Archives for category: Education Industry
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Gary Rubinstein: The Pathetic Excuses for the Collapse of Tennessee’s Underachievement School District

By dianeravitch
September 13, 2017 //
7

Gary Rubinstein has followed the progress (and lack thereof) of the celebrated Tennessee Achievement School District. It was the ultimate proving ground of the claim by charteristas that they could “turnaround” the state’s worst schools and vault them into the top 25% in five years.

As Gary reports here, they didn’t.

They have plenty of excuses. And the education press refuses to hold them accountable for their inflated promises and their failure to keep them.

The original architect Chris Barbic (one of the “stars” of the charter industry, having founded the YES PREP chain in Houston) left before the gig was up and went to work for billionaire John Arnold, ex-Enron trader, who devotes his “philanthropic” efforts to two goals: charter schools and eliminating pensions for public employees.

And now, the ASD has changed its goal, having demonstrated that its original goal was out of reach. And its second leader is leaving, having accomplished nothing. She too will go on to a cushy job.

Only the children will be left behind.

Gary reminds us that other states are copying the failed Tennessee model. In “reform,” nothing succeeds like failure.

I am reminded that last year, I had an acerbic exchange with an editor from one of North Carolina’s daily newspapers. I asked on this blog why NC was adopting the Tennessee Achievement School District, right after a team of Vanderbilt researchers found that it was not improving achievement (test scores). I dared to say that the experiment was a failure. The newspaper editor lashed out and demanded to know why I called the TN ASD a failure; it hadn’t achieved its goals “yet,” but that was no reason not to try it in NC. Wonder what he will say now. Give it another decade? Two more decades? Forever?

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Privatization

Maurice Cunningham: Massachusetts Drove “Families for Excellent Schools” Out of the State

By dianeravitch
September 13, 2017 //
14

When I learned that the phony “Families for Excellent Schools” was forced to pay a hefty fine by state officials in Massachusetts, I invited Maurice T. Cunningham to write about it. New Yorkers are familiar with this billionaire-funded group from the time when it made a $6 million television buy to thwart Mayor de Blasio’s plan to establish accountability for charter schools. FES, pretending to be the voice of poor black and brown families, suddenly appeared with bulging pockets to shower millions on TV advertising and politicians, not what one would expect from “families” who live in poverty. As a result of their efforts, charters in New York City got the right to co-locate in public school buildings with no rent ever, and if they preferred a private space, the city was obliged to pay for it. What was certain was that not a one of the billionaires behind FES was planning to send any of their children to charter schools or public schools in New York City.

During the campaign in Massachusetts last fall, Professor Cunningham wrote about the dark money pouring in to influence the Question 2 referendum. Despite the money, opponents of charter expansion lost.

This is what Professor Cunningham wrote:

Families for Excellent Schools Driven Out of Business in Massachusetts

Maurice T. Cunningham

Associate Professor, University of Massachusetts at Boston

Families for Excellent Schools, the hedge funded bully of school privatization, has not only been exposed but driven out of business in Massachusetts.

Last year FES was leading the campaign, through its ballot committee Great Schools Massachusetts, to pass a referendum that would expand the number of possible charter schools in the state. Not only was GSM overwhelmed at the November election by teachers unions, but FES’s wild spending attracted the attention of the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance. This past week OCPF released a Disposition Agreement with FES that found that the group had violated Massachusetts campaign finance laws. FES acted as a political committee without registering with OCPF, and channeled over $15 million from donors “without disclosing the contributors, and by providing funds to the GSM Committee in a manner intended to disguise the true source of the contributions.” (OCPF press release here).

The consequences for FES: OCPF levied its largest fine in history, over $426,000, being the total amount of cash on hand for FES and its political arm Families for Excellent Schools-Advocacy. FESA agreed to dissolve its social welfare group status with the Internal Revenue Service. FES Inc. agreed to forego political activities in Massachusetts for four years.

