Archives for category: For-Profit

Yesterday I responded to an article in The Atlantic claiming that Michelle Rhee was actually a “lefty” and was “taking over” the Democratic party.

I responded to the article.

Others have said that the writer, Molly Ball, was sending out an automated reply, but I got something slightly different.

What she says here is that she doesn’t understand why a Democrat would not support for-profit charter schools; or work closely with Governor Chris Christie to strip teachers of tenure and seniority; or work with Governor Rick Scott to promote privatization of public schools; or work with Governor Mitch Daniels to push vouchers through the legislature; or accept an award from the rightwing American Federation for Children in company with Governor Scott Walker.

What she says is that there is no difference between Democrats and Mitt Romney on education.

I hope that President Obama makes clear what the differences are.

Here is our exchange:

Hi Diane, thanks for the feedback. My intent with the story was not to mediate 
yet another round of the education-reform debate, but to illustrate the 
political inroads Rhee and her ideas have made, while noting, as you do, that 
they remain quite controversial. 

To answer your rhetorical questions, I don't see why a Democrat can't do any of 
those things. 

Best,
Molly
________________________________________
From: Diane Ravitch [gardend@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2012 6:05 PM
To: Ball, Molly
Subject: From Diane Ravitch re Rhee

Would a Democrat work to promote a for-profit chain?

Would a Democrat work with Republican governors Rick Scott, Chris Christie, and 
Mitch Daniels?

What part of Rhee's agenda differs from that of the most rightwing Republicans?

What Democrat would have accepted an honor from the far-right voucher-loving 
organization American Federation for Children, which simultaneously honored 
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker?

Nothing that Rhee advocates has ever succeeded.

Neither charters nor vouchers nor merit pay nor evaluating teachers by test 
scores has any evidence of improving education.

Diane Ravitch

A new reader has joined our discussion and is looking for answers to important questions. I assured this reader that we have explored these topics in some depth; that we know that the purpose of reform is to eliminate unions; to get rid of tenure; to cut the budget for schools; and to privatize the greatest extent possible, with profits where possible for smart investors in “reform.”

I invite the new reader to hang out with us and join our discussion.

Any advice for the new member of our discussion group?

Please forgive me if I am pulling this conversation back to farmed-out ground (I’m new); but is it fair to say that the gist of the corporate-backed educational “reform” movements today is generating cheaper teachers?This is how the equation boils down for me (a public school teacher). As I’ve been trained to show my work, my thinking is that the greatest “reform” that privatization and charter school movements bring is the elimination of union contracts. And that the primary consequence of eliminating unions in any field is lower labor costs.If the above argument holds water, is it acceptable to eliminate the obfuscating phrase “educational reform movement ” and replace it with the clearer “reducing educator salary” movement? Or, more simply, the “labor-busting” movement? Or the “cheapness” movement?In a similar vein, I am wondering if Dr. Ravitch and others have exposed the cant behind the argument that problems with tenure stem from unions. There don’t seem to be many general-public sources pointing out that no one from a public teacher’s union awards tenure to teachers. Every single public decision to grant tenure is made by an elected school board, advised by its appointed educational managers. If the nation’s schools are saddled with incompetent tenured teachers, the blame falls on leadership and management, does it not? From all the complaints being voiced about tenure that outsiders — many from the world of corporate management — it seems pretty clear to me that the nations educational managers apparently couldn’t recognize an incompetent teacher if they got hit with a hammer by one of them. What is eliminating tenure going to help this group of apparently bumbling crop of managers transform into brilliant predictors of pedagogy? At least tenure forces educational decision-makers to live with the consequences of their incompetence. Lifting the pressure of having to evaluate their teachers in three years and educational managers will be even less accountable for their bad decisions. In the world of corporate management, weakening the chains of accountability is an insane act — something that you would think the corporate nabobs nattering about our schools would understand. Unless they absolutely do understand what they are saying is absurd but don’t care, since the real goal isn’t improving our schools at all.

