Peter Greene has fun dissecting a brainstorming session featuring tech titans and billionaires Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. He says, “They never learn.” Same old, same old, repackaged as new.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative are going to attempt– once again– to change the whole world of education.
Their newly-released Request For Information is looking for “all promising ideas for how to use existing and new knowledge and tools to achieve dramatic results against the challenges we describe.” The list of challenges sadly does not include “the repeated failure of rich amateurs to impose their unproven ideas on the US public school system.”
They want YOUR ideas, but they start out with plenty of their own.
A few nuggets of Peter-Greene-Wisdom:
Here are the areas they believe “require more exploration”
Evidence-based solutions for writing instruction, including mastery of the “spectrum of skills encompassing narrative, descriptive, expository and/or persuasive writing models,” a “spectrum” that I’ll argue endlessly is not an actual thing, but is a fake construct created as a crutch for folks who don’t know how to teach or assess writing.
New proficiency metrics. Can we have “consistent measures of student progress and proficiency”? I’m saying “probably not.” “Can we use technology to support new, valid, efficient, and reliable writing performance measures that are helpful for writing coaching?” No, we can’t.
Educator tools and support. Gates-Zuck correctly notes that “effective” writing instruction requires time and resources, so the hope here is, I don’t know– the invention of a time machine? Hiring administrative assistants for all teachers? Of course not– they want to create “tools” aka more technology trying to accomplish what it’s not very good at accomplishing.
Always looking for ways to get better. Kind of like every decent teacher on the planet. I swear– so much of this rich amateur hour baloney could be helped by having these guys shadow an actual teacher all day every day for a full year. At the very least, it would save these endless versions of “I imagine we could move things more easily if we used round discs attached to an axel. I call it… The Wheeble!”
They want your ideas about “Measuring and Improving Executive Function,” which Peter says should creep you out. It creeps me out!
This is personalized [sic] learning at its worst– a kind of Big Brother on Steroids attempt to take over the minds, hearts, and lives of children for God-knows-what nefarious schemes. Only two things make me feel just the slightest bit better about this.
First of all, I’m not sure that Gates-Zuck are evil mad scientist types, cackling wickedly in their darkened laboratory. I’m more inclined to see them as feckless-but-rich-and-powerful computer nerds, who still believe that education is just an engineering problem that can be solved by properly designed sufficiently powered software. They’re technocrats who think a bigger, better machine is the best way to fix human beings.
Second of all– well, wait a minute. The two guys who have bombarded education with enough money to make a small island and who do not have a single clear-cut success to point to– these guys think they’ve got it figured out this time? They have never yet figured out how to better educate the full range of ordinary students (nor ever figured out what “better educate” means) now think they can unlock the formula for better educating students with larger challenges?
This is like going to a circus and the announcer hollers that Evel Von Wheeble is going to jump his motorcycle over fifty buses, and you get very excited until you read the program and see that Von Wheeble previously attempted to jump over ten, twenty and twenty-five buses– and he failed every time.
Peter Greene is still the only blogger who makes me laugh out loud!

My experience so far with “personalized learning” is it involves a ton of testing.
A lot. 25% of the class time these kids are supposedly on some self-guided magical tour of everything they’re actually plugging away punching buttons on shorter versions of standardized tests.
I think they have to test constantly. That’s the guard rail they use to keep kids inside a narrow frame without an actual teacher guiding them.
The constant testing is the electronic monitor that will be used to replace the (expensive) human being.Talking to my son about what he’s doing I realized I did exactly the same thing when I was in school. We had this self-guided reading program that involved color-coded cards with short reading selections and to move up we would test out of the lower color to the next level. It is the same idea. I wasn’t “guiding my own reading”- these short tests were “guiding my reading”. The difference is no one hyped it as “reinventing” anything. Students don’t run personalized learning. The tests run personalized learning. Everything is based on a test score. It involves LESS agency than an ordinary class.
LikeLike
You took me on a trip down memory lane with the colored cards. When I first started teaching in elementary school, I went with a class to the reading lab where students were participating in “programmed reading,” with the colored cards you describe. I remember the look of tedium on the students’ faces. I was there to pick up a new ESL student who was asleep on the bottom level of the bookshelf.
Sadly, treating reading as little bits of information to be tested does reading a disservice. We have evolved so far beyond this stimulus-response approach that this is unfortunate that technology is moving us backwards! Reading is about thinking, feeling and understanding, and it is best done with authentic texts and real humans. The billionaire boys should stay in their lane.
LikeLike
Hello Diane: I read the Request for Information. It’s pretty broad and (though I agree with the drift of Greene’s article, at least in view of the past Gates’ initiatives), it does ask for both “what actually works,” for new initiatives that are theory-driven (a good thing in my view), and for WHAT’S MISSING in the questions they offer in the initiative, including asking for input about what may be wrong with such an initiative and the questions they ask in it. They even say openly that they are NOT pushing technology for technology’s sake. (So it looks like they have heard at least some of the criticisms that are “out there.)
With Greene (I presume), I don’t like the language of “state of the art” which can mean many things to many people, but which resonates in this context with technological refinement, rather than something that is tuned in to the uniqueness of person-hood and classrooms (in this case, students and teachers in public education) or, as Bailey suggests, to the EXECUTIVE FUNCTION of TEACHERS which flies in the face of the idea of earbuds with an “expert” listening in. (How utterly ridiculous is that.)
