Archives for category: Broad Foundation

A reader writes and asks for our support:

Chicago has the Broad virus http://goo.gl/GKM2m I am a Chicago Teacher and not a fighter by nature at all. I am completely out of my comfort zone with this strike. I look with longing at my classroom window each day on the picket line.

However, I am angry that my students and dedicated colleagues are being used (and abused) as pawns in political and corporate games. When I read articles like the one I posted and read the information from these blogs, I shake my head in disbelief. If I don’t stay strong and help my union stand up to this really awful attack–who will?

What really hurts are the lies and slander. How can the media spin it so well where people truly believe that children mean nothing to the people who have chosen as their life’s work to help them succeed. They believe money is what drives teachers and why we aren’t working.

But corporate billionaires (or millionaires) and politicians–oh, yes, of course, they are the ones who truly work for the children of our public schools. What bizarro world do we live in? We teachers have done nothing wrong and should not be shamed. I don’t think politicians and the corporate elite who are deforming public education can say the same.

However, I and other Chicago teachers need help in staying strong. This striking is hard (mentally), It is not fun. It is not an extra vacation. We are not always supported on the picket lines (mostly yes–but there have been a few aggressive misinformed people). Any kind word or comments on any message board that is about the strike is much appreciated. I read them daily before I go to bed to remind myself that giving up would be greedy not digging in for the fight. Thanks for reading. Teacher

Jan Carr, an author of children’s books, is a dedicated public school parent. She wrote a post wondering why the powerful elites in our society are so obsessed with testing and data. She wondered why they care so little for developing critical thinking.

Jan wrote: “I’ve been a scrappy public school mom for 12 years and counting, and I’ve watched the increasing encroachment of the data and accountability business, which would have our kids prepping for and taking deadening tests at every turn, and our teachers endlessly graded and derided for test results that are a meaningless distraction from real learning. A rich and full education digs deeper; it’s inextricably entwined with books, literature, writing, and the life of the mind; it develops critical thinking.”

I read her latest post and asked Mike Petrilli of the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute to respond to it. I have known Mike for many years, and I hold out hope that someday he too will evolve and renounce the reforms he now champions. I think this will happen when his own children encounter them, as Jan Carr’s did.

I invite readers to comment on this discussion.

This is Mike’s commentary:

Dear Ms. Carr,

I enjoyed reading your post about critical thinking; it sounds like you and your son have been lucky to have had some very talented teachers.

l’ve never met Bill Gates, or Eli Broad, or Michael Bloomberg, or Rupert Murdoch; I can’t speak for what lies in their hearts. But I find it very unlikely that they don’t want children to “think critically” because they want to produce a generation of drones. I know that sort of rhetoric is common on the left (including from the late Howard Zinn) but to believe it you have to also believe that Barack Obama, the late Ted Kennedy, the liberal icon George Miller, and countless other liberal supporters of education reform are also out to unplug our children’s minds. That doesn’t pass the “critical thinking” test.

What motivates these folks, as I understand it, is an earnest belief that in today’s knowledge economy, the only way poor kids are going to have a shot at escaping inter-generational poverty is to gain the knowledge, skills, and character strengths that will prepare them to enter and complete some sort of post-secondary education–the pathway to the middle class. And that while reading and math scores don’t come close to measuring everything that counts, they do measure skills that have been linked to later success in college, the workplace, and life.

I suspect that all of these men would like to see students engaged in more of the kind of critical thinking that you describe, and that’s one reason many support the move to the more rigorous “Common Core” standards for English Language Arts and math. The ELA standards, in particular, are designed to push students toward this sort of complex thinking.

The testing movement has caused a lot of harm, I agree, in terms of narrowing the curriculum and encouraging bad teaching. Moving to better standards and tests is one way to address that. But by throwing out the baby with the bathwater we risk going back to the days when poor and minority kids were held to very low expectations–and their achievement plateaued as a result.

In the last two decades, poor and minority kids have made two grade levels of progress in reading and math, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress. The hope–and it’s really only a hypothesis at this point–is that those greater math and reading skills will help a generation of kids do much better in college and the real world than they otherwise would have. The question for educators and reformers is: How do we keep the good that’s come from testing and accountability while eliminating the bad?