A reader asks: did Deval Patrick sell out?

I feel ashamed for Deval.  I am one of his many, many progressive supporters, and we’re all baffled by how he got into this situation.  I worked harder for his election than I did even for Obama, and I never doubted his integrity or strength.  

Through all the vicious attacks on him during that first campaign, he stayed steady and clear.  Remember the white-woman-in-dark-parking-lot ad?  I left work every day and went straight to unlock the little campaign office in my own town, as more and more volunteers came forward and signed on.  It got very ugly; there were smear attacks on his family members.  Even in Massachusetts, after Romney and Celluci, he seemed like a long shot.  But Deval brought out the best in my community, and turned it blue again.

On the morning after the election, I came in to my classroom and told my diverse and hopeful students, “The American Dream is For You.”  They cheered.  A couple of them even cried.  Remember, this was before Obama ever ran for president.

Later, after I had chaired a citizens online task force on ethics and lobbying reform, I sat next to him at our summary report meeting so he could answer our recommendations (for the cameras) by saying he’d veto the state budget if the legislators didn’t send him his groundbreaking (we thought at the time) ethics and lobbying reform with it.

After the meeting, I confronted him with his failure to get the state version of the Dream Act implemented (he’d actually tried the executive order route, but had to withdraw it).  I told him about my students, and he really did tear up.  His determination and frustration were real.

State Speaker DiMasi had been indicted for kickbacks on state contracts for the insurance and education data warehouses.  He was convicted, but the investigation went no further.  Edubuisiness had a lock on the state DOE, until Deval stood up to the Boston Globe and appointed a progressive PTA leader (Ruth Kaplan) to the board.

Then, when he ran for re-election, Deval let K12 and other for-profit education companies run a fundraiser for him at the Children’s Museum.  K12 now has a thriving online charter business operating out of Greenfield, and Deval is supporting Mosaica Boston’s forced takover-turnarounds of Boston Public Schools.  A memo leaked from his Secretary of Education once argued they had to bow to an illegal charter school placement, against the will of the community, or the Globe would attack them.  

I swear I don’t understand how he could sell out public education for their measly political  support. Like Obama, he got his chance by being admitted to a luxurious prep academy, so maybe he just can’t untangle his own conflicts about private schools, and it clouds his understanding.  I know he isn’t a coward.  I know he has a fine mind, and I still believe his life is dedicated to the same mission as my own.  I just can’t believe his is a calculated betrayal of the public trust we placed in him, in the face of this dangerous hour for the future of democratic governance.

At the Democratic National Convention, Arne Duncan renounced many of his own policies.

He came out in opposition to teaching to the test, although his own Race to the Top demands it (he never mentioned Race to the Top.)

He denounced the millionaires and billionaires who are supporting the charter school movement and privatization of public education (he didn’t mention that either).

He didn’t mention that he wants education colleges to be graded by the test scores of the students of their graduates.

He didn’t mention merit pay, into which his Department of Education has pumped nearly $ billion.

He didn’t mention the proliferation of for-profit schools.

He didn’t mention that he campaigned with Newt Gingrich to rally support for Race to the Top.

He didn’t mention that he called Bobby Jindal’s choice for state commissioner a “visionary leader,” who now promotes vouchers and the disestablishment of public education.

We should be grateful, I suppose, for what he did not mention.

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?

 

      Alan Singer wrote an article about Pearson and its leaders in Huffington Post.

      I linked to it in a post yesterday about the high attrition rate of teachers.

In his original article, Singer pointed out that Susan Fuhrman is a director of Pearson. She is the president of Teachers College. Singer said she had $20 million in Pearson stock. As he notes here, he misread the British currency by a multiple of 10.

      He made the correction, and I reprint it here.

      There remains the question of conflict of interest when the president of the nation’s most prestigious graduate school of education (and the president of the National Academy of Education) is also a member of the board of directors of a profit-seeking seller of standardized testing, online instruction, online charter schools, and course materials for the Common Core. Pearson is deeply entwined in the current destructive reform movement. It is hard to see how the leader of major education institutions can be a spokesman for the best interests of both Pearson and American education.

