Archives for category: Gates Foundation, Bill Gates

Consider this historical satire. It was written by Paul Horton, who teaches history at the University of Chicago Lab School.

 

A Modest Proposal for the Gang of Four

(Arne Duncan, Bill Gates, Michelle Rhee, Jeb Bush)

Your plan for defeating the yellow dogs of reaction has not been effective. You need to get serious. Because you know very little about the history of revolutionary progress (Mr. Duncan, you were fed the phrase “Potemkin Village” by someone with a reactionary history degree) you need some motivation. If you cannot make this happen within two years, you will not benefit from a future in the Foundation Politburo, you will not be granted a passport, and you will not be allowed to shop in party stores.

 

To continue the Cultural Revolution in Education we need to break the spirit of the reactionary teachers who insist that there might be value in teaching literary and philosophical classics, languages, culture, and what some describe as the “Humanities.” The Humanities are nothing but selfish, evil Bourgeois reaction that slows the creation of “21st Century Skills” acquisition. All else is pretense: we need 21st century workers and we need them ready for community colleges that will feed our factory dormitories with skilled workers.

 

We will achieve the global VAM (value added measurement) threshold in four years. Reactionary teachers all over the world will be pitted against each other and resistance will be crushed.

 

Until then, we need to “Clamp-down” harder (The Clash) to create fear so that the reactionary house of cards will fall very easily.

 

Strategic Plan:

 

Year One: Invite criticism from teacher’s unions and compile a list of members of teacher’s unions.

 

–selectively quote teacher union criticisms of revolutionary reform in revolutionary (corporate) media outlets

 

–target all union members in appearances on major talking heads show segments

 

–create “forums” at major universities, Chambers of Commerce, and civic organizations to explain the voluntary nature of all reform efforts

 

–instruct Red Guard (Teach for America) to receive ideological instruction at Foundation Politburo School

 

–hire Red Guard into the College Board, Pearson Education, Educational Testing Service, state and local superintendent jobs

–elect Red Guard into jobs on state school boards, into state legislatures and senates

 

–cozy Red Guard up to Congressmen and Senators, especially those who sit on Education and Budget Committees

 

–Red Guard will coordinate with ALEC to sponsor “parent trigger legislation” to create more charters and jobs for Red Guard

 

–pay for Red Guard as Education policy staff for all elected officials

 

–pay Red Guard to attack, spit on, and humiliate commenters to reactionary blog posts

 

–hire Red Guard as public and charter school administrators to attack the reactionary yellow dogs who speak of “democratic process,” “progressive education,” and “laboratories for democracy.”

 

–instruct Red Guard administrators to create intentional “hostile workplace” to intimidate reactionary teachers. All union members should see their files thicken and be exposed to frequent “shake-downs.” The older, more depressed teachers should be further intimidated by frequent negative observations and assessments. At assessment conferences, the sentence “we have viewed your e-mail messages over the past five years and we strongly encourage you to resign” should be shared at the end of negative evaluation.

 

–pay Red Guard Administrators a bonus for every experienced teacher who resigns or retires

 

 

Year Two: Learning from the New York Experience

 

–have state superintendents “cut” scores so that only those in impoverished neighborhood schools fail

 

–use “low student attendance” and “overcrowding” to close public schools in underserved areas. This is often a two-step process: close schools for low attendance, then consolidate to create overcrowding to justify opening more charters

 

–use sticks and carrots to coopt local and national political officials

 

–congressmen in suburban districts will be told: “if you go with the program we have campaign funds from potential investors for you, if not, you are political toast.”

 

–corporate leaders will speak often at meetings in well funded suburban districts to gain the support of upper income parents and opinion leaders

 

–have all revolutionary (corporate) media outlets supplied with talking points that repeat “higher standards,” “21st century skills,” “low test scores mean higher standards,” “voluntary,” “state driven,” “charters are innovative,” and “teachers are lazy reactionaries” every day.

 

–block all revolutionary media access to reactionaries

 

–pay for astroturf (disguised Red Guard) protests in favor of new charters at school board and city-council meetings

 

 

Year Three: Reeducation Camp: Rat Islands (The Aleutians)

 

–the Red Guard will be instructed to eliminate all complainers

 

–reactionaries will be deported to work camp

 

–reactionaries will be instructed to respect data and will be forced to write programs for educational video games for “Turn it Up” corporation

 

–Are you a reactionary?