Not only did OCPF release its Disposition Agreement it also required OCPF to divulge the donors it had promised to hide, and their contributions. FES’s list of funders was eye-popping. Boston hedge fund titan Seth Klarman of Baupost LLC was in for $3.3 million. Bain’s Joshua Bekenstein and his wife chipped in with $2.5 million. Jonathon Jacobson of Highfields Capital Management was good for $2 million. Other contributors came from Adage Capital Management, Summit Partners, and Par Capital Management. Alice Walton of the WalMart fortune kicked in $750,000.

Each of those powerful individuals was promised by FES that their identities would be kept secret, hidden behind the Internal Revenue Code rules for 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations. Except this time, it didn’t work. OCPF conducted a thorough investigation and exposed FES for what it is: a dark money political operation.

The Disposition Agreement should be studied across the country and state regulatory agencies pressed to follow its teachings. There is absolutely no reason why citizens should not be informed about who is spending millions to influence their vote. It’s shameful and the dark money train must be derailed if we are not to descend into a plutocracy. OCPF’s action is great news for Massachusetts and great news for democracy.

Categories Billionaires, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Dark Money, Education Industry, Massachusetts, Privatization

California BATS Need Your Help! Stop Eli Broad Now!

By dianeravitch
September 13, 2017 //
11

Parent activist Karen Wolfe appeals for your help!

STOP AB 1217, Eli Broad’s latest power play.

California BATS need your help today!

California BATS Action Alert>> Please call or fax the State Assembly Education Committee TODAY! (Fax – (916)319-2187, or contact info at the bottom):

Tell them you OPPOSE AB 1217. A vote is expected this Thursday or Friday.

AB 1217 is sponsored by Eli Broad. It is a GUT & AMEND bill. That means it was sneaked into other legislation while we weren’t looking. Please help us tell the Assembly Ed Committee that we are awake!

Although not technically a charter, the bill would set a statewide precedent that lets charter school operators circumvent local districts, the County Office of Ed, and even the State Board of Education. It creates a new authorizer–the legislature. This is a top priority of the charter lobby.

Please tell Assembly Ed Committee to vote NO because:

– Usurps Local Control. The new LA school board is pro-charter. LACOE is pro-charter. Why skip them?

– Why are legislators far away pushing for a school in downtown Los Angeles? Why don’t they build one in their own district? Assembly member Miguel Santiago, who represents downtown L.A., opposes this bill.

– It circumvents an already established process to open a school. This law would create even less oversight and accountability than charter schools currently have.

– The State Finance Dept recommends a NO vote on AB 1217.

– The fields named are the blue color jobs of the tech industry. Why not a school to prepare for NASA jobs, or biotech or Engineering?

– The math & science problems are in elementary school. A high school does not address the problem, but charter operators receive more money for high schools. So is this really about kids? Or is it about money?

– We don’t need STEM schools; STEAM schools include the arts.

– California’s powerful charter lobby says it is neutral on this bill, but CCSA came to the LA School Board meeting and asked the board not to vote against it. The Center for Education Reform says, “Permitting the creation of multiple authorizers is one of the most important components of a strong charter law. The data show that states with multiple chartering authorities have almost three and a half times more charter schools than states that only allow local school board approval.”

– It will open the flood gates in California. Small, independent charters would be drowned by the big corporate charter management organizations that are ready to expand.

Shareable Action Alert by California BATs: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=776937455825833&id=164608490392069

LA County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl is against this bill.
On the LAUSD board, all three retired school principals are against this bill – George McKenna, Scott Schmerelson, Richard Vladovic.

The California Department of Finance is opposed to this bill. Its report states:

“It would be more appropriate for the school to seek establishment from the local school district, rather than from the Superintendent. The bill requires the school to develop a similar plan that charter schools must develop when submitting their petitions for charter, while circumventing the existing process to establish charter schools in the state.