                 Important Corrections to the Latest Pearson Article

 

London Stock Exchange prices are quoted in pounds and pence. Unless indicated, the price of shares is shown in pence. I00 pence equal 1 pound. I wrote “The sales brought Ethridge alone 20,474,712 GBX or approximately 32,350,000 in U.S. dollars.” However, GBX is in pence, so the U.S. dollar value of the transaction was only be $323,500.

http://www.stockexchangesecrets.com/london-stock-exchange-prices.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_sterling

 

In official Pearson PLC reports available online, Susan Fuhrman, President of Teachers College-Columbia University is listed as a non-executive director of Pearson. As of February 29, 2012, she held 12,927 shares of Pearson stock valued at $240,000. As a non-executive director she also receives an annual fee of 65,000 or almost $100,000. Fuhrman has been a non-executive director since 2004 and has received fees and stock I estimate worth more than a million dollars, certainly a substantial sum, but not the $20 million I initially reported.

http://sec.edgar-online.com/pearson-plc/20-f-annual-and-transition-report-foreign-private-issuer/2012/03/27/section2.aspx

 

I thank “Nick50000” for bringing this to my attention.

 

Corrected Version — Pearson “Education” — Who are these people?http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-singer/pearson-education-new-york-testing-_b_1850169.html

 

According to a recent article on Reuters, an international news service based in Great Britain, “investors of all stripes are beginning to sense big profit potential in public education. The K-12 market is tantalizingly huge: The U.S. spends more than $500 billion a year to educate kids from ages five through 18. The entire education sector, including college and mid-career training, represents nearly 9 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, more than the energy or technology sectors.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/02/usa-education-investment-idUSL2E8J15FR20120802

 

Pearson, a British multi-national conglomerate, is one of the largest private businesses maneuvering for U.S. education dollars. The company had net earnings of 956 million pounds or approximately 1.5 billion dollars in 2011.

http://www.answers.com/topic/pearson-plc

 

Starting in May 2014, Pearson Education will take over teacher certification in New York State as a way of fulfilling the state’s promised “reforms” in its application for federal Race to the Top money. The evaluation system known as the Teacher Performance assessment or TPA was developed at Stanford University with support from Pearson, but it will be solely administered and prospective teachers will be entirely evaluated by Pearson and its agents. Pearson is adverting for current or retired licensed teachers or administrators willing to evaluate applicants for teacher certification. It is prepared to pay $75 per assessment.

http://www.regents.nysed.gov/meetings/2012Meetings/March2012/312hed5.pdf

http://www.nystce.nesinc.com/NY_annProgramUpdate.asp

http://ed.stanford.edu/news/stanford-and-pearson-collaborate-deliver-teacher-performance-assessment

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/07/education/new-procedure-for-teaching-license-draws-protest.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.scoretpa.pearson.com/

 

The Pearson footprint appears to be everywhere and taints academic research as well as government policy. For example, the Education Development Center (EDC), based inWalthamMassachusetts, is a “global nonprofit organization that designs, delivers and evaluates innovative programs to address some of the world’s most urgent challenges in education, health, and economic opportunity.” EDC works with  “public-sector and private partners” to “harness the power of people and systems to improve education, health promotion and care, workforce preparation, communications technologies, and civic engagement.” In education, it is involved in curriculum and materials development, research and evaluation, publication and distribution, online learning, professional development, and public policy development. According to its website, its funders include Cisco Systems, IBM, Intel, the Gates Foundation, and of course, Pearson Education, all companies or groups that stand to benefit from its policy recommendations.

http://www.edc.org/about

http://www.edc.org/about/contracting

http://www.edc.org/about/funders

 

