I wish that the New York Times were not behind a paywall. I wish you could read this article in full. It is an interview with Melinda Gates.
You would get a sense of a very rich and very privileged woman who doesn’t realize how out of touch she is with the lives of ordinary people.
The interviewer wants to know how she feels about her privilege, given the rise of tide of anger against elites and the super-rich.
Here are a few snippets:
One of the recurring criticisms of large-scale philanthropists is that they aren’t interested in any redress of the economic systems that create inequality. But in order to rectify inequalities, doesn’t a radical rethinking need to happen? Bill and I are both on the record saying that we believe in more progressive taxes. We believe in an estate tax. We don’t believe in enormous inherited wealth.
There are certain places where Bill and I sit where that is not a popular idea. Bill will be the first person to tell you, and Warren Buffett will be the second, that they could not have done what they did without having grown up in the United States, benefiting from the United States education system, benefiting from the infrastructure that exists here to build a business. If they had grown up in — pick your favorite place — Senegal, they couldn’t have started their businesses. There’s no way. So they have benefited. But we do need to think about how we right some of these inequities. How do we open our networks of power for women and people of color? We have to think about our privilege. I have to think about my privilege every day.
Yet, they choose to live in the lowest-taxed state in the nation, where there is no income tax and no corporate tax. With all of Gates’ power and influence, he has not lobbied the Washington State legislature to pass a progressive income tax. The schools of Washington State have been underfunded for years, and it took a long-running court case to get the legislature to allocate more money to them. Meanwhile, Bill used his influence to fight for a charter school law, enabling about 3,500 students to attend charter schools in a state with a student enrollment of one million. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates had very different experiences in “the United States education system.” Bill went to private school in Seattle, with small classes, lavish facilities, and experienced teachers; his own children attended the same elite private school. Warren Buffett went to public school in Omaha, sent his own children to public school in Omaha, and they sent their children to public school.
What’s a recent epiphany you’ve had about your privilege? That it’s not enough to read about it. You have to be in the community with people who don’t look like you. When I read about a shooting, maybe in the south side of Seattle, I’m not living the experience. Whereas if I have a friend who’s a person of color, they most likely are living that experience or know somebody who was part of that community. And so my youngest daughter and I — she has a lot of friends whom I’m meeting, and they’re of very mixed races, I love that — have this motto that we go by: Every single person who walks through our door should feel comfortable in our house, despite how large it is and that it has nice art. And, believe me, there are people who show up at my front door who are not that comfortable. So sometimes that means sitting down inside the front door with our dog — and I’m in my yoga pants, no makeup on — and petting the dog until they’re comfortable being there. And only if we’ve made them comfortable can we be in real community. I have to do more to break down those barriers. It is very hard for almost anybody to show up at my front door….
To get back to philanthropy: What about the notion that the foundation’s work on an issue like public education is inherently antidemocratic? You’ve spent money in that area in a way that maybe seems like it’s crowding out people’s actual wants in that area. What’s your counter to that criticism? Bill and I always go back to “What is philanthropy’s role?” It is to be catalytic. It’s to try and put new ideas forward and test them and see if they work. If you can convince government to scale up, that is how you have success. But philanthropic dollars are a tiny slice of the United States education budget. Even if we put a billion dollars in the State of California, that’s not going to do that much. So we experiment with things. (Including funding small-population schools, bonuses for high-performing teachers and supporting the development and implementation of the Common Core educational standards.)
If we had been successful, David, you’d see a lot more charter schools. I’d love to see 20 percent charter schools in every state. But we haven’t been successful. I’d love to say we had outsize influence. We don’t.
Certainly you have more influence than, say, a group of parents. Not necessarily. I went and met with a group of three dozen parents in Memphis. We thought we had a good idea for them. They were having none of it. So we didn’t move forward. A group of parents, a group of teachers, they can have a very large influence.
Well, Melinda is wrong about the influence of the foundation and the Gates’. After all, they singlehandedly (or four-handedly) funded the Common Core standards and paid out millions to every organization they could think of advocate for them. More than anyone else, the Gates Foundation imposed the Common Core standards on the nation, and they flopped by any measure one could think of. All of their “experiments” on the American educational system have failed. But she is right that the charter movement has stalled. In some states where the Gates’ have been most active, only 3-5% of the students are in charter schools. Now that scandals appear daily in the charter industry, this investment is blowing up too. And as she said, “a group of parents, a group of teachers, they can have a very large influence.” Yup. Parents and teachers can beat big money. They can beat the Gates’ money and protect their public schools from being one of Bill & Melinda’s “experiments.”

What a liar? The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a tax shelter that helps them avoid paying the taxes they should pay.
Gates says he pays his personal taxes but how much he pays depends on how much his Foundation and/or LLCs pay him through his salary. What if he pays himself only $1,000 a month and his total taxable income is $12,000 a month and all of his housing expenses are covered by his foundation and/or LLCs because the house isn’t in his name but belongs to the foundation and/or LLCs.
I know someone worth several million who owns her home with no mortgage (her property is all under her LLC and not in her name) and she only pays herself $1,500 a month and her personal taxable income is $18,000 annually. The bank accounts for her LLC hold most of her cash and the property tax and upkeep for her property (house and rentals) is paid out of that LLC cash so there is no direct link to her personal credit cards and bank accounts.
She, like Bill Gates, can also claim to never cheat on her personal taxes.
LikeLike
So true, Lloyd. Microsoft I really micro-something else.
Bill and Melinda are blind. They have no clue. They are blinded by their egos and money. Sad.
LikeLike
Catalyst is not a good analogy for the way the Gates’ use their money.
A much better analogy is a siphon, which gas a very superficial resemblance to a catalyst because it allows one to overcome an initial energy barrier to get a process going.
A siphon can be very small and not much pumping is required to get the flow going, but once it is going, you can drain an entire lake with no additional pumping required.
Common Core was a siphon that, once started, drained billions of dollars from public coffers.
Same with charters.
Philanthropists are basically glorified plumbers who have yet to see a lake they didn’t want to drain.
LikeLike
Then they, the philanthro-cons are horrible plumbers who overcharge. When they do a $20 rotor-router job to unplug the pipes and charge you $500, the next day your pipe is plugged up again and they do not guarantee their work.
LikeLike
And they decide they need to fund pipelines of teaching talent like the TFAs who teach for a while.
LikeLike
“A group of parents, a group of teachers, they can have a very large influence”
The implication is that they can have an outsized influence.
And “group of teachers” is clearly code for teachers’ unions.
I bet she had an annoyed looked on her face when she said that.
LikeLike
Melinda Gates says “we experiment with things. (Including funding small-population schools, bonuses for high-performing teachers and supporting the development and implementation of the Common Core educational standards.)”
It’s much more accurate to say that they experiment with/on PEOPLE — teachers and children — and do it without informed consent.
That is highly unethical.
It’s also interesting that Melinda left out VAM when she mentioned the experiments, though she did mention merit pay, so she is clearly aware of experiments carried out on teachers specifically.
LikeLike
“Bill and I always go back to “What is philanthropy’s role?” It is to be catalytic. It’s to try and put new ideas forward and test them and see if they work. If you can convince government to scale up, that is how you have success”
That is not at all what was done in the case of Common Core, which was effectively imposed on millions of school children before anyone knew what impact (positive or negative) it would have.
Even Bill Gates said in 2013
“It would be great if our education stuff worked, but that we won’t know for probably a decade.”
Obviously, Melinda and Bill have a fundamental disagreement philanthropy’s role because seeing if things “work” (whatever that means) before they are scaled up is the exact opposite of scaling them up and then seeing if they “worked”.
It would certainly appear that in the case of Common Core, they used mean$ other than results of small scale pilot studies to convince the government to scale up.