 

 

Think about it!

 

 

The Friendly Foundation Politburo (Comrade Narrow)

Below is a letter from Leonie Haimson, who was previously added to the honor roll of this blog for fighting for students, parents, and public education.

Leonie almost singlehandedly stopped the effort to mine student data, whose sponsors wanted confidential and identifiable information about every child “for the children’s sake.” Leonie saw through that ruse and raised a national ruckus to fight for student privacy. Privacy of student records is supposedly protected by federal law (FERPA), but Arne Duncan weakened the regulations so that parents could not opt out of the data mining.

It is not over. The Gates Foundation and Carnegie Corporation put up $100 million to start inBloom, and Rupert Murdoch’s Wireless Generation got the contract to develop the software, and amazon.com plans to put it on a “cloud.” They will be back. We count on Haimson and the many parents she has inspired to remain vigilant on behalf of our children. As a grandparent of a child in second grade in a Brooklyn public school, I have a personal interest in keeping his information private.

Here is Leonie’s letter, written 12/20/13:

Dear folks,

I have good news to report! Yesterday, Sheldon Silver, Speaker of the NYS Assembly, along with Education Chair Cathy Nolan and fifty Democratic Assemblymembers sent a letter to Commissioner King, urging him to put a halt to inBloom.

“It is our job to protect New York’s children. In this case, that means protecting their personally identifiable information from falling into the wrong hands,” said Silver. “Until we are confident that this information can remain protected, the plan to share student data with InBloom must be put on hold.”

Why is this important? Because Speaker Silver and the Democrats in the Assembly appoint the Board of Regents, as the Daily News noted. The Regents control education policy in New York, and appoint the commissioner.

We have begun to make real headway in the past year against inBloom, but we need your support so we can continue the fight for student privacy and smaller classes in the public schools.

We count on donations from individuals like you as our main source of funding. If you appreciate our work and want it to continue and grow stronger, please give a tax-deductible contribution right now by clicking here: http://www.nycharities.org/donate/c_donate.asp?CharityCode=1757 or sending a check to the address below.

I am proud to have been called “the nation’s foremost parent expert on inBloom and the current threat to student data privacy.” We were the first advocacy group in the nation to sound the alarm about inBloom’s plan to create a multi-state database to be stored on a vulnerable data cloud run by Amazon.com with an operating system built by Rupert Murdoch’s Amplify. The explicit goal of inBloom was to package this information in an easily digestible form and offer it up to data-mining vendors without parental consent.

In February, inBloom formally launched as a separate corporation, and nine states were listed as “partners.” We worked hard to get the word out through blogging, personal outreach to parent activists and the mainstream media. After protests erupted in states throughout the country, inBloom’s “partners” pulled out. Now, eight out of these states have severed all ties with inBloom or put their data sharing plans on indefinite hold.

Sadly, as of yesterday, New York education officials were still intent on sharing with inBloom a complete statewide set of personal data for all public school students– including names, addresses, phone numbers, test scores and grades, disabilities, health conditions, disciplinary records and more. To stop this, we helped to organize a lawsuit on behalf of NYC parents which will be heard in state court on January 10 in Albany (note the new date), asking for an immediate injunction to block the state’s plan. (The state has delayed the hearing in order to gain more time to respond to our legal briefs.)

In addition, we will continue our work on the critical issue of class size. As a result of our reports, testimonies and public outreach, we have been able to shine a bright light on what many consider to be the most shameful aspect of Mayor Bloomberg’s education legacy: the fact that class sizes in NYC have increased sharply over the last six years and are now the largest in the early grades since 1998. More on this issue is in my Indypendent article just published, called Grading the Education Mayor

Class sizes have increased every year, despite the fact that the Campaign for Fiscal Equity case was supposedly “settled” by a state law in 2007 that required NYC to reduce class sizes in all grades. As a result, 86% of NYC principals say they are unable to provide a quality education because classes are too large. Parents say that smaller classes are their top priority according to the Department of Education’s own surveys. There is no more critical need than smaller classes if the city’s children are to have an equitable chance to learn.