EDC sponsored a study on the effectiveness of new teacher evaluation systems, “An examination of performance- based teacher evaluation systems in five states,” that Pearson is promoting but there are two VERY BIG FLAWS in the study. First, of the five states included in the study, Delaware, Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Texas, four, Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Texas, are notorious anti-union states where teachers have virtually no job security or union protection, and Delaware used the imposition of new teacher assessments to make it more difficult for teachers to acquire tenure. In Texas, North Carolina, and Georgia collective bargaining by teachers is illegal. Tennessee, Texas and North Carolina used the new assessments to make it easier to fire teachers and Georgia used the assessments to determine teacher pay. The second flaw is that the study draws no connection between the evaluation system and improved student learning.

ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/northeast/pdf/REL_2012129.pdf

publications.sreb.org/2011/11S11_Focus_Tenure.pdf

 

According to the Financial Times of London, a Pearson owned property, in what I consider a conflict-of-interests, Susan Fuhrman, the President of Teachers College at Columbia Universityhas been a “Non-Executive Independent Director of Pearson PLC” since 2004 and a major stockholder in the company with over 13,000 shares worth according to my estimate over two hundred thousand dollars. Fuhrman also is “president of the National Academy of Education, and was previously dean of the Graduate School of Education at the University of Pennsylvania and on the board of trustees of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.”

http://markets.ft.com/Research/Markets/Tearsheets/Directors-and-dealings?s=PSON:LSE

http://lt.hemscott.com/SSB/tiles/company-data/forecasts-deals/major-shareholders.jsp?epic=PSON&market=LSE

 

In official Pearson PLC reports available online, Susan Fuhrman, President of Teachers College-Columbia University is listed as a non-executive director of Pearson. As of February 29, 2012, she held 12,927 shares of Pearson stock valued at $240,000. As a non-executive director she also receives an annual fee of 65,000 or almost $100,000. Fuhrman has been a non-executive director since 2004 and has received fees and stock I estimate worth more than a million dollars, certainly a substantial sum, but not the $20 million I initially reported.

http://sec.edgar-online.com/pearson-plc/20-f-annual-and-transition-report-foreign-private-issuer/2012/03/27/section2.aspx

www.pearson.com/investor/ar2010/files/pdf/Pearson_AR10.pdf

 

There has been some resistance to Pearson’s influence over American education.

In May 2012, students and teachers in the University of Massachusetts Amherst campus School of Education launched a national campaign challenging the forced implementation of Teacher Performance Assessment (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/07/education/new-procedure-for-teaching-license-draws-protest.html?pagewanted=all). They argued that the field supervisors and cooperating teachers who guided their teaching practice and observed and evaluated them for six months in middle and high school classrooms were better equipped to judge their teaching skills and potential than people who had never seen nor spoken with them. They have refused to participate in a pilot program organized by Pearson and to submit the two 10-minute videos of themselves teaching and a take-home test. They are supported by United Opt Out National, a website that organized a campaign and petition drive to boycott Pearson evaluations of students, student teachers, and teachers (http://unitedoptout.com/boycott-pearson-now/). In June 2012, New York parents protested against Pearson designed reading tests that included stand reading passages and meaningless choices.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/07/new-york-standardized-tests-protest-pearson-field-tests_n_1579187.html

 

The question that must addressed is whether the British publishing giant Pearson and its Pearson Education subsidy should determine who is qualified to teach and what should be taught in New York State and the United States? I don’t think so! Not only did no one elect them, but when people learn who they are, they might not want them anywhere near a school – or a government official.