LikeLike
Small correction – Warren Buffett was born in Omaha and started his education there, but his father was a Congressman and he received most of his education in DC Public Schools, including Alice Deal Junior High and Woodrow Wilson High schools
LikeLike
Warren may think his PR image and Democratic verbiage will protect him from the 99%. His son, Howard, may think that arming a private volunteer group and importing privately employed enforcement personnel (Arizona New Times, 1-13-2019) will protect him. But, they both should consider the experience of the French and Russian revolutions.
LikeLike
not sure why you posted your comment in response to me, since it is totally irrelevant to what I poste
LikeLike
Ms. Gates is living in a bubble. She cannot understand any issue from a working person’s perspective. If she and Bill had not lobbied along with so many other wealthy individuals to rig our tax system, they would not have access to so much money that they use to meddle in other people’s lives. A lot of that money would would have been used instead to build bridges, roads and schools. She says she is concerned with equity. Yet, the charter schools they support create greater inequity by robbing public schools and only serving a few at the expense of many. Test and punish, Race to the Top and VAM, value add evaluation of teachers by test scores, have done nothing for public education. The Gates have weaponized their wealth in order to manipulate so-called representatives to do their bidding. The Gates family lives in an ivory tower in which they toy with other people’s lives. If they truly cared about others, their largesse would not stem from seeking ROI from their money. They would actually donate to worthy causes free of the manipulation and extortion their foundation is known for.
LikeLike
For all of you who can, go read the NYT at your local library (thank G-d we still have them!); lucky for me, my library is w/in walking distance & has the complete Sunday NYT.
I cannot stand the Gates (of Hell) &, I cannot repeat enough as to how disappointed I was that Stephen Colbert didn’t hardball them (in fact, they were introduced as “philanthropists”) when they recently appeared on “The Late Show.”
They are the antithesis of philanthropists–i.e., premiere villainthropists.
LikeLike
Gates should donate a tub of money to help rebuild the great cathedral of Notre Dame. He should give from the heart, not from seeking ROI. Now that’s philanthropy.
LikeLike
Oh good heavens, please don’t let Gates get his hands on Notre Dame! Can you even imagine what it would look like when he’s finished with it??? It would probably offer “personalized” prayer service that would data-mine your soul.
LikeLike
If Gates rebuilt Notre Dame, it would look like his gaudy house/compound (ie, like it was designed by a committee of software engineers) and the French would be debugging the building for the next millennium.
LikeLike
When Melinda and Bill Gates open their checkbooks to pay money to states like Ohio who were fleeced out of honest government and a $1 billion by charter schools, I’ll stop my hourly curse at them.
When they shut down their machine learning (SETDA) agenda that targets students at schools the Gates don’t pay for, I will stop my entreaty to God to make them suffer.
When they refrain from destroying the common good, I will stop trashing their reputations to every new person I meet.
LikeLike
Second version with summarized answers:
One of the recurring criticisms of large-scale philanthropists is that they aren’t interested in any redress of the economic systems that create inequality. But in order to rectify inequalities, doesn’t a radical rethinking need to happen?
Bill and I are privileged, aren’t we?
What’s a recent epiphany you’ve had about your privilege?
I have a black friend, so that shows I am tolerant of others and their innate inequalities. I let them pet my dog.
To get back to philanthropy: What about the notion that the foundation’s work on an issue like public education is inherently antidemocratic? You’ve spent money in that area in a way that maybe seems like it’s crowding out people’s actual wants in that area. What’s your counter to that criticism?
We like to do antidemocratic experiments on people. Bill and I would like to do more — we’re not antidemocratic enough!
Certainly you have more influence than, say, a group of parents?
Only most of the time.
LikeLike
The Gates got what they wanted in New Orleans. Recently, the last remaining public school closed. A 20% goal is Melinda’s lie.
The group of parents that she dismisses, live in the affected community, pay taxes and send their kids and grandkids to the school while Melinda’s palace is hundreds of miles away in the state with the most regressive tax system in the nation, in the state where her family spent $200,000 to defeat the reelection of judges who had rendered verdicts favorable to public schools.
The interviewer should have asked Melinda about BIA, the Gates’ investment in the largest for-profit seller of schools-n-a-box.
LikeLike
Though no one did, someone should have asked teachers and parents if they wanted or approved of the Gates’ “help” BEFORE school children were subjected to what Melinda Gates herself called “experiment” in the interview.
In fact, asking teachers and parents before children are subjected to “experiment” (Melinda Gates’ word) is actually MANDATED by a universally accepted code of scientific ethics that was established after WWII.
ANY sort of “experiment” with/on people without informed consent of all those involved violates the Nuremberg code. The fact that “experiments” (eg, Common Core) were performed and are still being performed on millions of children make them especially troubling.
Of course, the Gates’ can claim that they were not the ones who carried out the experiments, but that’s a very flimsy excuse and one that even Melinda Gates has undercut with her statement that “we experiment with things” [aka people]
Finally, the assumption that Bill Gates is worthy of being asked about education by Diane Ravitch and others simply because he has a lot of money needs to be checked.
It’s not a valid assumption, but it IS the assumption that has led us to the current situation — with Common Core, VAM and other Gates experiments.
Bob Shepherd has some very nice things to say about Common Core in this very thread.
LikeLike
The Ohio state board of education is probably similar to other state boards in the Gates oligarchy. Ohio’s state board has worked with Gates-funded CAST, CCSSO, NASBE, and Future Ready, an organization with goals that superintendents are asked to sign a “pledge” to.
Additionally, state employees from all 50 states appear to be fronting for an industry group, SETDA, that receives funding from Gates and is partnered with “gold, silver, event and strategic partners”.
To me, SETDA looks like ALEC.
LikeLike
Every time Diane posts an article about the Gates, the same predictable comments and complaints arise from the readership.
I’d like to say a couple of things and then rush off to my tutoring appointments before I am nuked 😉 !!!
1) Gates has spent a lot of money also trying to do other things besides changing education policy, e.g., trying to cure malaria. As a billionaire, he could have spent all of his money on bigger yachts and other personal consumption, but didn’t.
2) Wouldn’t it be *** much more productive *** if, instead of constantly bashing the guy, Diane and perhaps a couple of her allies actually sat down with Gates for a civil discussion and try to convince him that he is in error?? If this effort was successful, it might lead to the rechanneling of a lot of those funds to purposes much more to the liking of the readership of this blog.
I suggested #2 quite some time ago in another comment, and Diane replied that her efforts to meet with Gates were unsuccessful.
*** Surely with the massive readership of this blog, there must be some people in the Washington state area who might be in a position to facilitate such a meeting????? ***
I find it very sad that our country has reached a point where reasonable people on opposite sides of an issue no longer sit down together, exchange views in a rationale, non-insulting manner. and try to come to a compromise.
If we abandon this mode of communication in favor of the constant exchange of broadsides, then I assure you that nothing good can lie ahead for us.
LikeLike
(1) Gates invests in data, not solving problems. He is a “philanthrcapitalist”. He does some good things; he does some horrific things. He experiments and gathers data to sell. Even when his experiments work out well, it would have been better for governments to have done the work and forced him to pay taxes to do it.
(2) Gates refuses to meet Diane because he doesn’t have the mettle for it. He simply won’t get off his throne. Good. The time for bipartisanship and coming together with the oligarchs is over and done and done and then some. No quarter for Bill Gates.
No more compromise. When we fight, we win!
LikeLike
So far all that I see is a lot of fighting around the U.S. and very few people winning….
LikeLike
Ask people in the healthcare field – especially in developing nations – how much they appreciate Gates’ “help”. Invariably he makes problems worse than they are (except in education where he actually creates problems that weren’t there before). He comes in like an “expert” and expects everyone to do things his way. He sets up competition rather than collaboration. It becomes all about Bill and Melinda rather than all about the people who need help.
If Gates really wants to do something “noble” with “his” money, he could damn well pay what he owes in taxes.
BTW, legions of people have tried to sit down and talk to Gates. It’s hard to have a conversation with someone who thinks their ill-gotten gains make them superior to everyone else.