Mike Petrilli

The Broad Center–established by billionaire Eli Broad–runs an unaccredited training program for school leaders, where aspiring superintendents learn Broad’s philosophy of school management. Eli Broad is a businessman who made his billions in home-building, mortgage lending, and insurance (AIG). The Broad Center has a powerful network.

By happenstance, a memo from the Center fell into the hands of critics, who wrote about the Center’s plans to produce more disruptive and transformative leaders. The critics wrote about the memo; the Center responded; and the critics responded to the Center’s response.

If you want an insight into the thinking of the Broad Center, read on:

Today’s Washington Post Answer Sheet column includes the latest in a series of posts and exchanges about the Broad Foundation’s education “reform” efforts in NJ and across the nation. As Post reporter Valerie Strauss writes: “The Chicago teachers strike has made school reform national news, and here’s a piece that helps explain some of the controversy. This is a follow-up to a post I published last month about plans by the California-based foundation of billionaire Eli Broad to expand its influence in school reform initiatives that include charter schools, merit pay and other market-based reforms. The original piece and the following one were written by Ken Libby, a doctoral student at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Stan Karp, director of the Secondary Reform Project for New Jersey’sEducation Law Center and an editor of Rethinking Schools magazine.”

 

 

Broad’s misleading response to critics

The Washington Post Answer Sheet

The Broad Center’s efforts to “accelerate” disruptive reform do not improve school districts. Instead they destabilize them, promote the privatization of public policy and undermine the common ground public education needs to survive and improve. Broad’s support for charter expansion, school closings, test-based teacher evaluation, merit payTeach for America, hostility to teachers unions and top-down business management of school districts is wreaking havoc in urban districts across the country. Our “interest” in the Broad Center’s programs is in stopping them from doing further damage to our schools, students and communities.

 

Commentary

The Broad Center for the Management of School Systems

What the Aug. 21 Answer sheet blog post doesn’t tell you is that nowhere in the memo referred to are the words “privatize public schools,” “run schools like businesses,” “corporate school reform” or “influence schools.” That is because these are not our goals.  We don’t believe in these things, which is why you won’t see that language in any correspondence we produce. 

 

Broad Foundation’s plan to expand influence in school reform

The Washington Post Answer Sheet

A recentmemo from The Broad Center (TBC) proposes a series of strategic shifts in the foundation’s education programs designed to “accelerate” the pace of “disruptive” and “transformational” change in big city school districts, and create a “go to group” of “the most promising [Broad] Academy graduates, and other education leaders, who are poised to advance the highest-leverage education reform policies on the national landscape.”

ELC Obtains Confidential NJDOE School “Turnaround” Plan

In response to a request under the NJ Open Public Records Act (OPRA), Education Law Center has obtained a confidential proposal prepared for the Broad Foundation by the NJ Department of Education (NJDOE) to “turnaround,” take control, and potentially close over 200 public schools over the next three years. 

 

A Parent Guide to the Broad Foundation’s training programs and education

Parents Across America

The question I ask is why should Eli Broad and Bill Gates have more of a say as to what goes on in my child’s classroom than I do? – Sue Peters, Seattle parent

__._,_.___

Mark Naison has written a passionate plea: It is time to start suing to stop the harm inflicted on children, teachers and schools.

The political parties have abandoned them and use well-honed PR rhetoric to paint abandonment as “reform.”

The media swallow the rhetoric.

The foundations have an open wallet for those who are destroying public education.

The Republicans want to intensify the  harm. Arne Duncan boasts of bipartisanship with a party that hates public education.

Naison says it is time to go to the courts to prevent further damage to America’s children and its education system.

Any public interest law firms listening? ACLU? Anyone?

 

Eli Broad made billions in the home mortgage business and the insurance business (AIG).

He runs a foundation that specializes in education reform, medical research, and art.

One assumes he does not tell the medical researchers what to do or the artists what to create.

If only he had the same modesty about education.

He thinks he knows what works.

School choice. Test-based accountability. Merit pay. Business-style management.

None of his favorite nostrums are supported by research or evidence.

No matter.

Now he plans to expand to generate even more “disruptive,” “entrepreneurial,” “transformational” leaders of your schools.

He boasts about listening to no one and plunging ahead.

