Archives for category: Broad Foundation

Paul Horton, a history teacher at the University of Chicago Lab School, wrote the following open letter to President Obama:

July 12, 2013

Dear Mr. President,

I am very concerned about how you decided to go the way that you did with your Education policies. I was recently told by a close friend of the yours that “Arne’s Team looked at all of the options” and decided to go with its current policies because they would get us where we needed to go more quickly than any other set of alternatives.” I was also told, “that not everybody could be in the room.”

The problem was that you did not listen to experience. The blueprint for Arne’s plan for stimulus investment that morphed into the Race to the Top Mandates featured advisers from the Gates and Broad Foundations, analysts from McKinsey consulting, and a couple of dozen superintendents who were connected, like Mr. Duncan, to the Broad Foundation. Most of those who were invited to advise you were committed supporters of heavy private investment in Education who favored high stakes testing tied to teacher evaluations. Most of these advisers also favored the scaling up of measurable data collection as a way to measure progress or lack of progress in American Education.

If you had listened to the leading experts on standardized testing and the achievement gap, you would have learned that your policies were and are bound to fail. Our former colleague here at the U of C, Professor Coleman, was the first to establish this empirically. You should also learn about Campbell’s Law.

On a more personal level, Mr. President, you consulted many of your contacts in Democrats for Education Reform, an organization funded mostly by Democratic leaning Wall Street investment firms. And you were also very impressed by the ideas and passion of a Denver charter school principal and Democratic activist, Michael Johnston.

Michael Johnston has good potential as a politician, but he is not a qualified adviser to the President on Education matters. His record in Education is manufactured to look good. Over forty percent of his miracle Denver charter school class that graduated 100% dropped out before their senior year. This is an advantage that most charter schools have over public schools. Teach For America, where Johnston cut his teeth, typically has a very narrow and skewed view of American Education. State senator Johnston’s efforts on behalf of immigrants and redistribution of education funding are admirable. But many of us have been fighting this battle for decades. Johnston has had every advantage, and he his heart is certainly in the right place..

Many thousands of us have been fighting this battle for thirty and forty years and we remain relatively poor, isolated from the centers of power where big bucks are easy to acquire. Many of us have devoted our entire lives to helping minority students, yet we are treated very badly by this administration.

Thousands of teachers possess the experience, training, and commitment to advise you on Education matters. But you choose to listen to those who went to places like Harvard, Yale, and Stanford who have two years of classroom experience. Commitment, I submit, is a very important word.

The true measure of one’s commitment to Education is one’s willingness to sacrifice one’s will to power and economic potential to be successful in the classroom. TFA kids who go back to grad school after two years in the classroom and buy into corporate education reform are embracing their will to power. Most of these kids tend to have every advantage to begin with, they get an Ivy League education, and they are ambitious young liberals. Rather than staying in the classroom and truly making a difference by developing their teaching skills over twenty or thirty years, can achieve administrative positions in the charter world that have far more economic potential than teaching positions by buying into the mantra of data-driven corporate reform lingo.

You have left thousands of us behind and allowed inexperience access to take charge. You and your administration have encouraged a “Cultural Revolution” in American education. You promoted your basketball buddy and very close friend of your campaign finance manager to be Secretary of Education. From where I stand, Karen Duncan would have been a much better choice for Education Secretary because she has much more experience working with kids in a school setting than her husband. She knows what makes a great teacher from personal experience as an exemplary teacher. She is also much smarter and much funnier than her husband.

Your policies represent a new elitism. You seem to think that: “if we can get these really smart Ivy League educated former TFA people in senior policy, superintendent, and administrative positions, then we can turn this whole thing around.”