Also, with Bailey and I think all of us, AGAIN AND AGAIN the whole idea of systematizing smaller classes in public schools so that teachers CAN give individualized/personalized attention (that they ALL understand as essential) needs to be shouted from the school-rooftops. If they keep missing THAT, then they probably are blocked by the apparently cost of it.
The proof, so to speak, of the Gates-Zuckerberg initiative will be in the pudding of WHOSE INFORMATION they listen to from their request FI; and IF they will realize their own background of tech education may be lacking, putting them in the position to rightly want what’s best for children, but totally unqualified to provide it, regardless of the funding they personally enjoy. For instance, they seem not to understand that the development of EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS (which are natural to human beings, but which need development in all of us) sits in a context of many other developmental factors that need to come together to provide the ground for ExFunctions to come to its best developmental fruition. Looking to EF alone, as an abstraction from the whole human situation, is just another blind person feeling the elephant’s leg and thinking they now know that’s all there is to it.
LikeLike
The proof, so to speak, of the Gates-Zuckerberg initiative will be in the pudding of WHOSE INFORMATION they listen to from their request FI;
I think they have already made the pudding and just want some flavoring and confirmation about the feasibility of their vision (recipes) for education. The ten detailed invitations for “information” for writing, ten for math, and a garbled list of jargon-filled sort-of questions about EF shows they are far from blank slates. Also note, privacy about tech and tech are prominent for each of the extended invitations.
LikeLike
I agree, Laura. They know what they plan to do.
LikeLike
“Idollartry”
We’re asking for ideas
Cuz ours are really trash
In case you have some fears
We’re glad to pay you cash
For anything that’s tech
And anything that’s bytes
We pay a lot to wreck
The schools within our sights
LikeLike
“For Dollars’ Sake”
For dollars’ sake
They push the tech
It’s make or break
For schools they wreck.
LikeLike
SomeDAM Poet: They have a disclaimer that you can give them your ideas, but they are obligatied to pay you no money for it. You have to GUESS if they actually use your work, that or if they will bring you in on the project. CBK
LikeLike
It’s really interesting to me how ed reform had zero interest in public schools until it became clear that ed tech was a huge new market.
They suddenly discovered the 90% of kids who attend the unfashionable public sector schools when it was time to push product. As much as they adore charters and private schools if this industry is really gonna take off they have to sell to public schools or it’s not a viable business. They know that. That’s why they’re gifting us with their rare genius after bashing our schools for 20 years.
LikeLike
We didn’t hear a peep from the private sector for the first twenty years I taught. After NCLB everyone became a self appointed “expert” bashing public schools and trying to take it down brick by brick. $$$$$
LikeLike
Public schools shouldn’t buy ed tech product from companies that exclude public schools from ed reform conferences and think tanks and policy design.
if they want your business (and they do- you’re huge buyers- they can’t support a multi-billion dollar industry on Summit and Rocketship) insist they include you at the table.
Demand it. If you’re using the Facebook/Summit product in your public school insist representatives from public schools be invited to the Harvard conference on blended learning. You’re not the subordinates, the “status quo” that can be safely ignored and marginalized when the big decisions are made. You serve NINETY PER CENT of families. Act like it.
They’ll respond to market pressure. Ed tech is a business.
LikeLike
Eva Moskowitz would never spend millions of dollars with ed tech companies that lobbied against charter schools.
Public schools shouldn’t either.
Don’t send these people public school funds which they then use to lobby against the continued existence of your school. They need you WAY more than you need them.
LikeLike
I’ve been a writing teacher for 50 years. Most important toolsl: small classes and individual mentoring of students during and after classes taught by full-time, well-paid and well-trained teachers; a student-centered problem-posing process steeped in dialogue and rhetoric, which orient human communication to meaningful discussion in contexts which are legible and compelling to student writers. Big investment will be in small classes and in teacher development, along with field projects for students to examine and report on their world, not so much vast technical devices or testing regimes(sorry tech billionaires looking to further market their wares).
LikeLike
From the article:
“EFs have been shown to be measurable. . .”
OH, they have? Well, then. . . What is the agreed upon standard unit of measure of “executive function” that is being used? What nationally/internationally recognized standards organization has sanctioned said standard unit of measure of “executive function”? Where is the exemplar of that standard unit kept so that all can use it when designing measuring devices for that “executive functioning”?
OH, and where can we find that “executive functioning” in order to be able to measure it?
LikeLike
We can be pretty sure that the executive functioning is not to be found in either the brain of Bill Gates or the brain of Mark Zuckerberg because neither of them has any self-control, at least not with regard to schools.
They just go ahead and do whatever pops into their head with no thought whatsoever about the consequences to teachers or children.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Free advice for Gates/Zuck: the secret to writing ability is not writing instruction; it’s reading lots of good writing. And the secret to reading ability is a classical, knowledge-rich curriculum. Ergo the secret to writing ability is a classical, knowledge-rich curriculum.
LikeLike
I like your persistence, Ponderosa. Kind of like my Quixotic Quest to rid the world of education standards and standardized testing. May we one day succeed! 🙂
LikeLike
Ditto what Duane said
I think the fundamental problem is that people like Gates and Zuckerberg lack knowledge outside their very narrow discipline of computer coding.
Gaining a broad base of knowledge is what college is about, so it’s no surprise that two college droputs are lacking in that regard.
LikeLike