It worked for him in the home mortgage business, though he was long gone when millions of people lost their homes.

It worked for him at AIG, but he made his billions before that giant collapsed.

Now Broad trains school leaders in his unaccredited “academy.”

They learn his principles.

His Broadies are leading districts and states.

Some are educators, some are not.

Some are admired, some are despised.

But the question remains, who elected Eli Broad to reform the nation’s schools?

He is like a spoiled rich kid in a candy shop, taking what he wants, knocking over displays, breaking jars, barking orders.

America’s public schools are not his playground. Or should not be.

How can he be held accountable?

And who will pick up the pieces when his latest fancy blows up like AIG?

This is an important article about our society today. It is titled “The Revolt of the Rich.” It is especially interesting that it appears in a conservative magazine. The author, Michael Lofgren, was a long-time Republican (now independent); his new book is called The Party Is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted. Read Bill Moyers’ interview with him here. 

There is an apocryphal exchange between F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway in which Fitzgerald allegedly said, “The rich are different from us,” and Hemingway allegedly answered, “Yes, they have more money.”

The article linked here says the super-rich are indeed different from the rest of us. They have no sense of place. As the article begins, the thesis unfolds:

It was 1993, during congressional debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement. I was having lunch with a staffer for one of the rare Republican congressmen who opposed the policy of so-called free trade. To this day, I remember something my colleague said: “The rich elites of this country have far more in common with their counterparts in London, Paris, and Tokyo than with their fellow American citizens.”

That was only the beginning of the period when the realities of outsourced manufacturing, financialization of the economy, and growing income disparity started to seep into the public consciousness, so at the time it seemed like a striking and novel statement.

The author worries that the people who have disproportionate power in this country don’t care about anyone but themselves:

Our plutocracy now lives like the British in colonial India: in the place and ruling it, but not of it. If one can afford private security, public safety is of no concern; if one owns a Gulfstream jet, crumbling bridges cause less apprehension—and viable public transportation doesn’t even show up on the radar screen. With private doctors on call and a chartered plane to get to the Mayo Clinic, why worry about Medicare?

The super-rich, he says, have seceded from America. They have no regard for our public institutions. They are disconnected from the lives of ordinary people. They don’t even have a sense of noblesse oblige. This explains their contempt for public schools attended by other people’s children:

To some degree the rich have always secluded themselves from the gaze of the common herd; their habit for centuries has been to send their offspring to private schools. But now this habit is exacerbated by the plutocracy’s palpable animosity towards public education and public educators, as Michael Bloomberg has demonstrated. To the extent public education “reform” is popular among billionaires and their tax-exempt foundations, one suspects it is as a lever to divert the more than $500 billion dollars in annual federal, state, and local education funding into private hands—meaning themselves and their friends. What Halliburton did for U.S. Army logistics, school privatizers will do for public education.

What is so astonishing these days is that the super-rich–call them not the 1% but the 1% of the 1%–have control of a large part of the mainstream media. They can afford to take out television advertising, even though their views are echoed on the news and opinion programs. And the American public, or a large part of it, is persuaded to vote against its own self-interest. A friend told me the other day that his brother, who barely subsists on social security, was worried that Obama might raise taxes on people making over $250,000. How can you explain his concern about raising taxes on those who can most afford it?

People like Bill Gates, Eli Broad, the Walton Family, and Michael Bloomberg have a disproportionate influence on our national politics. They have only one vote. But their money enables them to control the instruments of power and persuasion. Their money gives them a voice larger than anyone else’s. Governors, Senators, presidential candidates come calling, hoping to please them and win their support.

This is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

Many readers have been critical of their unions and wish they were more militant in fighting the corporate suits. This reader disagrees and explains why:

I’m going to go out on a limb here because the comments I am about to post are probably not going to be very popular with anyone who has commented in this discussion.So many people want their state and national teachers unions to launch a campaign of all-out protest toward the corporate reform movement.If anyone here has not yet noticed, there is a great deal of public dissatisfaction with the mere idea of public unions, let alone their actions. It would be political suicide for unions at any level to come out with “horses on fire and guns a-blazing” against these public perceptions. I have found that unions will seek to publicly take the high road in working towards better ways to improve the system.