This idea is arrogant beyond belief, the equivalent of the “best and the brightest” idea that drove us into the ground in Vietnam, only you have decided to do it in Education. Robert McNamara was brilliant, he had an analytical razor, but he lacked a moral compass and anything resembling empathy for the lives of those who were dying in a “winnable” war. Mr. Duncan has a great deal of empathy, but he his policies are misguided. Indeed, in my humble opinion, his department’s policies are an inarticulate mess. If he were ever asked the right questions under oath in senator Harkin’s committee, we could very well discover that his use of the authority of his office overstepped the legal parameters of the laws circumscribing federal involvement in the formulation of Education policy. Ms. Weiss and Mr. Sheldon III, two of Secretary Duncan’s advisors who worked for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation prior to serving under Secretary Duncan, articulated what Mr. Gates wanted on his terms in exchange for tacit support for your campaigns. Several Wall Street investing firms also made it clear to you and to Mr. Emanuel that they were willing to support you if your Education policies encouraged private investment in charter schools.

You have bought into a corporate model of Education Reform: you seek to create competition among public and private schools, you encourage the “creative destruction” that your University of Chicago Business School buddies and Judge Posner love, and you seem to be gung-ho about selling off the public commons of American Education that were built with the sweat and blood of American farmers and workers. Do your policies work for young people who need stability in their lives? Creative destruction might benefit some kids (I was a military brat), but it probably does not benefit most.

Your Education policies embrace the management tactics of McKinsey Consulting that call for the firing of twenty to twenty-five percent of the teacher workforce every two years. You have said that Education should not “all be about bubble tests,” but your policies measure progress by bubble tests and they narrow the curriculum when they require standardized testing in some subjects, but not in others.

You campaigned on doing something about income inequality, but you and many of the mayors that you support are actively working to destroy what is left of the American middle class. Your Education policies work actively to destroy teacher unions. Many of your mayors and governors are working to bust teacher, hospital, public employee, firemen’s, and police unions.

What has happened to the Democratic Party when a foundational element of your education policy is to frequently vilify hundreds of thousands of effective and excellent teachers who have committed their lives to the classroom? You listen to people who are very smart and they seem to know it all. They are very polished presenters of themselves. Your policies favor this new class of ambitious young people who lack the commitment to kids to make a real difference where it is needed—in the classroom.

The question that all of you need to take a closer look at is how do we get and keep candidates who would be brilliant in any career into the classroom?

How do you increase the size of the quality teaching pool? The answers are there, and they don’t have anything to do with charter schools.

If Mr. Gates were really serious about Education in this country, he could invest in creating a system like Finland’s. The problem is that he is more interested in selling product than investing in four well qualified and well trained teachers in every classroom.

Progress in Education is not about buildings, it is not about technology: It is about human investment, not the expansion of markets.

President Obama, I have great respect for you. I have taught many of the young people who work for you. Ask your chef what a hard ass teacher I was. Please find the time to talk to committed teachers who have given their entire professional careers to improving Education in this country. This would require you to step outside of your comfort zone inside of Democrats for Education Reform and Teach for America circles. It will also require you to look beyond the mess that Ms. Weiss, Mr. Sheldon III, and Bill Gates have helped to create. It will require you to talk to Karen Duncan about teaching and schools rather than to Arne Duncan.

Please encourage senator Durbin and his committee to completely defund No Child Left Behind. Do you prefer to fund Pearson Education or allow thousands of teachers to be laid off? This is what it is coming down to. Will you allow the middle class to be further eroded? Or will you fight for the jobs of teachers? Will you reward Wall Street investors in Education and Bill Gates, or are you willing to fight for neighborhood schools and arts and humanities programs? Will you use Value Added Measures tied to standardized testing to further discredit teachers? Or will you begin to understand how complex real learning is, learning that can not be measured by “bubble tests.” These are your choices, Mr. President. Please look beyond your current Education advisors if you want to explore complex questions and solutions.

I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these and other issues with you.

All best,

Paul Horton
History Instructor
University High School
The University of Chicago Laboratory Schools

Diane’s correction:

A reader in Colorado sent the following correction to the above:

“Michael Johnston worked for a public school in CO: MESA Mapleton expeditionary school of the arts. Not a charter. Gary Rubinstein points out that Johnston s claim to fame–100% grads accepted to 4 year college —is a bit disingenuous. 77 10th graders morphed to 44 grads.”