“It could result in a school that lacks proper oversight, as it requires the Superintendent to issue reports to the Governor and the Legislature if the school fails to comply with this bill, but does not give the Superintendent authority to rescind its approval of the school or take other remediating measures.

“It sets a precedent for the Superintendent to approve, oversee, monitor, and report on the operation of the school beyond what the Superintendent is required to do with existing state schools.

“It creates additional total costs of $1.4 million non-Proposition 98 General Fund over five years that are beyond those included in the recently enacted Budget Act.”

California Assembly Education Committee:
Fax the Committee (916)319-2187
Patrick O’Donnell, Chair (916)319-2070
Rocky Chavez (916)319-2076
Todd Gloria (916)319-2078
Kevin Kiley (916)319-2006
Kevin McCarty (916)319-2007
Tony Thurmond (candidate for State Superintendent) (916)319-2015
Dr. Shirley Weber (916)319-2079

AB 1217 is wrong. Please call or fax, and share this with allies today!

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Broad Foundation, California, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry

Missouri: Results from Two State Tests Thrown Out

By dianeravitch
September 13, 2017 //
13

Missouri officials threw out the results from two tests as useless.

Both tests were constructed by Questar.

“JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Missouri education officials on Wednesday said results from two statewide tests can’t be used to gauge how well public school districts are educating high school students.

“Education Commissioner Margie Vandeven told reporters that the high school Algebra I and English II end-of-course assessments from this past school year are being tossed out because they lacked “year-to-year comparisons.” They won’t be used as part of accountability metrics to determine how well schools are doing and whether they’ve progressed over time.

“That’s absolutely our primary concern, is making sure no one is negatively penalized for this type of experience,” Vandeven said.

“The department noticed potential issues when the results were delivered in late July, Vandeven said. An advisory committee on Aug. 18 recommended that both the Algebra and English test results not be used in school metrics.

“Vandeven declined to provide more details on what went wrong with the tests, but she said they’re holding Minneapolis-based developer Questar accountable. Department of Elementary and Secondary Education attorney Bill Thornton said the agency is hesitant to discuss more specifics because the issue might end up in court.

“A request for comment to Questar was not immediately returned Wednesday.”

Categories Accountability, Education Industry, Failure, Missouri, Testing

Peter Greene: When Democrats Echo DeVos

By dianeravitch
September 12, 2017 //
35

Peter agreement has noticed a Democratic think tank in D.C. that sounds like an echo chamber for Betsy DeVos. It is called the Progressive Policy Institute, and back in the 1990s, it inspired many of the Clinton administration’s flirtations with privatization.

It’s back, and it sounds like a np mouthpiece for a Betsy Dezvos. Even DFER and other charter-loving Dems have tried to distance themselves from the Trump administration. But not PPI.

Its spokesman on education is David Osborne, and he adores privatization. He is yet another non-educator who wants to reinvent schools. And of course, he loves charters. Like ALEC, like the Walton family, like the whole privatization industry, he loves deregulation without accountability.

Peter writes:

“You may not have heard of the Progressive Policy Institute lately, but they’ll be coming up more often as their Education Honcho releases his new book. PPI is worth paying attention to, if for no other reason than the organization provides Exhibit #1,635 of Why Teachers Can’t Trust Alleged Democrats….

“I have not read the book (and it’s not high on my list), but I am curious where he stands on the charter characteristics of non-transparency, non-accountability, and generating profits for private corporations and individuals. Nor do I see any signs of Osborne grappling of what happens to “undesireable” students in a charter world in which no charter has to take a student they don’t want (a serious issue in New Orleans).

“There’s a whole world of charter mis-information here, coupled with the tone of someone who has no interest in a serious conversation about any of the issues that charters raise. That’s all just another day at the education debates.

“No, what I want you to notice, and remember as this group pops up, is that these are self-labeled progressives, folks with long and strong Democratic ties. The GOP is no friend of public education, but at least they never pretend otherwise. But here’s evidence once again that when it comes to education, some Democrats are completely indistinguishable from the GOP.”