There are times to get aggressive, but for all the “right-is-on-our-side” mentality among union members, there are plenty of people with the mentality that any aggressive union action (whether in word or deed) is negative. This negative public perception was demonstrated in Wisconsin, and it can and does continually appear in just about every other state in this country. Too many people in the public do not understand the value of unions nor know the history behind the formation and support of unions throughout the last century. Many union members themselves do not even have a background in this.

This is not a time for unions to take a defensive position–there are ways to approach these issues without giving the anti-union camp more fodder to spread their “unions are bad” message.

There are many facets to the politics of the cause that can work for or against the public perception of the unions. Whether you as a purist believe that the public perception is not important is irrelevant—it is of great importance if one wishes to garner support for public education.

There truly are no advocates for teachers and public education with any kind of position of effectiveness outside of the public teachers unions. Therefore, one must tread lightly when publicly criticizing the unions. That is not to say that members should feel as if they cannot have any critical opinions—these opinions must be voiced to the union leadership, but it is never a good idea to publicly criticize your own union as a member. It only weakens everybody’s position including that of the members themselves.

Unions invariably seek to effect positive influence on policies that affect public education. One of the most effective avenues of influencing positive public education policies is through conversations with legislators in the public forum. Union members should maintain a presence in their state legislature’s public sessions–the policy-makers need to hear from the unions especially before enacting some of the horrific proposals by some factions of the political arena.

Another way to be an effective force in public education is to continually work within a public advocacy program to show the public that unions not only work to continually improve schools, they continually work to improve communities.

I ask those who are critical of the national unions: How many of you have taken the time to attend your state legislature sessions to speak up about the policies in the public forum? I’m sure there are some here and there, but it has been my experience that most union members who complain about the union have never done this very thing. Have you at least made a phone call or sent an email to your legislators? If you have not joined in the conversation and simply left that to your representation, then it might be safe to say that you are not part of the solution. It’s so easy to be critical of your union representation when you have not gotten involved. Once you see what is required of union representation on many levels, you can take a more informed position of criticism toward what union leadership actually does.

For those who have had bad experiences and felt your local representation did very little to help you, know that you should never be left without recourse. Just like in any other area, there are varying levels of effectiveness among local associations. This is why there are country and state affiliations, just like in the court system. Take it to a higher level if you are not satisfied with the local level. Your personal situations are understandably important to you, but it is not fair to characterize every local in every state across the country as the same, just as it is not fair to characterize every teacher, student, school, district, etc. in the same way. We have used this “avoid generalizations” argument time and again in discussions on this blog. I caution anyone who is using one example as evidence of how all locals operate to be a little more responsible.

In my state, engaging in conversations with the public policy-makers is just what one of the state unions does. This practice has effectively prevented many bad policy ideas from becoming law despite what some perceptions of the actions of union leadership might be. I applaud the leaders and members of our state union for having not only the courage to continually speak up, but also for working WITH the legislature to ensure that public demands for improvement are answered without demeaning of devaluing the professionals who work in the school system.

We do not operate in a public vacuum–we do need to be quite aware of the needs and perceptions of our constituency. We also need to be aware of how damaging perceptions without evidence can be.

It’s amazing that so many union members themselves believe in the existence of “back-door” deals about which so many conspiracy theorists and anti-union pundits are always going on. When did the membership start believing this hype? Where is your evidence that union leaders are conspiring with the “reformers?”

This link posted above by another reader (touting how national unions are “in bed” with the Gates Foundation) caught my attention:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/22/education/22gates.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

You have to read a great deal before you even get to the excerpt that speaks to this claim, but here it is:
“While the foundation has given money to both the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, totaling about $6.3 million over the last three years, some of its newer initiatives appear aimed at challenging the dominance that unions have exercised during policy debates.”

An article on the Gates foundation with an excerpt stating that the foundation gave money to union membership three years ago is not evidence of anything–it is supposition based on a concept that every donation has an agenda. Does the reader have any evidence of how that donation was appropriated? I also wonder where that money went. Let’s find out before we use this as “evidence” that the unions are “sleeping with the enemy.”