LikeLike
You are correct. Here is. An excellent report on the problems Gates money has caused in addressing Ebola and maleria.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ebola-gates-foundation-public-health_n_5900a8c5e4b0026db1dd15e6
LikeLike
BTW, this: “As a billionaire, he could have spent all of his money on bigger yachts and other personal consumption, but didn’t.”
We’d be so much better off if Gates would just buy yachts. At least yacht makers would flourish. As it is, his “philanthropy” just ends up back in his own pockets while making millions of teachers, children and their families miserable along the way.
LikeLike
Can’t wait for Bill Gates to find a new hobby.
LikeLike
Yea, why can’t Gates follow Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos example and spend his money shooting rockets into orbit, toward the moon, to Mars and beyond?
LikeLike
We’d all be much better off if Bill and Melinda spent their time playing Yahtzee on their Yachts and left the schools alone.
LikeLike
Bill and Melinda should take up Yahtzee
Yahtzee on their yachts
Would spare us headaches, lots
Instead of rolling fates
They’d both be rolling straights
LikeLike
David,
I have tried on several occasions to meet with Gates. I was in Seattle three times and he wouldn’t meet with me. The best I could get was lunch with the president of the Gates Foundation, Jeff Raikes at that time. I think he is afraid of me. I can’t imagine why. Maybe he wants to be surrounded by sycophants. But if you can think of away to convince him to meet me, I’m all ears.
LikeLike
Diane, I unfortunately don’t have any personal connection to Gates at all other than having been in his audience at a couple of IT conferences when I worked in biotech years back. As I mentioned in my comment above though, there must be readers of your blog in the Seattle area who might have a connection, possibly through some other party.
How about writing a blog article inviting anyone in that area who might be able to to arrange such an “education summit” to contact you? You are interviewed on TV every now and then. Why not continue to extend public offers to him to meet?
Have you tried contacting Melinda and going through her? Even if Bill at present doesn’t want to meet, if you could convince her, that would still be great progress.
What happened in your meeting with Mr. Raikes? Is there an old article on your blog about it?
I am not sure “fear” as you mention above has anything to do with him not wanting to meet. When one reads the comments about him that invariably follow your Gates-related articles, I would think that any feeling person would take major offense at the things being said about them here.
dienne77, for example, just made all kinds of unattributed claims about how people in the health care field also dislike Bill Gates, etc., etc.
I have no way of evaluating if those claims are based on dienne77’s direct interactions with such people or if this is simply third or fourth hand misinformation being passed around among anonymous blog readers.
We’ve all been around the block long enough to realize that the world is never completely black and white. My identity is out there for everyone to see. My bio info is on my tutoring website. Most commenters on your blog are hiding behind pseudonyms which, while allowing some to speak truth that might be perilous if their identity were known, also makes it very easy to speak slander without consequence.
You made favorable comments above about Buffett sending his kids to public school, etc., but remember that Buffett is a close friend of Gates and is giving a large chunk of his personal fortune to the Gates Foundation. This clearly means that Buffett doesn’t think that Gates is an SOB as he seems to be constantly portrayed here.
It might just be possible if you could persist and try multiple routes to reach out to either Bill or Melinda that there might be some small chance of bridging the divide. Neither of them is a right wing extremist or religious zealot, so if there was any hope of communicating with anyone in the opposition, there would seem to be fewer obstacles meeting the two of them than, say DeVos or the Koch brothers.
If you were successful, the favorable consequences for public education could be immense. Not only might you reduce or even put an end to the problems that readers constantly complain about, but perhaps some of those foundation funds could be directed to more positive uses. This might end up as a much more beneficial outcome for all than everyone merely complaining constantly and remaining at loggerheads.
LikeLike
Though no one did, someone should have asked teachers and parents if they wanted or approved of the Gates’ “help” BEFORE school children were subjected to what Melinda Gates herself called “experiment” in the interview.
In fact, asking teachers and parents before children are subjected to “experiment” (Melinda Gates’ word) is actually MANDATED by a universally accepted code of scientific ethics that was established after WWII.
ANY sort of “experiment” with/on people without informed consent of all those involved violates the Nuremberg code. The fact that “experiments” (eg, Common Core) were performed and are still being performed on millions of children make them especially troubling.
Of course, the Gates’ can claim that they were not the ones who carried out the experiments, but that’s a very flimsy excuse and one that even Melinda Gates has undercut with her statement that “we experiment with things” [aka people]
Finally, the assumption that Bill Gates is worthy of being asked about education by Diane Ravitch and others simply because he has a lot of money needs to be checked.
It’s not a valid assumption, but it IS the assumption that has led us to the current situation — with Common Core, VAM and other Gates experiments.
Bob Shepherd has some very nice things to say about Common Core in this very thread.
LikeLike
Dear Poet, if you read my blog you at eduissues.com, as I know you have a few times, you will see that I am in complete agreement with you about the ethics of experimentation on kids. This is a theme I frequently campaign against in my own writings: the piloting of dubious curricula on kids without consent.
Your paragraph questioning “the assumption that Gates is worthy of being asked about education by Diane … simply because he has a lot of money” is a unfortunately a straw man. This is not my point.
If Gates is as negatively influential as everyone here seems to virtually unanimously agree, that is the reason Diane and allies should try to talk to him instead of just barraging him with insults. This may sound similar to what you are saying, but there is an important difference in connotation!
It would seem that priority one would be to try to get him to change his ways through the force of logic and through educating him about what really works and doesn’t work in education. I have seen quotes from him on multiple occasions where he admits that they have made a lot of mistakes in education.
Would you want these mistakes to continue if you had convincing evidence that might stop them? Yes, he clearly does have a lot of money, and yes he does want to use it to change education and that makes him a force to be reckoned with whether one likes that or not. Seems to me that the best response would be to try to influence/direct that force towards better goals instead of merely complaining about it.
Complaining is easy and people are constantly venting their bile on blogs and in the media. Unless it actually effects change it is a blatant waste of time.
LikeLike
Sorry if I implied you thought Gates should be asked for his views, but unfortunately that has been done by people in high places with a great deal of influence and the view that “when you’re rich they really think you know” (as Tevye sang in Fiddler on the Roof) is actually very prevalent and is really the crux of the problem in this case.
I don’t share your optimism that Gates is capable of learning a proper approach to education that involves more than simply “throwingl jello at the wall and seeing if it sticks”
At this point, I actually think the most effective means of getting Gates to butt out of things he has no knowledge about — and shows no desire of learning about — is to point out the damage he has done with his ill-advised and unethical “experiments.”
I don’t think Melinda Gates even realizes how much she undercuts her case when she says “we experiment with things”, but that pretty much sums up their approach. And contrary to what she implies, as demonstrated with Common Core, they don’t always experiment on a small to see if something “works” before getting the government to scale it up.
LikeLike
Good points, but let me clarify one thing. I would not necessarily say that I feel “optimistic” about converting Gates. It might be a very difficult task.
Instead I would say that if there is a major negative influence on an important field, one has a moral obligation to try to take constructive action to try to change it. Writing criticisms is an important action, of course, but the effort currently spent on repeating the same comments to the same audience ad nauseum should be marshaled for more constructive action.
LikeLike
David,
You have no idea how powerful this blog is in mobilizing constructive resistance to ill-conceived ideas, all over the country.
LikeLike
If it’s not clear, I don’t consider what the Gates are doing in education to be real philanthropy.
If it were, the money would be given without strings attached.
LikeLike
Gates’ philanthropy exemplifies what Anand Giriharads wrote about in his book, “Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World.” It is meant to extend his power and control over important institutions.
LikeLike
I also think that if they were genuinely interested in education, Gates would have pressured his company to donate the taxes that Microsoft owed on nearly $100 Billion that, until recently, was held in offshore accounts to schools.
The money was held offshore for YEARs before Trump came along and dramatically reduced the tax rate on the money from the usual 35% to 15%, saving Microsoft nearly $20 billion.