A reader from Los Angeles raises questions about Dr. Deasy’s credentials and his backers. I cannot verify all his claims but could verify this and thisand this:

The reader writes:

“In Los Angeles, “Dr.” (a term L.A. teachers sneer at) John Deasy got his PhD from the University of Louisville after six months attendance and nine units of coursework from a “Professor” (another loose term) Felner whom Deasy had previously awarded $375,000 in consulting contracts while Superintendent of Santa Monica. Felner later received a vote of no confidence first from the University and then the U.S. Justice Department which sentenced him to five years in federal prison for defrauding the US Government and urban school districts of $2.3 million. Deasy lied on his resume, claiming to have taught at Loyola and was “installed” by Eli Broad (he’s a Broad Graduate), Bill Gates, and Mayor Villariagosa. Not only did LAUSD not conduct a national search, they didn’t even interview him. When I say “installed,” I mean, “INSTALLED!” He is now busy wrecking the careers of hundreds, soon to be thousands of dedicated teaching professionals using false allegations, many related to child abuse. Does anyone truly believe we suddenly have thousands of child-abusing teachers in L.A., or has an unqualified, vindictive, malicious Superintendent launched an unprecedented McCarthyistic witch hunt against primarily senior teachers to cover his own behind for mishandling other legitimate sex scandals (including a previous Superintendent’s) and solve his budget problems by riding himself of highly skilled (relatively expensive) veteran teachers while simultaneously robbing them of district-paid lifetime retirement health benefits –a quarter of a million dollars or more these veterans have spent decades earning while serving to LAUSD students?”

Six months and nine units got Deasy a PhD. Oh and by the way, his dissertation is dated months before he even enrolled at Louisville. How many ways can you spell “Quid Pro Quo?” What is the plural? Is it “Quids,” “Pros,” or “Quos”? All three? It can’t be “Pros.” Deasy is anything but a “pro.”

Deasy is literally skinning teachers alive with false allegations. And after paying accused child molester Mark Brendt $40,000 to resign, he did not notify the State’s Teacher Credential Commission for more than a year, the penalty for which is the revocation of your (meaning Deasy’s) administrative credential. Why does a man who admittedly broke the law still have an administrative credential? Why is he still an administrator? Why is his butchering of teachers being allowed to continue? Two reasons. The first is “Eli” and the second is “Broad.”

Newark, New Jersey, has been under state control for 18 years, and many residents have sought a return of local control. Their demands have grown louder since the district became a playground for reformers after Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg gave the city $100 million for reform and the state appointed Broad-trained superintendent Cami Anderson.

In a surprise move, State Commissioner Chris Cerf gave the district’s powerless elected board “fiscal control” but no one knows what that means. Can they cut the budget proposed by Anderson? Can they change it? Can they raise or lower her salary? No one knows.

The most important responsibility of a school board is to hire and fire the superintendent, and this power they definitely do not have.

Earlier today, Ben Austin wrote an open letter to me on Huffington Post. He expressed dismay about my characterization of him and his group Parent Revolution. Read his letter here. Here is my reply.

Dear Ben Austin,

Thank you for your invitation to engage in dialogue in your letter posted on Huffington Post.

You probably know that I have been writing a daily blog for the past fourteen months and during that time, I have written over 4,000 posts. I can’t remember any time when I have lost my temper other than when I wrote about your successful effort to oust an elementary school principal in Los Angeles named Irma Cobian.

I apologize for calling you “loathsome,” though I do think your campaign against a hardworking, dedicated principal working in an inner-city school was indeed loathsome. And it was wrong of me to say that there was a special place in hell reserved for anyone “who administers and funds this revolting organization that destroys schools and fine educators like Irma Cobian.”

As I said, I lost my temper, and I have to explain why.

I don’t like bullies. When I saw this woman targeted by your powerful organization, it looked like bullying. Your organization is funded by many millions of dollars from the Walton Family Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation. You have a politically powerful organization, and you used your power to single out this one woman and get her fired.