It is never a good idea to try to sway public opinion by openly declaring war on what many of the uninformed have convinced themselves to be “good” policies (i.e., “corporate reform”). The political stronghold on the public message belongs to those with the power and influence to control these messages, and in case no one has noticed, it isn’t the teachers unions. A great deal of the public does not support the public unions because people have been fed a constant diet of anti-union rhetoric by the powerful voices in politics. I have found even among my teaching colleagues, that just being affiliated with a teachers union turns people off from listening to you. Do you seriously think that you can change the message as a union without flack from the usual anti-union camp that is so powerful in the media and in politics?

You need a strategy of positive influence and cooperation, not a defensive posture. One needs to heed the lessons of good public relations as a union member. Start by supporting your own unions–ask questions, yes, but never, NEVER put your union down publicly because you’re so angry. Work from within the system that advocates for you, whether you want to believe it actually does or not. And for those who do not believe that the unions advocate for you, try doing your job without the unions. While I’m sure there would be isolated instances of “great non-union experiences,” the majority of us would be mistreated in our jobs just by the very nature of human nature and the public’s perception of “public service.”

 
 

Several readers have pointed out that retired teachers are free to be outspoken, because they can’t lose their jobs.

This teacher explains what retired teachers did in one community:

In Rockford, IL, a group of retired teachers and parents heard the cry for help from their active teachers. They formed an organization (W.E.E.: Watchdogs for Ethics in Education), and set about doing fact-finding work: they researched, went to meetings and took notes, filed an FOIA, and then presented their facts via a fact sheet to the community. Their efforts–in large part–resulted in the departure of their reviled Broad superintendent! (The next one was better, and he also knew that W.E.E. was on the case!) So–get your retired teachers out there to work with parents and community members (don’t involve active teachers–they’re too busy teaching, and their jobs might be threatened), and have at it.

A few things we know about the Pittsburgh public schools.

They were led by Broad-trained superintendent Mark Roosevelt. Now they are led by his deputy Linda Lane, also trained by the unaccredited Broad Superintendents Academy.

They received a $40 million grant from the Gates Foundation for teacher evaluation.

They have a bold plan to close the achievement gap.

Scores in 2012 in Pittsburgh dropped for the first time in five years.

Scores dropped across the state and it may have been because of heightened security. 

A Pittsburgh parent posted this comment:

Don’t forget our Broad influence either — our “reforms” were begun with Mark Roosevelt being named superintendent with the backing of a foundation supported “community watchdog group.” He was replaced by his second in command and also a Broadie, Linda Lane. He said when he left that he’d “planted the garden” and all we had to do know was to tend the growth. We just got a new Broad fellow this year, too, to join our crop. Teachers have been furloughed, but administration has been doing fine.

A reader of this blog who teaches in the Pittsburgh school posted the following comment:

I teach in Pittsburgh Public Schools and can attest to conditions in Pittsburgh being similar to those faced by children and teachers and parents around the country. Simultaneously, the social fabric of the lives of our children and their parents has become more and more unraveled (jobs, housing, income, public transit, cost of higher ed, etc. wrecking havoc) AND their schools are victims of radical budget cuts and huge focus on curriculum modified to get those test scores up AND teachers, as everywhere, are vilified and furloughed and humiliated and attacked. But we teachers and our union keep doing our best to hold our heads up and keep our eyes on the real only important thing, and that is trying to hold things together for our beautiful children. And we will keep doing that, because that’s who we are. There is so much more to our children and our schools and our teachers than these test scores. Of course.

Doing some research on for-profit virtual schools, I come across study after study about their poor performance, high attrition rates, and low graduation rates.

But then I discovered a document produced by Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Excellent Education and Bob Wise’s Alliance for Excellent Education. It is called “the Ten Elements of Digital Learning” and it is a rallying cry for deregulation and proliferation of every manner of virtual education, including for-profit virtual charters.

Among other recommendations, it says that teachers should not be certified, as that would hamper innovation and diminish quality. It claims that digital learning will transform education, close the achievement gaps, and narrow the income divide in American society. It promises the world, in short. Digital learning is the magic bullet, so it says.

It does not take note of the studies that say that digital schools underperform brick-and-mortar schools.

The report was funded by–no surprise–the Gates Foundation, the Broad Foundation, and the Walton Foundation.

Maybe it is the Magna Carta of virtual schooling. But the gap between promise and reality is a giant canyon.