Microsoft could easily have afforded to donate that money to schools (eg, in inner cities) to pay for badly needed school building renovations, but did not.
Now, while Gates only has about a 6% share in MS, he certainly still has a great deal of influence over the company and could have made it very embarrassing (basically untenable) for MS not to donate the taxes, which they actually OWED, at any rate.
Even the money that Gates Foundation doles out is not given without benefit to Gates in the way of tax savings. And critically, it allows them to stipulate how the money is spent.
I am inclined to believe that a lot of what is called philanthropy these days is little more than an accounting trick to keep control over how money is spent, when a significant fraction of that money would be otherwise simply “lost” to taxes.
LikeLike
$100 billion held in offshore accounts.
Not $100 million
LikeLike
David, you are right.
I am undoubtedly wasting my time complaining about Gates.
Who even cares what Some DAM poet thinks?: I know I don’t.
But someone might care what Diane thinks and says (though I seriously doubt Bill Gates does, other than from the standpoint that she is making him look stupid, at best)
And it is pretty clear to me that she IS having an impact, even on the Gates. This is evidenced by the fact that they are having to defend themselves from interview questions and statements like
What about the notion that the foundation’s work on an issue like public education is inherently antidemocratic? You’ve spent money in that area in a way that maybe seems like it’s crowding out people’s actual wants in that area. What’s your counter to that criticism?
“Certainly you have more influence than, say, a group of parents.”
LikeLike
Bill Gates knows I exist. A few years ago, he told journalist Jonathan Alter (a strong defender of charters) that I was “his chief adversary.” He repeated something along those lines recently. He is aware that I have named him as one of the leaders of the “billionaire boys club.” He knows I ask when he will be held accountable for his failed experiments on other people’s Children. He doesnt like to be challenged. He wants adoration. He should meet with me. Unfortunately he thinks he has all the answers.
LikeLike
Bill Gates also admitted he was experimenting on schools (children and teachers) when he commented back in 2013 (right around the time Common Core was hitting schools all over the country)
“It would be great if our education stuff worked, but that we won’t know for probably a decade.”
That statement highlights the experimental aspect of his “education stuff” but it is not really legitimate scientific experiment because he does not even define what “worked” means. Quite the scientist is Bill. I wonder if he learned that at Harvard.
LikeLike
He never formulated specific hypotheses and established specific tests of those hypotheses, control groups and all the other things that are part of legitimate scientific experimentation.
LikeLike
Exactly, SomeDAM. Well said. These “standards” and the tests based on them were rushed out with no vetting whatsoever.
LikeLike
Did you ever consider that his “philanthropy,” at least regarding education, is in fact a taxpayer-subsidized investment in his own power and financial interests?
LikeLike
“And so my youngest daughter and I — she has a lot of friends whom I’m meeting, and they’re of very mixed races, I love that….”
Now, see, y’all need to stop talking about Gates like she’s elitist. I mean, some of her best friends are black! Or, well, her daughter’s friends. But she’s meeting them!
LikeLike
I had the same reaction.
LikeLike
I have to quibble with the notion that the Common [sic] Core [sic] State [sic] Standards [sic] in ELA have not been successful. They have been extraordinarily successful in distorting and dumbing down US K-12 education in the English language arts. One might go so far as to say that these “standards” have destroyed the field of K-12 English language arts to which I have devoted my life. I have a few comments to make about the experiment that Mr. Gates is conducting on us.
Let me start with the name of these “standards.”
These “standards” are, indeed, common in that they were enforced upon us all. A few states resisted, but most adopted them. Resistance to them soon grew to such a point that the Reverend Mike Hucksterbee felt compelled to go to the annual conservative coven called CPAC and tell the delegates to go back home and change the name of them because the name “Common Core” had become so toxic. And that’s what they did. They went back to their states and followed the Reverend Mike’s advice and LIED to their constituents about these “standards” by keeping them but changing their name to something state-specific. But make no mistake about it, most states in the US today are using the bullet list whose creation was funded by Mr. Gates.
But there is another sense in which the word “common” is an appropriate description of the ELA “standards”—they are “common” in the sense of received, vulgar, or base. Gates appointed a nonexpert, David Coleman, someone who had never taught an English class or held a professorship in English or in Education, to oversee the writing of these “standards.” In other words, he made this complete novice (by divine fiat?) THE DECIDER FOR THE REST OF US. Colman’s lack of expertise shows in every line of these “standards.” When I first read them, I got the distinct impression that they had been put together by a committee of small-town business owners based on their vague memories of what they themselves had learned in English class back in the day. Instead of reflecting the best contemporary thinking about instruction in the English language arts and the best contemporary science about language acquisition, these “standards” are a sort of compendium of crude folk notions about what the English language arts consist of. It’s as though someone had handed Coleman a copy of Galen and a copy of the 1858 edition of Gray’s Anatomy and sent him off to the woods to write new “standards” for the medical profession. If the US Navy had “standards” like these, then those “standards” would warn about the possibility of sailing off the edge of the flat Earth.
The “core” part of the name is a misnomer, for it is meant to suggest that these “standards” reflect the key concepts that a student of English language arts must learn. But Lord Coleman’s bullet list doesn’t do that. Psychologists divide types of knowledge into two major types—descriptive knowledge, or world knowledge—knowledge of what—and procedural knowledge, or knowledge of how. So, for example, a carpenter knows a great many things, including the properties of various kinds of wood (descriptive knowledge) and how to carry out various tasks like planning a piece of wood until it is smooth (procedural knowledge). The same is true, of course, of the English language arts. Knowing the English language arts involves a great deal of descriptive knowledge. Let me give you a few examples of descriptive knowledge of ELA (one could list thousands and thousands):
Science fiction and fantasy are two genres of literature. They are alike in dealing with worlds that differ in major respects from our own. They differ in that science fiction must be plausible, given what we know of science or might learn, whereas fantasy does not have to be.
Fables and parables are similar in that they are brief stories told to communicate a moral. They differ in that fables have animal characters, whereas parables have human characters.
Ezra Pound was a key figure in the development of modernist poetry. He promulgated a number of modernist ideas, e.g.: a) make it new, b) compose to the musical phrase, not to the metronome; c) use concrete imagery and avoid abstraction; d) use “living language,” i.e., the vernacular.
A typical news story is written with an inverted pyramid organization. The introduction, or lede, typically answers the questions who, what, when, and where. The elaboration typically explains why and how. Ideas in the body are arranged in order of importance, from most important to least important.
William Butler Yeats was a 20th-century Irish poet. He wrote “Leda and the Swan,” “Among School Children,” and “The Second Coming.” He often drew on Irish and Greek mythological motifs.
A couplet is a pair of rhyming lines containing the same number of poetic feet and expressing a complete idea. The most common meter for a couplet in English is iambic pentameter.
Ralph Waldo Emerson was an American essayist, poet, and Unitarian minister who was strongly influenced by Hindu religious scriptures. They key idea he got from these scriptures was that people and nature are manifestations of the divine, which he called “the Oversoul.”
In an argument, you can appeal to reason (logos), emotion (pathos), and ethos (trustworthiness, reputation).
Now, as in carpentry, descriptive knowledge is extremely important. Knowing that a science fiction story must be scientifically plausible is a prerequisite, for example, to being able to write one. If you know that Emerson was influenced by Hindu scriptures, you might then, as an adult, seek out those scriptures that influenced him (the Katha and Chandogya Upanishads). Knowing how a couplet works is key to being able to write one and to being able to read and make sense of an Elizabethan sonnet.
So, a LOT of accomplishment in ELA consists of acquiring descriptive knowledge, and such knowledge is a lot more than “mere facts.” It’s useful. But David Coleman’s bullet list is ALMOST ENTIRELY CONTENT FREE. It’s almost exclusively a list of vaguely worded SKILLS.
In other words, half the subject is left out. This has had a dramatic and devolving effect on ELA curricula.