Categories Accountability, Betsy DeVos, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Democrats, Education Industry, Education Reform, Privatization

Anita Senkowski to the New York Times: Please Look at Charter Rip-Offs in Northern Michigan

By dianeravitch
September 12, 2017 //
2

Anita Senkowski is a blogger in northern Michigan who has written numerous posts about a for-profit charter operator who ripped off taxpayers and is now serving a term in jail for his financial crimes. She read Mark Binelli’s piece in the New York Times about charter schools in Detroit and its surroundings and hopes that he will come to Northern Michigan to see how the fraudster mentality permeates the DeVos charter industry throughout the state.

She writes:

Binelli’s fine piece, focused primarily on districts south of Eight Mile Road, the northern border of Detroit made infamous by former Detroit Mayor Coleman Young in his 1973 inaugural address. Telling “rip-off artists and muggers” to “hit Eight Mile Road” and leave Detroit, Young made few friends in suburban Detroit, especially Oakland County.

As they say in Las Vegas, the house always wins.

And although Michigan gambled on charter schools and its children lost, there have been winners.

One, former optometrist Steven Ingersoll, (whose story I’ve beaten like a rented mule for three years), walked away with millions. Although he’s serving a 41-month federal prison term, no Michigan authority (state or local law enforcement) has expressed any interest in prosecuting Ingersoll for his admitted fraudulent conversion of approximately $5.0 million from the Grand Traverse Academy and another roughly $1.4 million from the Bay City Academy.

If Ingersoll had lived in Mississippi and not Michigan, John Grisham would have already written a not-very-fictitious-sounding novel about him.

In its theory of the case, the federal government asserted Ingersoll’s federal tax evasion case demonstrated the truth of the sayings that “money gives power” and “unchecked power corrupts”.

“Steven Ingersoll obtained control over millions of dollars by creating and running the public charter schools known as the Grand Traverse Academy. The power of that money enabled Steven Ingersoll to corrupt himself, his wife Deborah Ingersoll, his brother Gayle Ingersoll, Roy Bradley, Sr., and Tammy Bradley.

As the person who controlled the accounting books and public funds intended for the operation of the Grand Traverse Academy, Steven Ingersoll ignored his obligation to separate his personal finances from the finances of the Grand Traverse Academy.

Instead, Steven Ingersoll treated the tax dollars provided for public education as his personal piggy bank, ultimately diverting approximately $3.5 million from the Grand Traverse Academy to uses other than the operation of the Grand Traverse Academy.

Steven Ingersoll also manipulated the books of entities he controlled, including Smart Schools Management and Smart Schools Incorporated, to hide his diversion of the public money that had been entrusted to him.”

And Ingersoll, on who reported to FCI Duluth on February 2, 2017 to serve a 41 month sentence for his federal tax evasion and conspiracy convictions, filed a “pro se” motion to vacate on January 24, 2017, seeking “post-conviction relief” based on attorney Martin Crandall’s alleged “ineffective assistance of counsel” — an attorney who’d sued him for nonpayment of nearly $362,000 in outstanding legal fees.

Ingersoll’s motion was denied, and he’s sitting in stir until January 22, 2020 — ironic, since he was an optometrist.

Let’s hope Binelli takes a look back here in Michigan…about 250 miles north of Eight Mile Road.

Categories Accountability, Betsy DeVos, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Detroit, Education Industry, For-Profit, Fraud, Michigan, Privatization

Massachusetts: State Fines Dark Money Group $426,000 in Charter Battle

By dianeravitch
September 12, 2017 //
82

In November 2016, the state of Massachusetts held a referendum about whether to expand the number of charters in the state. Millions of dollars were spent on both sides, but the pro-charter groups spent twice as much as the anti-charter groups (mostly funded by teachers’ unions).