Your organization sent in paid staff to collect signatures from parents. The teachers in the school were not permitted to express their opinion to parents about your efforts to fire their principal. When you succeeded in getting her fired, 21 of the 22 teachers on staff requested a transfer. That suggests that Cobian has the loyalty of her staff and is a good leader.

Who is this woman that you ousted?

All I know about her is what I read in this article in the Los Angeles Times.

It said: “More than two decades ago, Cobian walked away from a high-powered law firm to teach. The daughter of Mexican immigrants, she said she was inspired by a newspaper article about the low high school graduation rates of Latinos and wanted to make a difference.

“Her passion for social justice led her to Watts in 2009.”

Irma Cobain is now in her fourth year as principal of the school, and you decided that her time was up.

What did her teachers say about her?

“Third-grade teacher Kate Lewis said Irma Cobian is the best principal she’s had in nine years at Weigand Avenue Elementary School in Watts.

“Joseph Shamel called Cobian a “godsend” who has used her mastery of special education to show him how to craft effective learning plans for his students.”

“Fourth-grade teacher Hector Hernandez said Cobian is the first principal he’s had who frequently pops into classrooms to model good teaching herself. Recently, he said, she demonstrated how to teach about different literary genres by engaging students in lively exercises using characters from the “Avengers” comic book and film.”

When Cobian arrived at the Weigand Avenue Elementary school four years ago, she found a school with low test scores, low parent involvement, and divisiveness over a dual-language program. “All the students come from low-income families, more than half are not fluent in English and a quarter turn over every year,” the Los Angeles Times story said.

Cobian decided to focus on improving literacy and raising morale. She certainly won over the faculty.

The day after Cobian learned about the vote removing her, she went to a second-grade classroom to give prizes to children who had read 25 books this year. She cheered those who met the goal and encouraged those who were trying. But she could not hide her sadness.

“I need happiness today,” Cobian told the bright-eyed students. “What do I do when I’m sad?”

“Come here!” the students sang out.

For a moment, her sadness gave way to smiles. But later, she said: “I am crushed.”

Ben, how did you feel when you read that? I felt sad. I felt this was a caring and dedicated person who had been singled out unfairly.

Ben, I hope you noticed in the article that Dr. John Deasy, the superintendent of schools in Los Angeles, praised the plan that Cobian and her staff developed for improving the school. He called it a “well-organized program for accelerated student achievement.” He thanked Cobian for her commitment and hard work.” But you decided she should be fired.

Ironically, the parent who worked with you to fire Cobian said she preferred Weigand to her own neighborhood school where she had concerns about bullying. Even stranger, the parents at Cobian’s school voted to endorse her plan. Your parent spokesperson said she did not like the plan because it focused on reading and writing, but she told the reporter from the Los Angeles Times that she actually never read the plan.

I understand from your letter, Ben, that you somehow feel you are a victim because of what I wrote about you. But, Ben, you are not a victim. Irma Cobian is the victim here. She lost her job because of your campaign to get rid of her. She is the one who was humiliated and suffered loss of income and loss of reputation. You didn’t. You still have your organization, your staff, and the millions that the big foundations have given you.

I am sorry you had a tough childhood. We all have our stories about growing up. I am one of eight children. My father was a high-school dropout. My mother immigrated from Bessarabia and was very proud of her high school diploma from the Houston public schools. She was proud that she learned to speak English “like a real American.” My parents were grateful for the free public schools of Houston, where I too graduated from high school. We had our share of problems and setbacks but I won’t go on about myself or my siblings because my story and yours are really beside the point. What troubles me is what you are doing with the millions you raise. You use it to sow dissension, to set parents against parents, parents against teachers, parents against principals. I don’t see this as productive or helpful. Schools function best when there is collaboration among teachers, parents, administrators, and students. Schools have a better chance of success for the children when they have a strong community and culture of respect.

