybe Merrow should offer more mea culpas. I am less concerned with people offering abject apologies for past bad behavior than whether they have actually changed or are simply mouthing the words that will bring them more money or riches.
And in this case, Merrow’s actions seem quite sincere and the opposite of “opportunistic”.
I thought the criticisms that many of you are making about John Merrow’s earlier reporting are completely valid.
However, I don’t think it is quite fair to say he changed his mind because of “sensing which way the wind is blowing”. If anything, it seems he reconsidered his position a few years ago and he received a huge amount of criticism and attacks from the reformers when he did. And at the time he reconsidered his position, the Obama/Duncan love for charters was still in full force.
At least give him credit for finally recognizing some of the problems. I agree he should have done it earlier or offered up more of a mea culpa. But that doesn’t mean that his recognition is simply because he thinks that is the popular view.
He came to realize that he was wrong. My hope is that Democrats like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren who haven’t yet recognized how co-opted the entire educational reform movement is will do what Merrow does and stop providing cover for them. And when they do, I will absolutely believe that they aren’t doing because of which way the wind is blowing but because they finally recognize what the rest of us already know.
If he came to realize he was wrong, why is there no admission of that, and of his role in hyping a vicious sociopath, and of the damage that caused?
Sorry, but I’m not as forgiving as you.
To the extent that Merrow’s turning on Rhee creates more headwinds for the so-called reform narrative, that’s of course a good thing, and I respect his skills as a reporter (would that he’s put them to good use sooner!) but that doesn’t mean that he’s deserving of respect or admiration, given his “comfort the comfortable” reportage and his continuing lack of integrity.
At least John Merrow recognized the damage of charters!
I am still waiting for a single progressive politician to make as good a case against them as John Merrow does here. I am still waiting for any progressive politician to stand up and explain everything that is wrong with charter schools and strongly oppose them.
I’m grateful when people realize they were snookered and change their minds.
And when one of those progressive politicians who have yet to come out as strongly as Merrow does for public education changes their mind and really FIGHTS to change things as Merrow is doing, I promise I won’t blame them for their years of ignoring the abuses and giving legitimacy to politicians like Andrew Cuomo who should be shunned by every progressive politician for the damage he has done to public education in NY. Not legitimized because he offers up a mediocre “free college” plan that is not nearly as good as advertised.
I think it’s called “learning”. and I am glad I can still be capable of it at my “young and tender age”… how about a poem about that?
I have one I am sharing : A rose is a rose is a rose is a rose that’s how this thing about frat boys goes An oaf is an oaf is an oaf is an oaf but sometimes it’s only a half-baked loaf
I admit to being lousy at poetry
I’m grateful when people realize they were snookered and change their minds.
jeanhaverhill@aol.com
^^I will add that I agree with all your criticisms of Merrow’s earlier reporting, Michael, and I’m glad you are bringing this up. I would certainly think more highly of Merrow if he did offer the mea culpa you rightly point out that he should be offering.
But I think his turnaround is legitimate because the money is still in the reform movement and opposing him as he now does has made him the object of attacks and criticism.
According to SomeDAMPoet, Merrow has been generously paid over the years, and rather than seeking money, appears to be trying to compensate for the damage his false reporting did.
But he seems to want his cake and be able to eat it, also: to assume the high road by discrediting the already discredited figure of Rhee ( and how much courage does that take, at this point?) while acknowledging no responsibility for promoting her in the first place.
I’m glad he’s doing what he’s doing now, but it doesn’t excuse his prior gross professional negligence.
“Hot air Bulloons”
Bulloons are floating everywhere
Kept aloft with hottest air
Following the latest breeze
Changing tack with greatest ease
Goodnight. Goodnight. Rheeform is such sweet sorrow, that I shall say goodnight til it be Merrow.
Good one!
But soft! I hear the Hark!
It is of pivotal importance that Rheeformers’ claims of $ucce$$ be debunked, that devalue be added to their methods. DAM. It’s no exaggeration that the future of public education, that the future of democracy, that the future of our country, that the very future is on the line. Take every ally and eschew the use of his or her checkered past to brush aside the argument against Rheeformation.
Merrow and Levy’s points that the test score gains were fixed and fallacious and that administrative bloat, school instability, and pressure to cheat (I’ll add pressure to narrow the curriculum) have done great harm are important points not to be overlooked. I question their reliance on test scores, graduation rates, and AP class enrollment as indicators. I do not question their point that Rhee and Henderson have been a plague on Washington D.C., the United States, and humanity around the world.
” It’s no exaggeration that the future of public education, that the future of democracy, that the future of our country, that the very future is on the line.”
Yes it is an exaggeration. Unless you are speaking tongue in cheek and my TIC detector is malfunctioning, the future will always be there as it always has been.
But you are correct to question the “metrics” (sic) used by Merrow and Levy as being less than adequate as explanatory devices for the supposed horrendousness of American public education.
Duane,
Public education is a cornerstone of civic engagement and of democracy. Privatize it, digitalize it, computerize it, and all fall down.
Just can’t agree with that thought.
No question, John Merrow was – early on – part of the problem. Like Jay Mathews at The Post, Merrow slobbered all over Rhee. To his credit, he changed his mind. The piece linked to here lays bare just how deep the Rhee cheating scandal was.