Much of the large pro-charter funding was bundled by a group called Families for Excellebt Schools. The names of many individual donors were not released. That’s called “dark money.” It enables the group to pretend to be worried families, eager to enroll their chilren in charter schools, when they are actually billionaires and millionaires who want to promote privatization. One member of the group is billionaire Alice Walton of Arkansas. Another is the chairman of the state board in Massachusetts, who offered nearly $500,000 to undermine public education in a state where he is in control.

FES pulled the same shenanigans in New York, pumping millions into a campaign to persuade the legislature to shower charters with perks and public space and money. But it didn’t work in the Bay State.

Families for Excellent Schools has been ordered to pay a fine of $426,500 for violating campaign finance laws in the state.

“An advocacy organization that gave more than $15 million to a Massachusetts ballot campaign to lift the cap on charter schools has agreed to pay $426,500 to settle allegations of campaign finance violations.

“The Office of Campaign and Political Finance alleged that Families for Excellent Schools contributed money to the ballot campaign in a way that was designed to hide the identity of its donors. The organization denies any wrongdoing.

“This is the largest settlement ever collected by Massachusetts’ Office of Campaign and Political Finance.

“Massachusetts voters deserve to know the identity of all those who attempt to influence them before Election Day,” said Office of Campaign and Political Finance Director Michael Sullivan in a press release. “Complete and accurate disclosure of campaign activity is the goal of OCPF and the cornerstone of the campaign finance law.”

“Families for Excellent Schools is a New York-based advocacy group, which gave $15.3 million to Great Schools Massachusetts, the ballot committee promoting a question in 2016 that would have lifted the cap on charter schools. The question failed at the polls.”

Indeed, the question failed overwhelmingly at the polls.

Families for Excellent Schools agreed not to engage in any election-related activities in the state for four years.

The fine is Penny ante for a group like FES, but it is satisfying to see them get caught hiding the names of donors.

Categories Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Dark Money, Education Industry, Education Reform, Fraud, Funding, Massachusetts, Privatization

Peter Greene: My Do-Over! Public Schools Are Not Charities!

By dianeravitch
September 11, 2017 //
9

A regular reader pointed out that I mistakenly posted the same Peter Greene column twice–on the branded classroom.

I had a senior moment!

To make up for it, I am posting Peter’s wonderful new review of the XQ extravaganza.

He points out that the show was like a Jerry Lewis telethon to “save” public schools. But public schools are not a charity: they are “a civic institution, a civic duty, a civic obligation.”

He writes:

“Charity is optional for the giver. Only give what you feel you can afford when you feel you can afford it. Charitable giving makes you feel good precisely because you didn’t have to do it. And you can give what you feel like giving (pro tip– for disasters like Harvey and Irma, send money, not shit that volunteers have to that may or may not be any use). You could send money, but you could also volunteer to put on a show or, you know, send thoughts and prayers. If you have better things to spend your money on, well then, the charity will just have to wait. Shouldn’t be a problem because…

“Charity is optional for the receiver. Sure, the thinking goes, it would be nice if they had a little more money to work with, but if that money doesn’t come in, they’ll scrape by somehow. You know how resourceful those poor folks are.

“Too much charity is bad. Wouldn’t want to make people dependent. Besides, this kind of support isn’t really sustainable, so we’d better not overdo it.

“Charity has to be earned. Of course, we only give charity to people who show they deserve it by displaying proper character or proper goals or proper deference with their betters who have the money. Or they can deserve it by having a really sad story. Undercover Boss is infuriating because in every episode we hear a sad story about someone who can barely support their struggling family/sick child/aging parent on the shitty wages and benefits that the company pays, so in almost every episode, the boss makes things better for that one employee, not asking if perhaps his company’s shitty wages and benefits might be hard on Every Other Employee!