Your “parent trigger” destroys school communities. True to its name, the “trigger” blasts them apart. It causes deep wounds. It decimates the spirit of respect and comity that is necessary to build a strong community. Frankly, after the school shootings of recent years, your use of the metaphor of a “parent trigger” is itself offensive. We need fewer triggers pointed at schools and educators. Please find a different metaphor, one that does not suggest violence and bloodshed.

It must be very frustrating to you and your funders that–three years after passage of the “parent trigger” law– you can’t point to a single success story. I am aware that you persuaded the parents at the Desert Trails Elementary School in Adelanto, California, to turn their public school over to a privately operated charter. I recall that when parents at the school tried to remove their signatures from your petition, your organization went to court and won a ruling that they were not allowed to rescind their signatures. Ultimately only 53 parents in a school of more than 600 children chose the charter operator. Since the charter has not yet opened, it is too soon to call that battle a success for Parent Revolution. Only the year before, the Adelanto Charter Academy lost its charter because the operators were accused of financial self-dealing.

But, Ben, let me assure you that I bear you no personal ill will. I just don’t approve of what you are doing. I think it is wrong to organize parents to seize control of their public school so they can fire the staff or privatize it. If the principal is doing a bad job, it is Dr. Deasy’s job to remove her or him. I assume that veteran principals and teachers get some kind of due process, where charges are filed and there is a hearing. If Cobain was as incompetent as you say, why didn’t Dr. Deasy bring her up on charges and replace her?

I also have a problem with the idea that parents can sign a petition and hand their public school off to a private charter corporation. The school doesn’t belong to the parents whose children are enrolled this year. It belongs to the public whose taxes built it and maintains it. As the L.A. Times story pointed out, one-quarter of the children at Weigand Avenue Elementary School are gone every year. The parents who sign a petition this year may not even be parents in the school next year. Why should they have the power to privatize the school? Should the patrons of a public library have the power to sign a petition and privatize the management? Should the people using a public park have the right to take a vote and turn the park over to private management?

We both care about children. I care passionately about improving education for all children. I assume you do as well. You think that your organized raids on public schools and professionals will lead to improvement. I disagree. Schools need adequate resources to succeed. They also need experienced professionals, a climate of caring, and stability. I don’t see anything in the “trigger” concept that creates the conditions necessary for improvement. Our teachers and principals are already working under too much stress, given that schools have become targets for federal mandates and endless reforms.

I suggest that educators need respect and thanks for their daily work on behalf of children. If they do a bad job, the leadership of the school system is responsible to take action. What educators don’t need is to have a super-rich, super-powerful organization threatening to pull the trigger on their career and their good name.

Ben, thanks for the open letter and the chance to engage in dialogue. If you don’t mind, I want to apologize to Irma Cobain on your behalf. She was doing her best. She built a strong staff that believes in her. She wrote a turnaround plan that Dr. Deasy liked and the parents approved. Ms. Cobain, if you read this, I hope you can forgive Ben. Maybe next time, he will think twice, get better information, and consider the consequences before he decides to take down another principal.

Diane Ravitch

A reader offered the following comments on the relationship between Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and the Broad Foundation:

“There is no way Duncan limited testing when he was in Chicago because it would have impeded the corporate education reform agenda.

Arne Duncan was on the board of the Broad Foundation while he was the leader of Chicago schools. The modus operandi of Broad Foundation is deception. It is the method of implementing the Broad Foundations anti-democratic agenda.

On Page 10 of the 2009/2010 Broad Foundation Annual Report http://tinyurl.com/6w5sps2
it says:

“Prior to becoming U.S. secretary of education, Arne Duncan was CEO of Chicago Public Schools, where he hosted 23 Broad Residents. Duncan now has five Broad Residents and alumni working with him in the U.S. Department of Education.”

On Page 35 of the same annual report it says:

“The election of President Barack Obama and his appointment of Arne Duncan, former CEO of Chicago Public Schools, as the U.S. secretary of education, marked the pinnacle of hope for our work in education reform. In many ways, we feel the stars have finally aligned.