But, speaking of PBS, the other night on PBS New Hour there was a piece on STEM, reported by Lisa Stark of Education Week. Talk about a charade. You can watch or read the transcript here:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/after-school-stem-programs-inspire-kids-to-keep-learning
I posted a lengthy comment, concluding with this:
“PBS News Hour just become partners with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable and big corporations – some of whom have laid off thousands of STEM workers and engaged in what might easily be called tax fraud – in perpetuating educational mythology.”
There’s some really bad education reporting in this country.
Jay Mathews made a sudden shift to criticizing (and then shutting up about) Rhee after his wife, then an editor at USA Today, oversaw the exposes of test cheating under Rhee. Mathews is still an avid cheerleader for other so-called education “reform” “miracles” like KIPP, so folks may not be noticing his shift in attitude about Rhee.
Yes, I know Mathews “shifted” his views about Rhee, because the cheating evidence was so abundant and clear. Yet, Mathews slobbers all over KIPP….and he willfully and consistently ignores the research on his very favorite thing, Advanced Placement.
People may hot notice the Mathews ‘shift.’ They are also unlikely to notice that PBS is in bed with the “reformers” too.
I sent paragraph rom this post to the Mayor and members of the school committee. One school committee responded about our city: “It’s the ghetto-ization of low expectations that drives me nuts. Haverhill’s student achievement numbers are terrible. Our students perform as though they are living in a much poorer city than Haverhill. If we don’t change this dynamic on the local and state level, Haverhill will eventually become a much poorer place in the years ahead. ”
This is an over-generalization that doesn’t examine the details of reasons and causes. Also, it relies on the invalid and unreliable tests. Yes, we are in the quadrant on the “lower left” corner and we need to move out from there — but the test is a very blunt instrument with no power to help us gain the necessary information about our students.
Doesn’t this school committee person’s statement place it entirely on the attitudes of teachers and administrators who are the closest to the students “holding low” expectations. Also, he is reverberating the Jeb Bush language.
Who is doing the “ghettoization”? I think it is zoning and structures that define where people can or cannot afford to pay rents.
PBS gets 90% of its funding from private sources.
In nyc, David Koch was chairman of the board for Channel 13, our PBS station.
Merrow did not turn on Rhee because he had an epiphany and suddenly realized that her policies were wrong headed and damaging.
He turned on her because he learned from a memo that she had been informed of cheating and failed to act.
And now Merrow is just acknowledging what has become obvious to nearly everyone.
“Welcome to Rheeality”
Welcome to Rheeality
Good to have you here
Rhee was rheeally bad, you see
A fact that’s rheeally clear
Campbell told us long ago
That testing warps the schools
Rhee ignored it, doncha know?
A policy of fools
MERROW: too little too late. You still don’t understand reality.
John Merrow has made a pretty penny over the last decade (at least part of that while advocating for Michelle Rhee and her policies)
As an example, in just the 3 years between 2013- 2015, as President of the non profit” [sic] company Learning Matters (based in NY) Merrow made (from reportable compensation + other compensation) a total of $282,802 (2013), $246,307 (2014) and $1,127, 550 (2015)
About $500,00 of the total for those 3 years was in “reportable compensation” (base pay, w2 wages) and the rest in “other compensation from organization and related organizations”
Yes, you read that last one correctly over 1 million dollars for a single year ($1,013,058 of that was listed under “estimated other compensation from organization or related organizations”. The assets for Learning Matters for 2015 are listed as $0 and Learning Matters was acquired by another company that year)
To see the breakdown of Merrow’s compensation for various years you can visit the Economic Research Institute site and search on Learning Matters inc (NY)
The 990 forms provide all the info
http://www.eri-nonprofit-salaries.com/?FuseAction=NPO.Search
The 2007 irs990 does not give Merrow’s compensation, but for the years between 2008 and 2015, he was compensated a total of $2,984,260.
$1.4 million of that was in “reportable (W2) compensation” and the rest in “estimated other compensation”
The company describes their purpose
“To provide and disseminate public service television programming”
I believe Learning Matters was under contract with PBS for part or all of the time Merrow was producing reports for them, which means at least part of his compensation was being underwritten by the American public because PBS gets federal funding.
My point in this is not to say that journalists should not be paid.
But I certainly don’t believe they should be paid for advocacy.
And even if some (or even most) of it was not advocacy, the amount he was paid seems to be excessive for what is claimed to be “public service programming.”
For the eight years between 2008 and 2015, he received an average base pay of $177,000 per year.
Remind me again. How many k-12 teachers make that?
I just tried the link I gave above and it is no longer working for me for some reason.
Bit here’s another link to the 990 forms for Learning Matters for 2013-2015.
The NY listings are the applicable ones
http://990finder.foundationcenter.org/990results.aspx?action=Find&fn=Learning+matters&st=&ei=
There are undoubtedly other sites that you can get the 990s from including the IRS site
Those pay scales are much more in tune with what propagandists and PR flaks earn, not journalists.
The sad part is that real investigative journalists have a hard time getting paid a dime for their pieces these days because the mainstream media outlets (including NPR and PBS) won’t print or air anything that will upset the owners, advertisers and underwriters. And anyone who will not do as they are told is shown the door.
So the real journalists get driven out to the ” fringes” — to organizations like Truthdig, which , these days, typically get blackballed as “Russian propaganda outlets” and screened from internet searches by Google.