“Charter schools are frequently pitched as charities, and charteristas like that favorite reformster chorus “Well, we saved that one kid from terrible public schools” while steadfastly refusing to talk about the 600 students still in that “terrible public school” or the obligation, as members of the civic body, to help that public school. Because…

“I gave at the office. Charity allows you to pretend that you’ve fulfilled any obligation you had to deal with the issue. Send the check in, then check out. Cash and dash. Drive-by do-gooding….

“Treating schools for poor kids (because, really, are we talking about any others) as charities let’s people glide by the whole idea that they have any kind of obligation to educate all children, including Those Peoples’ Children in That Part of Town. It allows a bunch of people to say, “Well, since I’ve given some support to a miracle school filled with hero teachers, my work is done. And I feel great about it.”

“When the critical mass of Americans (or at least a critical mass of people in power) decide to commit to doing something, they do it. There were no bake sales for the Apollo program or car washes to support the war in Afghanistan. We just did it, price tag be damned. When I contemplate the XQ telethon, I come back to the same old depressing conclusion– one of the fundamental reasons we don’t solve the problems of public education is that we don’t really want to. We just want to pretend we’re kind of trying while making sure the business is not too expensive. Please don’t tax me for the real amount of equitable public education for all– but I will drop a couple of dollars in the collection plate, and my friend here will do a nice song and dance. Now we’ve done our part– please go away and don’t bother us about this for a year or so.”

Categories Accountability, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform

Samuel Abrams Responds to Barron’s Takedown of His Book and the Editor Makes a Snarky Comment

By dianeravitch
September 11, 2017 //
18

Samuel Abrams, veteran high school teacher and now Director of the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, at Teachers College, Columbia University, wrote an excellent book about the perils of for-profit schooling. Most of the book tells the story of the rise and calamitous fall of the Edison Project. The business magazine Barron’s published a scathing review of the book by anti-public school ideologue Bob Bowdon, whose film “The Cartel” compared the New Jersey teachers’ union to the mafia.

Samuel Abrams wrote a response to the review. Here is the original letter, followed by the heavily edited published version:

The original letter to the editor:

To the Editor:

In faulting me in his review of Education and the Commercial Mindset for focusing on the failure of Edison Schools rather than the success of National Heritage Academies (NHA), Bob Bowdon misses a central point of my book (“Balancing the Books: Slurring Charter Schools,” Sept. 4).

Edison was the standard-bearer of a movement hailed by Wall Street analysts in the 1990s to outsource the operation of public schools to for-profit educational management organizations (EMOs). Analysts forecasted that Edison and similar EMOs surfacing in its wake would run 10 to 20 percent of the country’s public schools by 2010 and reward investors handsomely. By 2010, the portion of public schools run by EMOs was 0.7 percent and has not changed since. Moreover, investors in Edison saw the stock plummet 90 percent from when it was taken public with much fanfare by Merrill Lynch in 1999 to the time it was taken over in 2003 by the private equity firm Liberty Partners, which, in turn, sold the company in 2013 for 80 percent less than it had paid.

While NHA has indeed tripled in size since 2001 to 84 schools today, as Bowdon writes, this growth along with that of other for-profit EMOs such as the Leona Group and Mosaica constitutes a blip relative to what analysts had predicted.

Furthermore, in contending that I ignored the consistent proliferation of charter schools, Bowdon misses another central point of my book. As I wrote in my prologue, “With the number of charter schools as a whole—from solo operations to network members—growing from 2 in Minnesota in 1992 to 6,440 across 42 states and the District of Columbia by 2013, the appeal and force of educational outsourcing cannot be questioned.”

Finally, in dismissing my argument that the complexity of primary and secondary schooling does not afford parents the transparency essential to conventional contract enforcement, Bowdon cites the complexity of Android and Apple smartphones as proof that complexity itself presents no barrier to the commercial model. Bowdon thus misses yet a third central point of my book.