With an agenda that echoes our decade of investments—charter schools, performance pay for teachers, accountability, expanded learning time and national standards—the Obama administration is poised to cultivate and bring to fruition the seeds we and other reformers have planted.”

Anthony Cody describes the campaign to put mayors in charge of school districts and the reasons behind it.

The biggest supporter of mayoral control is Arne Duncan. When mayoral control was up for renewal in Néw York City, he weighed in to support it. He lobbied against any effort to give the mayor’s appointees set terms; he insisted they should serve at the pleasure of the mayor to give his absolute authority over every decision.

That allowed the mayor to ignore protests against school closing and charters, both of which are priorities for Duncan.

Who else supports mayoral control? The Gates Foundation, the Broad Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation. The billionaires don’t like democracy.

Unfortunately, mayoral control hasn’t worked out so well for Néw York City, Chicago, and D.C., but why let evidence get in the way of a desire for total power?

Now that Commissioner Pryor has the go-ahead from Governor Malloy to apply the principles of corporate education reform, he has loaded up the payroll of the state education department with his fellow reformers. Here comes the privatization movement, prepared to bust unions, demoralize teachers, and generate profits for friends of the movement.

Naturally, there is a Talent Officer, a Turnaround Officer, a Performance Manager, and a bevy of Broad interns. This in one of the nation’s top performing states.

Researchers Sarah Reckhow of Michigan State University and doctoral student Jeffrey Snyder reported at an AERA session that foundation giving is increasingly concentrated on a small number of recipients.

Foundation funding is moving away from giving to public schools–attended by 90% of American students–and is going instead to “challengers” to the system, especially charter schools–attended by about 5% of American students.

The story in Education Week says:

“At the start of the decade, less than a quarter of K-12 giving from top foundations—about $90 million in all—was given to the same few groups. Five years later, 35 percent of foundation giving, or $230 million, went to groups getting support from other foundations, and by 2010, $540 million, representing 64 percent of major foundation giving for K-12, was similarly aligned.”

The groups now getting the lion’s share of foundation funding are KIPP, Teach for America, the NewSchools Venture Fund, the Charter School Growth Fund, and the D.C. Public Education Fund.

None of the main recipients of foundation funding are models for American education. All are committed to privatization. The best known alumni of TFA are Michelle Rhee, John White of Louisiana, and Kevin Huffman of Tennessee, all of whom support vouchers and charters.

When will the foundations wise up and stop supporting failed policies?

Don’t they care about the 90% of American children who attend public schools? Or do they think that someday all schools will be run by private entrepreneurs?

The billionaires and moguls and titans are at it again.

They desperately want to buy the last seat on the Los Angeles school board, which will be decided in a run-off on May 21.

The contenders are Monica Ratliff, a teacher, and Antonio Sanchez, who used to work on the staff of L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

The Big Money wants Sanchez. Just as they assembled a war chest to beat Steve Zimmer, they are now piling up dough to crush underfunded Ratliff.

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg put in $350,000. Los Angeles billionaire Eli Broad added $250,000. Michelle Rhee’s StudentsFirst added $100,000. It is expected that they will collect $1 million or more to beat Ratliff.

“In the primary, money spent by or for Sanchez outpaced Ratliff’s spending by a ratio of about 84 to 1.”

The UTLA endorsed both candidates and gave Ratliff $1,000.

Zimmer beat the billionaires. Can Ratliff pull off an upset too? She will probably be outspent this time 100-1.

The Boston Review has a special issue devoted to the question of what foundations are for.

The lead review describes the role that foundations are supposed to play: to encourage innovation, to prod government to change its priorities, to demonstrate the validity of a different path, etc.

Various commentators, including me, were invited to respond. I tried briefly to explain how the role of foundations in the K-12 sector have changed in significant ways. The three biggest foundations now act in concert with the U.S. Department of Education, not trying out new ideas, but imposing their shared ideological agenda. By he power of this combine, they actually exclude and repress any thinking other than their own.