So, let’s turn to the “standards” themselves—to that list of skills. One might expect that at least Lord Coleman would have done of good job of these. But no. He simply hacked together materials from poorly conceived existing state standards. The problems with his particular skills list are legion, and it would require a book-length work to describe these. I will content myself, here, with mentioning a few of these problems.
Many of these “standards” are so vague and abstract that it is literally impossible, by any rational procedure, to operationalize them sufficiently to be able to measure mastery of them validly and reliably. So, the tests based on these standards end up providing junk “data,” akin to what one gets from other varieties of numerology. Garbage standards in, garbage data out.
Some of the other ELA “standards” deal with some small component (e.g. effect of figurative language on mood) of some much broader topic (figurative language in its many varieties) and so narrow, absurdly, the topics that educational publishers and teachers will cover (It’s as though one reduced the study of the Civil War to comparison of the relative sizes of Union and Rebel cannonballs).
Still other ELA “standards” involve less general, more specific problems. For example, there’s a middle-school standard that requires students to be able to explain “the functions of verbals” in sentences. Well, clearly, the writers of this standard had no notion how much prior work in syntax would be required to get students to that point (work not required by the “standards” in earlier grades) and had no notion how complex the functions of infinitives and gerunds are. They can function as any of the following: subject, direct object, indirect object, object of a preposition, predicate nominative, retained object, subjective complement, objective complement, or appositive of any of these. And I haven’t even mentioned the functions of bare infinitives and the complex uses of participles in verb formation. And, at any rate, learning traditional grammar has almost no bearing on syntactic competence in either speech or writing. Nor does doing so reduce the number of errors in student writing and speech. We’ve known this since 1935, at least, when metastudies were conducted on the subject, but of course, Coleman knew nothing of those. His “standards” are prescientific. For a more complete treatment of the prescientific nature of the current “standards”, go here: https://bobshepherdonline.wordpress.com/2017/09/02/on-the-pseudoscience-of-strategies-based-reading-comprehension-instruction-or-what-current-comprehension-instruction-has-in-common-with-astrology/
The writing “standards” are also based on prescientific folk notions, like the existence of three distinct modes of writing (informative, persuasive, and narrative).
Still other “standards” are based on faulty pedagogy that has long since been discredited by research (e.g., the notion that learning context clues will have a significant impact on vocabulary acquisition).
And many significant topics in ELA aren’t treated at all in these “standards” (that’s a very, very long list).
I could go on and on and on in this vein. But each of the problems requires a GREAT DEAL of explanation, and I haven’t the time or energy to school Lord Coleman on these. Here, for example, I describe the problem with that figurative language standard: https://bobshepherdonline.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/on-developing-curricula-in-the-age-of-the-thought-police/. And here I describe a problem with the standard for argument: https://bobshepherdonline.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/what-happens-when-amateurs-write-standards/ An equally long (and, to my mind, equally devastating) critique could be written for almost every standard on Lord Coleman’s bullet list.
Invariably, Ed Deformers refer to Coleman’s puerile, amateurish bullet list as an example of “higher standards” when, in fact, it is a compilation of a few prescientific folk notions about learning in ELA put together by people with no relevant expertise. That these “standards” weren’t laughed off the national stage when they were first promulgated is a shocking indictment of the level of training of those in charge of administrating ELA instruction.
Which brings me to the “state” part of the name Common Core STATE Standards. These “standards” were imposed upon the nation by Mr. Gates and his puppets in the federal Department of Education under Arne Duncan and his lobbyists in a great many shill organizations that Gates funded. The Department of Education is forbidden by law from imposing curricula on the nation, but the sad fact is that Colman’s list has become the de facto curriculum in the United States. Every publisher of print or online materials in ELA now begins every project by making a spreadsheet with the “standards” in one column and the places where the standard is “covered” in the next column over. If it’s not on Lord Coleman’s bullet list, it will not be treated, which raises another huge problem with these “standards”. For that, we’ll need a little history.
Gates was moved to pay for these “standards” because he had a theory and a business plan. The theory was that having a single set of national “standards” would spur product innovation in education, as having standardized electrical current and outlets spurred innovation in electrical products. The idea was that entrepreneurs would be able to create textbooks and educational software products that they could sell “at scale.” Let’s stop and think about that one for a moment. Instead of having hundreds of entrepreneurs doing competing products aligned with DIFFERING state “standards,” one would, with these national “standards,” inevitably end up with a few large corporate players—ones who could afford the investment necessary to do manufacturing and marketing on a national scale—who could, for example, afford to print, say, 6 million copies of a textbook to sell nationwide rather than 6,000 copies to sell into state x, y, or z. The differing state “standards” we had in the past encouraged innovation. Teachers and other educators in a given state could work to revise their state “standards” to incorporate innovative approaches to curricula and pedagogy, and states could learn from one another. A single set of national “standards” encourages the further takeover of the market for educational materials by two or three corporate behemoths. Start-up shops without Gates-level funding are out of luck. Gone are the days when Fred McDougal could borrow a little money from a family member and start a new, small educational publisher to compete in a few states.
Let me give you one example of the kind of thing that used to be possible. Years ago, ELA publishers sold separate texts for grammar and composition, on the one hand, and literature on the other. Then, Texas issued a unique call for an “integrated language arts” text to be used with challenged students. One text would contain literature AND writing and language exercises based on the literature. The remedial Texas market was fairly small, so most of the big educational publishers ignored this call. They were more interested in the national literature market than in this niche market in Texas. But McDougal, Littell, then a small company, did a lit program specifically tailored to the Texas call. As an integrated language arts program, it was a dramatic departure from what was the norm for lit texts in those days—a dramatic innovation made possible by a unique set of state standards.
As it turned out, people liked the new approach so much that the program meant for Texas alone swept the nation and became the new de facto standard for literature textbooks. No publisher who was going after the national market would have made so dramatic and innovation. Doing so would have been too risky, with a national market at stake. National standards encourage stagnation, not innovation. Separate, competing state “standards” are the real spurs to innovation.
So, the Gates theory was wrong from the start, but all this national standardization suited the purposes of someone who had earned his billions by creating a corporate behemoth that could dictate to the world. ONE RING TO RULE THEM ALL!!!
Standardization doesn’t lead to innovation. It leads to a dreadful sameness. Let’s look for a moment at how Lord Colman’s bullet list has distorted ELA education in the US. Think about why we read and write. First and foremost, we read and write in order to communicate, and our focus should always be, primarily on what is being communicated. Way back in the 1960s, a student in a junior American literature class would read literature written by Puritans and they would learn about the ideas that the Puritans communicated about matters like election and Original Sin and predestination and local governance and the primacy of scripture. A lot of why the United States is the country that it is today—why there is a perennial struggle between federal and state authority, why it is a predominantly Protestant country, why it is, well, relatively Puritanical, has to do with this stream in American thought that has rolled down through the ages. We read those people to understand who we are today. Our focus is on WHAT THEY ARE SAYING—on their ideas.
But because it has become the de facto curriculum in English language arts, Lord Coleman’s bullet list has led to the replacement of the reading of whole works or large sections of works with reading of random snippets of text, taken out of context, to which the student is to apply one or more skills from Coleman’s bullet list. Any text will do. And the student finds himself or herself reading the snippet of text not primarily to find out what the author has to say but, for example, to apply some item from the Coleman list to it—for example, to identify how the use of figurative language in the passage affects its tone and mood. In other words, actual, authentic engagement with literature has been replaced with inane skills exercises. One sees this in every literature textbook or online literature program that has been produced since Coleman was appointed to make decisions for all of us.
And, again, Coleman didn’t have the relevant expertise. If, for example, he had known anything at all about ELA instruction in the United States, he would have known that for many decades, every high school in the US offered a world lit survey course in grades 9 or 10, an American lit survey course in Grade 11, and an English lit survey course in Grade 12. So, the publishers all produced world lit texts for 9 or 10, American lit texts for 11, and Brit lit texts for 12. So ignorant was Coleman of ELA instruction in the US, that he didn’t even know that this was the case, so in his stupid bullet list, he called for study of “foundational texts in American literature” in Grades 11 and 12. That is just about the only content item in the “standards” (there are a few, very few others), and it was based on Coleman’s utter lack of knowledge of what was actually already being done.
But his ignorance didn’t stop there. The ELA “standards” reflect NONE of what is currently known about acquisition of vocabulary and of syntax. And the writing portions of the “standards” reflect NONE of the exciting, interesting, creative work that has been done in rhetoric over the past half century. If you found the most unimaginative English teacher in the country and asked him to write a set of standards, it would look like Coleman’s list.
Coleman produced a bullet list of vaguely described skills. If he had been smarter and known more about ELA, he would have thought not in terms of skills but, rather, in terms of procedural knowledge, which would have produced a list that contained concrete, learnable operations.
Basically, the Coleman list draws a circle around a few vague skills within the vast design space of possible ELA curricula and pedagogy and says, “What is within this circle you may teach, and anything outside it you may not.” In the old days, an English teacher could read The English Journal and learn about using sentence combining to increase students’ syntactic fluency, go back and talk this over with the other English teachers in her department, and implement the new idea. In the old days, an editor in an educational publishing house could learn some linguistics and find out that very little of an adult’s vocabulary is learned via explicit instruction but, rather, that vocabulary is acquired in batches of semantically related items in a situation where those items are actually used—that is, in a community of people involved in a meaningful activity. Then, he or she could design a curriculum for learning vocabulary that works in the way the mind does. Today, if this editor were to suggest such a thing to his or her educational publishing managers, or any other innovation, it would be immediately shot down. No, it’s not on Lord Coleman’s list. Stick to teaching context clues. That he mentioned, and Coleman’s list is the be-all-and-end-all.
So, Lord Coleman’s bullet list has basically distorted ELA pedagogy and curricula, left out vast parts of the subject, reduced it to trivialities, and STOPPED INNOVATION COLD. We will have new ideas in ELA not when classroom practitioners and textbook authors and professors of English and linguistics and rhetoric come up with them but when Mr. Gates convenes his Commissariat again, in a few years, to do the next round of thinking for all the rest of us.
Education deformers love asking, “OK. You don’t like these standards, So what’s your alternative?” And they expect stone-cold silence in response. Sorry to disappoint. Here’s an alternative to top-down, invariant, inflexible, mandatory, amateurish “standards” like those foisted on the country with no vetting whatsoever:
In place of the grade-by-grade bullet list, we should have a few general guidelines (a very broad framework–perhaps four or five principles), continually revisited and critiqued, that provide the degrees of freedom within which real curricular and pedagogical innovation can occur
and
open-source crowd sourcing of alternative, innovative ideas. In other words, we could have
–Competing, voluntary standards, frameworks, learning progressions, curriculum outlines, reading lists, pedagogical approaches, lesson templates, etc.,
–for particular domains,
–posted by scholars, researcher, curriculum developers, and teachers to an open national portal or wiki, and
–subjected to ongoing, vigorous, public debate and refinement
–based on results in the classroom and ongoing research and development,
–freely adopted by autonomous local schools and districts
–and subjected to continual critique by teacher-led schools–teachers who are given the time in their schedules to subject those, and their own practice, to ongoing critique via something like Japanese Lesson Study.
As a businessperson, Mr. Gates might have learned the lessons springing from the quality control work of pioneers like Deming and Juran. If you actually want continuous improvement, that’s how you get it–not via top-down mandates but via bottom-up quality circles and innovation.
LikeLike
If the Gates’ had only asked for your advice, they could have saved themselves a lot of money — and teachers , students and parents a lot of grief.
Alas, they are not advice seekers but ad vice givers.
Your point about monopoly stifling innovation is especially apt in this case.
LikeLike
My advice would not have given Mr. Gates what he wanted–a single national bullet list to key depersonalized “learning software” to.
LikeLike
You are very kind, SomeDAM, but I would not set myself or anyone up as the arbiter of what everyone in the country must do in English language arts. That’s the point. This has to be a continually evolving field in which the ideas of scholars, researchers, classroom practitioners, curriculum developers, parents, administrators, and others are welcomed and tested in the crucible of classroom practice. The top-down dictation to everyone by Gates and Coleman is fundamentally antidemocratic and stagnating. To have one’s name attached to a mandate forced upon every teacher in the country is a great dishonor.
LikeLike
Well written commentary, Bob, as SD Poet also notes.
My question remains though – how can we focus the talent on this blog towards constructive action (as I tried to argue in the middle of the mass of comments) ??
LikeLike
David, this commentary IS constructive action. It is my hope that teachers will read commentaries like this and go into their classrooms and teach English DESPITE these standards; that parents will read this and opt their students out of the invalid, unreliable summative high-stakes standardized tests in ELA; that state policy makers will take such criticisms to heart and rewrite their “standards.” That curriculum designers will incorporate specific items of advice that I give. An so on.
The standards-and-testing-based “accountability” regimen that we’ve been living under, now, for an entire generation has produced, by its own preferred measure–high-stakes test scores–no positive results–no statistically significant increase in test scores and no closing of achievement gaps.
Let me give you an example, from a different field, of what I am trying to accomplish here. In the early to mid twentieth century, American psychologists (and a lot of American teachers) were having to wear the ideological blinders of Behaviorism when doing their work. A psychologist didn’t dare conduct an experiment or submit an article to a journal that dealt with mental activity. Teachers in the US were almost universally required to submit behavioral objectives with their lesson plans and were called on the carpet when they used, in their lesson plans, verbs describing mental activities. We were supposed to conduct ourselves as thought people’s heads were black boxes. This Lysenkoism in American psychology held back a great many fields, such as syntax, which could not be understood without positing internal cognitive mechanisms. Then, Chomsky published his review of Skinner’s book about language learning, Verbal Behavior, and Karl Lashley published his papers on serial behaviors like jazz improvisation, and from these people learned that Behaviorism could not account for very common human activities. These ARGUMENTS lifted the Behaviorist spell upon the land and inaugurated the cognitive revolution in psychology, which has been extraordinarily fruitful.
One other thing, David. Many of the people on this blog are very active politically. They conduct telephone, email, and letter-writing campaigns; organize strikes and sit-ins and opt-outs and other forms of civil disobedience. They attend meetings of school boards and state adoption committees and state legislatures and argue for or against specific proposals. They prepare alternative educational materials not hewed to the Deformer models. They write sample legislation. They prepare research reports and disseminate these to decision makers. And much, much else. Diane’s blog is a kind of daily newsletter of a large and growing Counterdeformation movement that has had a LOT of successes in recent years. It is more than a little presumptuous for you to suggest to extraordinarily involved activists like many of the people on this blog that they need to stop complaining and actually do something. Do you really think that they AREN’T taking constructive action? If so, you have some learning to do.
LikeLike
Bob, point taken. Your writing is consistently well-reasoned and supported by examples.
I’ve read this blog for several years now, but when the vast majority of the participants hide behind pseudonyms, how am I supposed to learn about all of the activity that you attribute to readers above? I have to assume that you have learned about this through private interactions or meetings offline during your long career in education/publishing ?!??
I’ll be the first to admit that many people on this blog have been here a lot longer than I have. However, I came here as a neutral older person resuming a career in education, and trying to learn something about current education battles after reading some of Diane’s books (initially “The Death and Life..”). I find Diane’s articles informative but the display of the same inflamed passions following them gets very repetitive after a while and makes a neutral third party start questioning the objectivity of the participants.
If this relatively mild comment seems like “harsh criticism,” think how Bill Gates would feel if he read what was written about him here.
In my experience, insulting people like Gates is not usually an effective way to advance one’s cause. If they engaged him in dialogue, and he was still obstinate, then I could understand the upset. However, based on what I read here, a meeting between Gates and Diane has not occurred and it seems fairly logical to assume that one reason it may not have occurred is because someone at the Gates foundation looked at the inflamed passions in forums like this and may have concluded that reasoned dialogue was impossible.
LikeLike
Many of us, David, are pretty upset, indeed. Every time I had to post a data wall in my classroom, take weeks out of my classroom schedules to do data chats, work with students in nonpaid test prep tutorials on Common Core “skills,” proctor a standardized test, attempt to use a dumbed-down Common Core textbook, I was furious. And, having worked much of my life as a developer of textbooks and online materials in ELA, I can attest that I have lost potentially jobs because I was known to oppose the Ed Deform party line. And, again and again and again, I’ve had innovative, research-based ideas for educational materials or components thereof shot down because they strayed from Lord Coleman’s puerile bullet list. Many of the people on this blog are routinely subject to such COERCION stemming from the billions that Gates has poured into Ed Deform. It’s long past time that he learned from forums such as this the actual consequences of his experiment on the rest of us. Are people angry? Damned right they are. This, David, is what a Resistance movement looks like. It isn’t always pretty. Mr. Gates has done a lot of damage to a lot of people, and he’s oblivious to it. Don’t expect me to worry that his feeling might be hurt. He has hurt, significantly, a lot of kids. He has subjected them to what can only be described as an abusive Ed Deform regime. https://bobshepherdonline.wordpress.com/2017/10/02/the-coring-of-the-six-hundred-with-apologies-to-alfred-lord-tennyson/
LikeLike
I hear you and sympathize. Sounds like the conclusion is that negotiation is impossible, and war is the only alternative. A sad state of affairs indeed. I will shut up.
Unfortunately WordPress released a new update for the iPhone yesterday, and it is crashing repeatedly on my iPhone 7. Had to switch to my laptop to write this response.
LikeLike
P.S. – I still continue to hope against hope that Diane will find a way to open a dialogue with the Gates, possibly by going first through Melinda.
LikeLike
David,
I have repeatedly reached out and been rebuffed. Why don’t you make a connection for me with Melinda?
LikeLike
I promise I will try to contact her (I tried once before when I posted a similar comment a year or so back), but she won’t know me from a hole in the wall. I would think that there might be “fewer degrees of separation” if someone in the Seattle area on your blog would step up to the plate. My comments to this effect have a much lower probability of being seen than if you posted a blog article asking if someone in the Seattle area who might know the Gates could facilitate a meeting.
LikeLike
My high-school juniors had to take 26 separate standardized tests. The school that I taught in was basically closed for testing for over two months every year–two months in which we ran a testing schedule, were expected to be doing prep using sample test questions, and could not have access to the media labs because the computers in these were being used for testing that had NO PEDAGOGICAL VALUE of the kind that one might get from, say, diagnostic tests and formative tests and classroom check tests. The opportunity costs of all this were staggering.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Those tests included not only the state standardized tests themselves but also pretests and so-called benchmark tests based on the standardized tests. Ridiculous. Theatre of the absurd.
I have often wished that I could spend an afternoon with Mr. Gates explaining to him the issues with and consequences for curricula and pedagogy of Coleman’s bullet list in ELA. Perhaps we could go golfing. Every year Mr. Gates publishes on his “Gates Notes” his reading recommendations. These are almost invariably good books, and his notes on them are about what? They are about the ideas in those books. They aren’t five-paragraph themes on how the use of figurative language in those books affect their tone and mood. Those notes are, instead, examples of authentic engagement with literature, in which discussion of specific techniques is incidental to discussion of what the authors are communicating. Mr. Gates could learn from his own practice how the Coleman bullet lists distorts US curricula and pedagogy.
Consider, for example, what it meant to do away with the 12th-grade Brit Lit survey course because of Coleman’s “standards.” In place of a coherent learning about the development of English styles, genres, and thought; instead of a coherent introduction to the greatest writers in our language; we get these Common-Core-based analyses by students of random snippets of text taken out of context. Well, texts exist in context. If someone says “we need to tie up these loose ends here,” it makes a difference whether the speaker is Tony Soprano or a macrame instructor. The former coherent curriculum has been replaced by random “instruction” in skills so vaguely described that students carry away from that instruction no concrete procedures that would actually inform their reading, writing, and thinking. It’s a travesty.
LikeLike
David,
I am ready and willing to sit down with Bill and/or Melinda. I have been to Seattle three times in recent years and they refused to meet me. Do you have any ideas about persuading one of them to talk to me?
LikeLike
I hope my last reply came through to you about posting a blog article. WordPress keeps crashing on my iPhone today and I need to head out shortly. We need to find a neutral “peacemaker” in the Seattle area who can bring the sides together. I will try to make a contact for you as I said, but your posting a request on your blog for a Seattle area mediator might be a more fruitful way to proceed.
LikeLike
And many of the people on this blog hide behind pseudonyms because they would be FIRED from their teaching jobs if their administrators learned that they were opposed to the Common Core, charters, vouchers, high-stakes testing, or VAM. They’ve seen it happen, time and time again.
LikeLike
Last year, I had an urgent message from a man who posted here under his real name once. He asked me to delete his comment because a google search had produced his comment and he was rejected for a superintendency.
LikeLike
David,
You keep suggesting that I engage in dialogue with Gates. I have tried repeatedly to do so. How can I have a dialogue with him if he refuses to respond? Could you reach out to him and propose a meeting with me in New York City?
LikeLike
NPE is doing great work. Many of us are members.
Commenters at this site reach out to communicate in all available forums e.g. to school boards, to PTA’s, to reporters, to foundations, to national politicians, to state politicians, to local mayors who lack knowledge when they host education summits sponsored by billionaires, in op eds.
Please join us. We are many. The billionaires have to pay minions for every message that supports their agenda. We are dedicated professionals who work for free.
Charter school decline is Diane’s success. She has power because she leads so many who understand she is democracy’s hero.
LikeLike
Linda, I will look into it. Thank you.
LikeLike
Thank you, Linda. I appreciate your kind comments. NPE is making a difference by revealing the true costs and damage attributable to Disrupters.
LikeLike
David,
This blog has spurred many people to become active in defense of their public schools. It encourages parents, teachers, and others to fight for continual improvement and to mobilize against the forces of Disruption. It provides everyone with the news and analysis they need to stay informed. That is constructive and positive.
Why don’t you join the Network for Public Education, attend our next annual conference (spring2020, Philadelphia), and you will be blown away by the positive energy from activists all over the nation.
LikeLike
Diane Ravitch continually posts on this blog calls for people to take particular action–to join in a strike, in a school board meeting, in a protest here or there, to call or write in support or opposition to a particular bill, to contribute to research and other work conducted by the Network for Public Education, to oppose or support this or that candidate who is a friend of public education. She has, without a staff, served for many years now not only as the inspiring leader of the Counterdeformation but as a sort of one-woman aggregator of information about opportunities for constructive action. Most recently, her organization, NPE, announced its newsletter dedicated precisely to regular listing of such opportunities nationwide. See this post: https://networkforpubliceducation.org/march-2019-grassroots-education-network-newsletter/
LikeLike
Bob, I have tried to contact Gates as I promised yesterday. Please see my comment that just went up at the end of the Comments section.
LikeLike
David says “based on what I read here, a meeting between Gates and Diane has not occurred and it seems fairly logical to assume that one reason it may not have occurred is because someone at the Gates foundation looked at the inflamed passions in forums like this and may have concluded that reasoned dialogue was impossible.”
While the folks at Gates Foundation may have concluded that reasoned dialogue is impossible, I’d have to say it is not because Diane and the people who comment here are unreasonable or incapable of reason.
On the contrary, just the opposite is the case. Any reasonable person can see that the things that the experiments that the Gates have performed on teachers are completely unreasonable.
In other words, if the Gates’ “reasoned” that they could not talk with Diane because of comments here, they not be basing that on sound logic.
They are kidding themselves if they actually believe that. But I don’t even believe that they do believe such a thing
It is far more likely that the Gates simply do not wish to be confronted with the uncomfortable truth about what they have done to millions of teachers and students.
LikeLike
Dear Poet, I have tried to contact Gates as I promised. Please see my comment at the end of the Comments section that just went up.
LikeLike
In a nutshell, the truth sometimes hurts.
LikeLike
it only hurts honest people who are capable of admitting the truth that they were wrong and learning from their mistakes.
The perfect example to compare Bill Gates to is MAGA Man who has never admitted he was wrong in his life and has never learned anything from his honest mistakes.
LikeLike
cx: planing, not planning, ofc
LikeLike
cx: forced upon us all, not enforced
I very much wish that WordPress allowed for correction of typos in posts!
LikeLike
Andrew Carnegie built libraries all across America. And he funded the creation of schools for black students in the rural South. I myself used to go two or three times a week, when I was a kid, to the Andrew Carnegie library in my hometown. What a gift, these libraries were, to the future!
LikeLike
LikeLike
Here’s a wonderful pic of Andrew Carnegie with Booker T. Washington at the Tuskegee Institute: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tuskegee_Institute_-_faculty.jpg. Here’s a good piece on the Carnegie libraries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_library/.
LikeLike
Oops. Here’s a link to that Wikipedia article on the Carnegie Libraries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_library
LikeLike
Billionaire Legacies
The legacy
Of Carnegie
Is libraries inspiring
The legacy
Of Gates, we see
Is testing, VAM and firing
LikeLiked by 1 person
Carnegie built some 2,500 public libraries, free to the public. He didn’t say which books to buy. He didn’t try to control what they did. He left it to the good sense of librarians and patrons.
Gates feels the need to control how his money is used. It is a means to tell others what to do and how to do it, based on his ideas, not theirs.
LikeLike
Never too Late
It’s ne’er too late
For Gates to see
Regenerate
His legacy
And all it takes
Is money giftings
Without the stakes
Of test restrictions
LikeLike
Diane, as promised I tried to contact Melinda and Bill through the GatesNotes blog as I have no other contact information for them. The note that I posted follows these comments. I suppose the readership will probably slam me for the endearing opening salutation, but c’ést la vie!
I see that you have not yet posted a note to your blog as I suggested yesterday seeking a Seattle area reader of your blog to help facilitate such a meeting. I still think that approach is much more likely to be successful than my effort below, and I strongly encourage you to make that effort as a initial peace offering if nothing else.
My GatesNotes blog comment follows:
Dear Melinda and Bill, First congratulations on Melinda’s new book. I am a retired scientist, former biotech IT director, software product manager, and ex-Peace Corp volunteer. I have tutored students in mathematics, physics, and chemistry in retirement for the last seven years now and am concerned about trends in American education. I write a blog on these topics at eduissues.com and read a number of education information sources from various viewpoints. The partisanship that infects everything in our country these days and particularly education debates really concerns me. I follow both your blog and Diane Ravitch’s blog, a prominent leader of the opposition to many of your initiatives. I have asked her more than once if it might not be more productive to tone down the heat and meet with you in person. She says that she has made three attempts to do so but has been rebuffed. I think it is high time that we hold an “education summit” and bring the warring sides together to talk. I would strongly encourage you to reach out to her and hold a meeting attended by yourself and your support staff along with Diane and possibly some of her assistants. It is high time to stop the factional warfare in our country and start talking rationally to each other again. I truly hope you will act on this proposal. Sincerely, Dr. David Kristofferson
LikeLike
Let me know if you get a response. I never did.
LikeLike
You don’t also want to try my suggestion of finding a mediator in Seattle??
LikeLike
David,
Why don’t you reach out to Gates and arrange a meeting? I have tried every time I was in Seattle over the past 7-8 years and gotten no response, although I did get a nice lunch with Jeff Raikes, who at the time was head of the Gates education program. So, they knew very well that I was in town. Gates was “too busy” to meet me.
Why do you keep pestering me that I should keep seeking a meeting with Bill Gates? Why isn’t he seeking a meeting with me?
Don’t you get it? I have tried and been rejected repeatedly. I got the message.
LikeLike
I do “get it” that you have been directly rejected three times. My hope was that an intermediary could be found in the area that might be more persuasive with Gates. I was only asking you to make one more attempt to find that intermediary through your blog since direct contacts from you have not worked.
I will not “pester” you further.
LikeLike
David,
I will not get down on bended knee and plead with the great Bill Gates to meet me. If you can arrange it, I am willing.
LikeLike
the super-rich and powerful that live in gilded bubbles by choice seldom if ever communicate with any of us inferior humans beyond their multiple homes, private jets, and yachts.
I’ve read that the Gates family lives in a 60,000 square foot home in Washington state. Who needs all that room for a house unless that house and its estate were built to be a gilded bubble?
Maybe Gates has his own shopping mall inside his house so he doesn’t have to shop with anyone outsdie of his bubble.
LikeLike
Melinda says she looks forward to the day when they live in a 1,500 square foot apartment.
LikeLike
Melinda didn’t reveal that she’s planning to use that 1500 square foot apartment as her overflow clothes closet.
LikeLike
“It took Gates seven years and $63 million to build his Medina, Washington, estate, named “Xanadu 2.0” after the fictional home of Charles Foster Kane, the title character of “Citizen Kane.” At 66,000 square feet, the home is absolutely massive, and it’s loaded to the brim with high-tech details” … “Inside, a high-tech sensor system helps guests monitor a room’s climate and lighting. There’s also a trampoline room, a 60-foot swimming pool, six kitchens, and a dining hall that can accommodate up to 200 people.”
“Bill Gates believed to have bought Hyde Park mansion. Microsoft founder Bill Gates and his wife, Melinda, appear to have paid $1.25 million for a five-bedroom, 3,000-square-foot house in the South Side Hyde Park neighborhood through a land trust on April 4” – Chicago Tribune
Business Insider says, “Gates has exactly the kind of real-estate portfolio you would expect from a billionaire, from a Washington mansion worth $123 million to multiple horse ranches across the US.”
October 2014, Gates purchased the 228-acre Rancho Paseana for $18 million. The property includes a racetrack, guesthouse, office, veterinarian’s suite, orchard, and five barns.
Gates also owns another horse farm in Wellington, Florida, which he purchased for $8.7 million in 2013. The family’s daughter, Jennifer, is an avid equestrian, and they had previously rented the house when in Florida for her competitions.
https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-home-and-real-estate-portfolio-2015-5#those-buildings-are-filled-with-equestrian-decor-weight-loss-expert-jenny-craig-previously-owned-the-property-before-selling-it-to-gates-5
And Melinda craves for a time when she can live in a 1500 square foot apartment — the only reason for her to want that is because Bill won’t pay for servants to clean any of their other houses and she had do all the dusting and vacuuming.
LikeLike
“Melinda says she looks forward to the day when they live in a 1,500 square foot apartment.”
Was she talking in this life or in the next one? (in a 1500 square foot mausoleum)
LikeLike
The Fog Lifter
The Billyanaire was beaten
By Lady with a blog
Who managed to defeat him
By dissipating fog
The Billyanaire was beaten
By Lady, as we see
Who’d offered oft to meet him
But ne’re did he agree
LikeLike
ne’er
LikeLike
PS if he agrees to meet with Diane, I will change the second verse.
But the first verse will not have to be changed because the Billyanaire has already lost where it matters most: with the public.
LikeLike
The Billyanaire was beaten
But thought that he had won
His hubris did defeat him
And things that he had done
LikeLike
The only education the GATES care about is educating machines to learn. That is the purpose of COMMON CORE. Our kids “core” educations are bi-products to their end goal to advance AI. Meanwhile they shelter their investment trough a philanthropic narrative that continues to fizzle.
LikeLike