While smartphones as well as their networks are clearly complex, they are discrete goods and services, respectively, and consequently comport with the commercial model because their effectiveness may be easily judged. In the case of primary and secondary schooling, however, the immediate consumer is a child or adolescent while the parent is at a necessary distance. School districts are accordingly well justified in outsourcing discrete services like busing or food preparation to commercial operators but not a complex service like school management. The implicit information asymmetry in the latter case generates significant potential for moral hazard.

Samuel E. Abrams

New York, N.Y.

Here is the heavily edited and sharply reduced version that Barron’s published, along with a defensive comment by the book editor:

Missing the Point

To the Editor:

In faulting me in his review of Education and the Commercial Mindset for focusing on the failure of Edison Schools rather than the success of National Heritage Academies, or NHA, Bob Bowdon misses a central point of my book (“Slurring Charter Schools,” Balancing the Books, Sept. 2).

Edison was the standard-bearer of a movement hailed by Wall Street analysts in the 1990s to outsource the operation of public schools to for-profit educational management organizations. Analysts forecasted that Edison and similar EMOs surfacing in its wake would run 10% to 20% of the country’s public schools by 2010 and reward investors handsomely. By 2010, the portion of public schools run by EMOs was 0.7% and hasn’t changed since. Moreover, investors in Edison saw the stock plummet 90% from when it was taken public with much fanfare by Merrill Lynch in 1999, to the time it was taken over in 2003 by the private-equity firm Liberty Partners, which, in turn, sold Edison in 2013 for 80% less than it had paid.

Samuel E. Abrams
New York City

Editor Gene Epstein replies: Bowdon wrote that Edison was a case of “switching a government-run monopoly for a privately run monopoly.” That was the reason he dismissed Edison for not being an example of competitive alternatives to government-run schools. Abrams misses this central point, apparently expecting Bowdon to be impressed by the fact that Edison was “hailed by Wall Street analysts.”

Categories Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, For-Profit, Privatization

Testing Expert: The Common Core Would Be Dead Without Continued Gates Funding

By dianeravitch
September 11, 2017 //
32

I have written several books about the rise and fall of fads in education. One that has risen and should have fallen by now is the Common Core. Why does it persist? Trump promised to kill it, but Betsy DeVos has done nothing to discourage states that use it. Many states have rebranded the CC and call it something else like “Florida Standards” or “New Generation Standards.” But it is the same old Common Core.

Richard Phelps, testing expert, explains why the Common Core persists. As long as Bill Gates keeps funding it, it survives. He points out that the Gates Foundation has been the source of funding and advocacy for the Common Core standards. If CC were a normal educational fad, it would have died by now due to overwhelming opposition from parents and its demonstrated ineffectiveness.

But Bill Gates not only funded the creation of the Common Core, he has funded advocacy groups to support it and funded news media to write favorable articles, even if they have to beat the bushes to find a supportive voice.

Gates is not ready to write off his investment yet, as he did with his failed effort to impose cookie-cutter small schools ($2 billion) and his failed effort to evaluate teachers by test scores of students (full cost unknown, but surely hundreds of millions, mostly passed on to taxpayers by embedding the Gates quixotic idea into the Race to the Top).

Yet Common Core lives on, even if on life support. The life support is dollars.

“The amounts are huge. A search in the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation website for grant awards with the keyword “Common Core” returns 257 results accumulating more than $300 million.
Substituting the Common Core euphemism “college and career readiness” uncovers another $130 million for another 52 grantees.

Even more Common Core money has been sent under vague explanations such as “for general operating support” to organizations whose only relationship with the Gates Foundation is to promote Common Core…”
“Journalism in general may be suffering, but coverage of education issues has grown, in part thanks to you know who.

Gates generously funds all of the mainstream education press: Education Week, the Hechinger Report, the Education Writers Association, Chalkbeat, and EdSurge, as well as National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System…”

“(Common Core) is so unpopular and unwieldy it would probably have expired a few years ago if not for Gates Foundation support.”

Categories Accountability, Common Core, Education Industry, Gates Foundation, Bill Gates, Testing
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »