Archives for category: Gates Foundation, Bill Gates

David Sirota explains in the journal “In These Times” that there is a conflict between big-time philanthropy and democracy. He describes recent conference where the tech industry wrung its collective hands about inequality without acknowledging that it is a source of frowing inequality.

“Indeed, there seems to be a trend of billionaires and tech firms making private donations to public institutions ostensibly with the goal of improving public services. Yet, many of these billionaires are absent from efforts to raise public resources for those same institutions. Zuckerberg is only one example.

“For instance, hedge funders make big donations to charter schools. Yet, the hedge fund industry lobbies against higher taxes that would generate new revenue for education.

“Meanwhile, Microsoft boasts about making donations to schools, while the company has opposed proposals to increase taxes to fund those schools.

“To understand the conflict between democracy and this kind of philanthropy, remember that private donations typically come with conditions about how the money must be allocated. In education, those conditions can be about anything from curriculum to testing standards to school structure. No matter what the conditions are, though, they effectively circumvent the democratic process and dictate policy to public institutions. While those institutions can reject a private donor’s money, they are often desperate for resources.
In this, we see a vicious cycle that undermines democratic control. Big money interests use anti-democratic campaign finance laws to fund anti-tax policies that deprive public institutions of resources. Those policies make public institutions desperate for private resources. When philanthropists offer those resources, they often make the money contingent on public officials relinquishing democratic control and acceding to ideological demands.

“Disruption theory is usually the defense of all this—the hypothesis being that billionaire cash is the only way to force public institutions to do what they supposedly need to do. But whether or not you believe that theory, Gore is correct: It isn’t democratic. In fact, it is quite the opposite.””

I earlier reported that the latest data show that 97% of teachers in Pittsburgh received ratings of either “distinguished” or “advanced.” Similar findings have emerged elsewhere, which makes me wonder why it was necessary to spend billions of dollars to create these new evaluation systems, which are often incomprehensible. But Kipp Dawson, a Pittsburgh teacher wrote a comment warning that the evaluation system is flawed and riddled with unreliable elements, like VAM. Don’t be fooled, Dawson says. The Pittsburgh evaluation system was created with the lure of Gates money. It attempts to quantify the unmeasurable.

Dawson writes:

I am a Pittsburgh teacher and an activist in the Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers (AFT). Let’s not let ourselves get pulled into the trap of applauding the results of a wholly flawed system. OK, so this round the numbers look better than the “reformers” thought they would. BUT the “multiple measures” on which they are based are bogus. And it was a trap, not a step forward, that our union let ourselves get pulled in (via Gates money) to becoming apologists for an “evaluation” system made up of elements which this column has helped to expose as NOT ok for “evaluating” teachers, and deciding which of us is an “effective” teacher, and which of us should have jobs and who should be terminated.

A reminder. VAM. A major one of these “multiple measures.” Now widely rejected as an “evaluating” tool by professionals in the field, and by the AFT. A major part of this “evaluation” system.

Danielson rubrics, another major one of these multiple measures: after many permutations and reincarnations in Pittsburgh, turned into the opposite of what they were in the beginning of this process — presented to us as a tool to help teachers get a window on our practice, but now a set of numbers to which our practice boils down, and which is used to judge and label us. And “objective?” In today’s world, where administrators have to justify their “findings” in a system which relies so heavily on test scores? What do you think . . .

Then there’s (in Pittsburgh) Tripod, the third big measure, where students from the ages of 5 (yes, really) through high school “rate” their teachers — which could be useful to us for insight but, really, a way to decide who is and who is not an “effective” teacher?

To say nothing of the fact that many teachers teach subjects and/or students which can’t be boiled down in these ways, so they are “evaluated” on the basis of other people’s “scores” over which they have even less control.

Really, now.

So, yes, these numbers look better than they did last year, in a “practice run.” But is this whole thing ok? Should we be celebrating that we found the answer to figuring out who is and who is not an “effective” teacher?

This is a trap. Let’s not fall into it.

Now, as we all know, Bill Gates paid over $2 billion for the Common Core standards. They are supposed to be the linchpin of a coordinated system: standards, tests, teacher evaluations based on test scores, school closings, turnarounds, etc. but a funny thing happened on the way to the millennium. Parents and educators got angry. Some hated the tests. Some hated the standards. Some hated the federal takeover of their public schools. A few states said they would drop the standards.

The Gates Foundation decided the best way to calm the protests was to slow down the implementation. Here is the story in the New York Times.

This afternoon, on one of my rare outings while I recuperate from surgery, I was sitting in the car outside the fish market, when I got an email from reporter Motoko Rich of the Times. She asked what I thought of the moratorium. This is the last quote in the story:

“Some critics of the standards and testing said that a moratorium was not enough.

“If the sanctions and punishments tied to test scores are wrong now — promoting teaching to the test, narrowing the curriculum, cheating, and gaming the system — the sanctions and punishments will still be wrong two years from now,” Diane Ravitch, an education historian and critic of standardized testing in schools, wrote in an email. “The opposition to high-stakes testing will not go away.”

The story about Bill Gates’ swift and silent takeover of American education is startling. His role and the role of the U.S. Department of Education in drafting and imposing the Common Core standards on almost every state should be investigated by Congress.

The idea that the richest man in America can purchase and–working closely with the U.S. Department of Education–impose new and untested academic standards on the nation’s public schools is a national scandal. A Congressional investigation is warranted.

The close involvement of Arne Duncan raises questions about whether the law was broken.

Thanks to the story in the Washington Post and to diligent bloggers, we now know that one very rich man bought the enthusiastic support of interest groups on the left and right to campaign for the Common Core.

Who knew that American education was for sale?

Who knew that federalism could so easily be dismissed as a relic of history? Who knew that Gates and Duncan, working as partners, could dismantle and destroy state and local control of education?

The revelation that education policy was shaped by one unelected man, underwriting dozens of groups. and allied with the Secretary of Education, whose staff was laced with Gates’ allies, is ample reason for Congressional hearings.

I have written on various occasions (see here and here) that I could not support the Common Core standards because they were developed and imposed without regard to democratic process. The writers of the standards included no early childhood educators, no educators of children with disabilities, no experienced classroom teachers; indeed, the largest contingent of the drafting committee were representatives of the testing industry. No attempt was made to have pilot testing of the standards in real classrooms with real teachers and students.. The standards do not permit any means to challenge, correct, or revise them.

In a democratic society, process matters. The high-handed manner in which these standards were written and imposed in record time makes them unacceptable. These standards not only undermine state and local control of education, but the manner in which they were written and adopted was authoritarian. No one knows how they will work, yet dozens of groups have been paid millions of dollars by the Gates Foundation to claim that they are absolutely vital for our economic future, based on no evidence whatever.

Why does state and local control matter? Until now, in education, the American idea has been that no single authority has all the answers. Local boards are best equipped to handle local problems. States set state policy, in keeping with the concept that states are “laboratories of democracy,” where new ideas can evolve and prove themselves. In our federal system, the federal government has the power to protect the civil rights of students, to conduct research, and to redistribute resources to the neediest children and schools.

Do we need to compare the academic performance of students in different states? We already have the means to do so with the federally funded National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). It has been supplying state comparisons since 1992.

Will national standards improve test scores? There is no reason to believe so. Brookings scholar Tom Loveless predicted two years ago that the Common Core standards would make little or no difference. The biggest test-score gaps, he wrote, are within the same state, not between states. Some states with excellent standards have low scores, and some with excellent standards have large gaps among different groups of students.

The reality is that the most reliable predictors of test scores are family income and family education. Nearly one-quarter of America’s children live in poverty. The Common Core standards divert our attention from the root causes of low academic achievement.

Worse, at a time when many schools have fiscal problems and are laying off teachers, nurses, and counselors, and eliminating arts programs, the nation’s schools will be forced to spend billions of dollars on Common Core materials, testing, hardware, and software.

Microsoft, Pearson, and other entrepreneurs will reap the rewards of this new marketplace. Our nation’s children will not.

Who decided to monetize the public schools? Who determined that the federal government should promote privatization and neglect public education? Who decided that the federal government should watch in silence as school segregation resumed and grew? Who decided that schools should invest in Common Core instead of smaller classes and school nurses?

These are questions that should be asked at Congressional hearings.

In a remarkable job of reporting, Lyndsey Layton of the Washington Post describes the creation of the Common Core standards. Two men–Gene Wilhoit and David Coleman–went to see Bill Gates in 2008 to ask him to underwrite national standards. He agreed, and within two years, the standards were written and adopted by almost every state in the nation.

This is the closest thing to an educational coup in the history of the United States. Our education system is made up of about 14,000 local school districts; most education policy is set at the state level. But Bill Gates was able to underwrite a swift revolution. It happened so quickly that there was very little debate or discussion. Almost every consequential education group was funded by the Gates Foundation to study or promote the Common Core standards. Whereas most businesses would conduct pilot testing of a major new product, there was no pilot testing of the Common Core. These national standards were written with minimal public awareness or participation, and at least one state–Kentucky–adopted them before the final draft was finished.

What made the Gates’ coup possible was the close relationship between the Gates Foundation and the Obama administration. When the administration launched its Race to the Top competition, it issued a list of things that states had to do to be eligible for a share of $4.35 billion. One was to agree to adopt “college and career ready standards.” Administration officials, Layton writes, originally planned to specify that states had to adopt the Common Core, still not yet finished, but were warned to use the term “college and career ready,” to avoid the appearance of imposing the Common Core (which was their intent). Leave aside for the moment the fact that it is illegal for any federal official to attempt to direct, control, or influence curriculum or instruction.

Never before has one man had the wealth, the political connections, and the grand ambition to buy American education. But Bill Gates did it.

Pando reporters Nathaniel Mott and David Sirota write that the Gates Foundation underwrote a PBS series to promote the Common Core standards without revealing that Microsoft has financial interest in the success of the Common Core standards.

They write:

“The discovery that the Gates Foundation is funding PBS programming that supports its political agenda comes only a few months after Pando first revealed that Enron mogul John Arnold attempted to use $3.5 million of his fortune to finance an anti-pension “news” series on the PBS NewsHour. The two stories are similar, in that they involve the foundations of politically active billionaires using the public broadcasting system to promote their political agenda. In this Gates case, the agenda being promoted also happens to dovetail with Microsoft’s commercial interests in the Common Core. This has been allowed to happen despite PBS programming rules aiming to prevent those with specific political and commercial interests from financing public broadcasting content that promotes those interests.”

And they add:

“On “Teaching Channel Presents,” for example, there isn’t a problem that can’t be described and solved with a 20-minute segment, and all of the students are responding well to the shifting standards they have to meet. Teachers turn to the camera and say things like “the Common Core has become part of my teacher DNA” in testimonials that never mention the controversies surrounding the standards. This isn’t a place where educators can learn so much as it’s a series of videos that make the standards seem like the greatest thing to happen to education since the first teacher thought to use a chalkboard.

“And, at the end of every video, there’s a reminder that the programming was all made possible by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, but there’s no mention of the foundation’s role as the primary political benefactor behind the Common Core.

Millions of dollars builds a platform promoting Gates’ education ideology

“The Gates Foundation – aka the personal foundation of a current Microsoft board member – is being permitted to promote Common Core on PBS at the very moment Microsoft is building parts of its business around the Common Core.

“In February, Microsoft joined up with education publisher and technology firm Pearson on a joint Common Core venture. According to a Pearson press release, the project aims “to create new applications and advance a digital education model” – with the collaboration’s first initiative combining “Pearson’s Common Core System of Courses with the groundbreaking capabilities of the Windows 8 touchscreen environment.”

“Meanwhile, with Common Core promoting a shift to computer-based testing, Microsoft will likely benefit from school districts now being compelled to rely on those machines, many of which are Windows-based. Additionally, Microsoft stands to make money from school districts that are using Windows-based devices for Common Core test prep.”

Mott and Sirota contrast the commercial activities of Microsoft with the clear policy statement of PBS:

“According to its website, PBS has a strict “perception test” for programming that it says “will be applied most vigorously to current affairs programs and programs that address controversial issues.” The rules go on to say that “when there exists a clear and direct connection between the interests or products or services of a proposed funder and the subject matter of the program, the proposed funding will be deemed unacceptable.”

“Recent polls and growing opposition to the Common Core State Standards clearly show that the topic of education standards is, indeed, controversial. And it is similarly clear that the Gates Foundation has displayed a deep “interest” in promoting the Common Core State Standards. Yet, despite the PBS rules, the Gates Foundation has been permitted to finance programming promoting Common Core on PBS through “Teaching Channel Presents.”

“Similarly, PBS rules say that if programming has “been created to serve the business or other interests of the funder” it would be deemed “unacceptable.”

As of publication date, neither the foundation nor PBS had responded to the authors’ request for a comment.

Bill Gates has loomed large in education for the past decade. The reason is obvious: his foundation is the largest in the world, and districts are more than willing to accept his conditions in return for his money.

When anyone asks Gates whether it is right that one man and one foundation should have so much influence, he says that the money he gives is minuscule compared to the hundreds of billions spent annually by American schools. But he is being disingenuous, and he knows it. Almost all of those billions are fixed costs, whereas his money is discretionary. A district with a huge budget–often facing budget cuts—will dance to Bill Gates’ tune. All he need do is dangle $50-100 million dollars, and district leaders will do as he asks.

But what happens when he is wrong? In the first decade of this century, he said that small high schools were THE answer, and districts lined up to get money and break up large high schools. It wasn’t a bad idea, but he decided that it wasn’t THE idea, and in 2008, he decided it wasn’t producing the miraculous results he wanted (ROI–return on investment), and he dropped it.

Since he can’t tolerate being without answers, he next placed his bets on raising teacher quality. A good idea poorly executed. Instead of changing working conditions or coming up with other ways to make teaching a rewarding profession, Gates chose to go the punitive route. He decided that all of American education was broken, and that teacher evaluation was the most broken part of it. For whatever reason, administrators were not weeding out the incompetents, and he decided to make that his mission. He never stopped to ask why 40% or so of new teachers left teaching within five years of starting.

How to evaluate millions of teachers? Gates had the answer. Use the test scores of their students to a significant degree to find out who was best and worst.

Given Gates’ unusual power, the U.S. Department of Education decided that he must be right, even though the research was thin and speculative. No need to conduct experiments to see if Bill was right. He is so rich, he must be right. So, Race to the Top required states to include Bill’s idea– judging teachers by their students’ test scores to a significant degree–if they wanted to be eligible for any part of the $4.35 billion prize, or later, if they wanted a waiver from NCLB’s punishments for failing to make 100% of their students proficient by 2014.

Some districts have now experimented with “value-added assessment” for four years, and no miracle is in sight. Most researchers say the methodology is flawed that it will never work. The most recent study, conducted by Andy Porter, dean at the University of Pennsylvania, and Morgan Polikoff of the University of Southern California, found little or no correlation between teacher quality and VAM ratings. This study was funded, ironically, by the Gates Foundation.

The question now is, will Bill Gates have the courage to admit he was wrong, as he did in 2008?

Somehow I missed this piece when it appeared several months ago. It is a Mercedes classic, where she shows her skill at reading tax returns and connecting the dots.

You may or may not recall that Attorney General of New York Eric Schneiderman fined the Pearson Foundation $7.7 million for engaging in activities related to its for-profit parent Pearson. In some regions, this fine would be referred to as “chump change” or “chicken feed” for a billion-dollar corporation.

Mercedes digs into this story and finds a golden goose. And the golden goose is the Common Core standards.

Tim Farley, concerned educator and parent in upstate Néw York, found a commencement speech delivered by Bill Gates in 2007. Much to his own surprise, he was inspired by Gates’ advice and thought it was relevant to the problems of today.

Tim Farley writes:
———————-

Diane,

I was researching some quotes to add to an upcoming Academic Awards night and stumbled upon these words of advice from Bill Gates:

Bill Gates at Harvard University,
2007

“In line with the promise of this age, I want to exhort each of the graduates here to take on an issue — a complex problem, a deep inequity, and become a specialist on it. If you make it the focus of your career, that would be phenomenal. But you don’t have to do that to make an impact. For a few hours every week, you can use the growing power of the internet to get informed, find others with the same interests, see the barriers, and find ways to cut through them. Don’t let complexity stop you. Be activists. Take on big inequities. I feel sure it will be one of the great experiences of your lives.”

Although many of us “activists” were not in the audience at Harvard in 2007, his speech seems to have resonated with so many people from across the country. It appears that many have taken his words of advice: “take on an issue – a complex problem, a deep inequity, and become a specialist on it; Be activists. Take on big inequities. I feel sure it will be one of the great experiences of your lives.”

The issue that many have decided to take on was Bill Gates’ plan to use big data to standardize our schools, teachers, and students. They decided that their children and their children’s teachers should never be reduced to a number and that by doing so, it causes a “great inequity”. So, what to do? We found “others with the same interests” and used “the growing power of the internet to get informed” to “see the barriers” and together, we found “ways to cut through them”.

My, what a difference a year makes. A year ago, few had heard of Common Core, data mining, APPR (Annual Professional Performance Review), and “high stakes testing”. Now, unless you live under a rock, everyone has heard of Common Core and it is the number one issue in the country. Many feel that the Common Core standards are a de facto nationalization of educational standards and an over-reach of our federal government. There is also much evidence that the standards themselves are developmentally inappropriate and do not take into account the needs of our special education students. The Common Core State Standards have been heavily financed by Bill Gates (some estimates are over $2 billion for the creation and promotion of the standards).

With regard to data mining, as of a month ago, inBloom shuttered its doors. inBloom, a non-profit company based in Atlanta, Georgia was a data mining company that Bill Gates single-handedly financed with $100,000,000. It was reported that they no longer had any “clients”. The demise of inBloom was due in large part to Leonie Haimson’s efforts. Leonie is the Executive Director of Class Size Matters. She and many others spoke out about their concerns that our children’s most sensitive data was in serious jeopardy and may have been used as a marketing tool. The citizens got informed, organized, spoke out, wrote to their elected officials, testified in front of their legislative bodies, and demanded that this practice end.

States all across the country are re-evaluating VAM (“value added measure”) and coming to the realization that “VAM is a sham”. The use of student test results to evaluate teacher effectiveness unnecessarily places much pressure for the teachers to “teach to the test”, which leads to the narrowing of the curricula. Parents have also realized that high stakes testing does nothing for their children and can actually be harmful. This realization has sparked the Opt Out Movement, where parents refuse to allow their children to be used as a part of this scheme. Regular moms started Facebook pages to inform the public. Peg Robertson from Colorado, Sandy Stenoff from Orlando, and Jeannette Deutermann from Long Island are just a few of the moms who paid attention to what was going on and decided to do something about it.

I recommend Bill Gates give more speeches and practice less philanthropy in areas outside his area of expertise. His speech to the Harvard graduates in 2007 is so relevant today. Thank you Bill Gates for giving so many people a game plan to stop you from the great inequities that you created.

We will win this fight because “we are many and they are few” (Diane Ravitch).

In Solidarity,
Tim Farley
Education Activist

Mercedes Schneider here reviews the transcript of a board meeting of Pearson in April 2014. Anyone can read the transcript but is allowed to quote only 400 words. That was Mercedes’ challenge.

What struck her was that Pearson’s business plan is heavily tied to adoption of CCSS. In this case, contrary to the assurances of Bill Gates, national standardization promotes monopolization, not competition.

What struck me was that the leaders of this behemoth, now taking control of large sectors of American education, had nothing to say about education. The discussion, not surprisingly, was all about profits and business strategy. Who decided to outsource American education?