 

From what I can make out from its website, the three key players at Pearson and Pearson Education are Glen Moreno, chairman of the Pearson Board of Directors, Dame Marjorie Morris Scardino, overall chief executive for Pearson, and William Ethridge, chief executive for North American Education. Although the largest stockholders are a British investment firm called Legal & General Group PLC which controls 32 million shares or 4% of the company and the Libyan Investment Authority with 24 million shares or 3% of the company. According to the Financial Times of London, the Libyan Investment Authority was founded by Libyan dictator Muammer Gaddafi’s son Seif al-Islam, his heir apparent until the regime’s collapse, in January 2007.

http://www.pearsoned.com/

http://www.pearson.com

http://www.pearson.com/about-us/board-of-directors/Boardmembers/Glen-MorenoChairman-47/

http://lt.hemscott.com/SSB/tiles/company-data/forecasts-deals/major-shareholders.jsp?epic=PSON&market=LSE

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1b5e11b6-d4cb-11e0-a7ac-00144feab49a.html#axzz24qXoOwON

 

Glen Moreno is wealthy, powerful, influential, and highly suspect. According to Wikipedia, Moreno was born in California in 1943 and has a law degree from Harvard University. He worked for 18 years at Citigroup in Europe and Asia, running the investment banking and trading divisions. Moreno was a director of Fidelity International Ltd. And became chairman of Pearson, the publisher of the British newspaper Financial Times in October 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glen_Moreno

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-27/lloyds-says-deputy-chairman-moreno-to-step-down.html

 

Moreno was chairman of UK Financial Investments, the group set up by the British government to protect public funds used to bail-out banks after the 2008 global economic collapse. He was forced to resign in 2009 when it was revealed that he was a trustee of Liechtenstein Global Trust (LGT), a private bank accused of aiding tax evasion.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/feb/12/moreno-uk-financial-investments

 

Moreno was also deputy chairman of Lloyds Banking Group, Great Britain’s largest mortgage lender, but stepped down there in May 2012.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-27/lloyds-says-deputy-chairman-moreno-to-step-down.html

 

Among the Pearson troika, Moreno is the lowest paid, although he apparently has other resources. According to Forbes, his total compensation in 2011 was a little over $600,000. He does however own a home in London and a cattle farm in Virginia and according to the Times of London, managed to contribute half a million pounds to the British Conservative Party in 2009, and purchase 200,000 shares of Lloyd stock in 2010.

http://www.forbes.com/profile/glen-moreno/

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/sitesearch.do?querystring=glen+moreno&p=tto&pf=all&bl=on

 

Dame Marjorie was also originally an American but became a British citizen. She has been CEO of Pearson since 1997. Before becoming CEO of Pearson she was a lawyer in Georgia and a newspaper publisher. In 2007, Forbes magazine placed her seventeenth on its list of the 100 most powerful women in the world. She was named a “Dame of the British Empire” in 2010. According to Forbes, her total compensation in 2011 was $2,455,000. But that represents a tiny fraction of her compensation that includes stock options. Scardino holds 1.5 million shares of Pearson stock.

http://www.forbes.com/profile/marjorie-scardino-1/

http://lt.hemscott.com/SSB/tiles/company-data/forecasts-deals/major-shareholders.jsp?epic=PSON&market=LSE

 

William Ethridge became chief executive of Pearson’s North American Education division in 2008. He has what Pearson considers educational experience because he previously worked for Prentice Hall and Addison Wesley. At Pearson he has been head of its Higher Education, International and Professional Publishing division and chairman of CourseSmart, a Pearson sponsored consortium of electronic textbook publishers. According to Forbes, his total compensation in 2011 was $1,390,000. He holds a half million shares of Pearson stock.

http://people.forbes.com/profile/will-ethridge/62414

http://www.pearson.com/about-us/board-of-directors/Boardmembers/Will-EthridgeChief-executive,-North-American-Education-235/

http://lt.hemscott.com/SSB/tiles/company-data/forecasts-deals/major-shareholders.jsp?epic=PSON&market=LSE

 

According to ILSE or London South East, which reports British stock market transactions, on July 30 and 31 2012, Dame Marjorie and William Ethridge were heavily involved in Pearson stock transfers and sales on the London exchanges earning them millions of dollars. If I read the ILSE report correctly, the percentage of their holdings that Ethridge and Scardino sold seemed to be a bit less than 4% of their total holdings. The sales brought Ethridge alone 20,474,712 GBX or approximately $323,500 in U.S. dollars.

http://www.lse.co.uk/SharePrice.asp?SharePrice=PSON

 

 

This was at a time when financial observers including the influential Nomura Group were questioning whether Pearson stock was overvalued. ILSE reported that “Pearson had warned in April that its adjusted operating profit would be down in the first half of 2012 . . . Sales at Penguin dropped 4%, with profits falling 48% to £22 million, which management said was caused by lower sales in its more profitable U.S. market. Uncertainty over potential national and local government spending cuts in the US continues to cast a shadow over the group’s Education business.”

http://www.lse.co.uk/SharePrice.asp?SharePrice=PSON

 

In other words, Pearson’s chief operating officers, who are also heavily invested in the company, are busy trading stocks and racking up dollars and pounds while the corporation’s financial situation is shaky. And their solution is to sell, sell, sell their products in the United States.

 

Are these the people we want designing tests, lessons, and curriculum for our students and deciding who is qualified to become teachers?

Alan Singer, Director, Secondary Education Social Studies
Department of Teaching, Literacy and Leadership
128 Hagedorn Hall / 119 Hofstra University / Hempstead, NY 11549


 

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.

Earlier today I posted Anthony Cody’s searing critique of the Gates Foundation’s support for profiteering and privatization. (“When Profits Drive Reform”)

Cody pulled no punches. He went right into the house of the Emperor to tell him that he has no clothes.

His post is now posted on the Gates Foundation’s own blog. They call it “Impatient Optimists.”

Please leave your comments on the Gates’ blog so that the foundation staff is sure to read them.

They need to hear what teachers and principals and school board members think of their efforts to transfer control of public education to private hands and to measure teachers by test scores. They need to hear what you think of handing children over to profit-seeking entrepreneurs.

Anthony Cody entered into a dialogue with the Gates Foundation about its goals and programs.

He just published a brilliant critique of the foundation’s powerful support for market-based reform of public education. 

Please read it and share it.

Cody describes many of the ways that Gates has supported privatization, despite the lack of any evidence for its strategies.

He reviews the poor results of value-added assessment, pushed hard by the Gates Foundation.

He shows how Gates favors programs where someone will make a profit.

Cody raises significant questions at the end of his part of the dialogue:

In the process by which decisions are being made about our schools, private companies with a vested interest in advancing profitable solutions have become ever more influential. The Gates Foundation has tied the future of American education to the capacity of the marketplace to raise all boats, but the poor are being left in leaky dinghies.

Neither the scourge of high stakes tests nor the false choices offered by charter schools, real or virtual, will serve to improve our schools. Solutions are to be found in rebuilding our local schools, recommitting to the social compact that says, in this community we care for all our children, and we do not leave their fate to chance, to a lottery for scarce slots. We have the wealth in this nation to give every child a high quality education, if that is what we decide to do. With the money we spent on the Bush tax cuts for millionaires in one month we could hire 72,000 more teachers for a year. It is all about our priorities.

So as we bring this dialogue to a close, we come up against some of the hardest questions.

Can we recommit to the democratic ideal of an excellent public school for every child?

Can the Gates Foundation reconsider and reexamine its own underlying assumptions, and change its agenda in response to the consequences we are seeing?

Given the undesirable results that we are seeing from the use of VAM in teacher pay and evaluations, is the Gates Foundation willing to put its influence to work on reversing these policies?

Does the Gates Foundation intend to continue to support the expansion of charter schools and “virtual” schools at the expense of regular public schools?

Must every solution to educational problems be driven by opportunities for profit? Or could the Gates Foundation consider supporting a greater investment in programs that directly respond to the conditions our children find themselves in due to poverty? Things like smaller class size, libraries, health care centers, nutrition programs, (none of which may be profitable ventures.)

How will the Gates Foundation answer? Will they dodge his direct questions in this post as they did his powerful column about the Foundation’s silence on the issue of poverty?