But class size is not just a critical issue in NYC public schools. Because of budget cuts, class sizes have risen sharply throughout the state and the nation as a whole. In more than half of all states, per-pupil funding is lower than in 2008 and school districts have cut 324,000 jobs.

At the same time, more and more money is being spent by billionaires and venture philanthropists on bogus “studies” to try to convince states and districts that class size doesn’t matter and public funds should be spent instead on outsourcing education into private hands – despite much rigorous research showing the opposite to be true.

With vendors trying to grab your child’s data in the name of providing “personalized” instruction – a euphemism that really means instruction delivered via computers and data-mining software in place of real-life teachers giving meaningful feedback in a class small enough to make this possible — our efforts are more crucial than ever before.

Please make a donation so that our work can continue and be even more effective in 2014.

Thanks for your support and Happy New Year,

Leonie Haimson
Executive Director
Class Size Matters
124 Waverly Pl.
New York, NY 10011
212-674-7320

In addition to holding a Ph.D. in research methods and teaching high school English in Louisiana, Mercedes Schneider has become infatuated with tax returns.

She has discovered that corporate tax returns tell interesting and important tales.

When she learned that the Attorney General of New York had fined the Pearson Foundation $7.7 million for becoming involved in the activities of its for-profit parent, and that the for-profit parent was allied in a business venture with the Gates Foundation, she decided it was time to study the tax returns.

She unweaves a tangled web of relationships. 

Believe it or not, USA Today published a powerful article by Oliver Thomas, a member of its Board of Contributors, acknowledging that the latest PISA rankings reflect the crisis of poverty in the United States. Our Students in low-poverty schools are doing fine; some analyses place them at the very top. But the more poverty, the lower the test scores.

He writes:

“As researchers Michael Rebell and Jessica Wolff of the Campaign for Educational Equity at Teachers College, Columbia University, have noted, there is no general education crisis in the United States. There is a child poverty crisis that is impacting education.

“Here’s one data point worth remembering. When you measure the test scores of American schools with a child poverty rate of less than 20%, our kids not only outperform the Finns, they outperform every nation in the world.

“But here’s the really bad news. Two new studies on education and poverty were reported in Education Week in October. The first from the Southern Education Foundation reveals that nearly half of all U.S. public school students live in poverty. Poverty has risen in every state since President Clinton left office.

“The second study, conducted by the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, reveals that poverty — not race, ethnicity, national origin or where you attend school — is the best predictor of college attendance and completion.

“Chew on that. The causes of poverty are complex and varied: excessive immigration, tax policy, and the exportation and automation of manufacturing jobs. Yet the list of solutions is strikingly short. Other than picking a kid’s parents, it amounts to giving all children access to a high-quality education.

“Here’s the catch-22. While the only long-term solution to poverty might be a good education, a good education is seldom available to children living in poverty.

“One reason is that spending on education has not kept pace with the rise in child poverty. While poverty grew by 40% in the Midwest and 33% in the South from 2001 to 2011, educational spending per pupil grew by only 12% in these regions over the same 10-year period.”

Unfortunately, the article goes on to praise the Gates Foundation for providing college scholarships to low-income students but fails to recognize that Bill Gates has done more than any single individual (other than Arne Duncan) to promote the idea that we can’t “fix” poverty until we “fix” schools. He has promoted Teach for America, charter schools, and teacher evaluation as the way to “fix” schools. Better to do something about poverty. It is a scandal that the world’s richest nation has nearly one-quarter of its children living in poverty, and the best we can do is to privatize school management and test students with greater frequency.

Alex Park and Jaeah Lee wrote an article in “Mother Jones” detailing what they call the Gates Foundation’s “hypocritical investments.”

While professing concern for children’s health, they are heavily invested in companies like Coca-Cola and McDonald’s.

It also has a major investment in Walmart, as well as smaller sums in privately managed prisons.

While professing concern about climate change, Gates invests in many oil and gas companies, like Exxonmobil.

Do as I say, not as I do.

New York state’s attorney general Eric T. Schneiderman won an agreement from the Pearson Foundation to pay $7.7 million in fines for using its charitable activities to advance its corporation’s profit-making arm.

According to the story by Javier Hernandez in the New York Times,

“An inquiry by Eric T. Schneiderman, the New York State attorney general, found that the foundation had helped develop products for its corporate parent, including course materials and software. The investigation also showed that the foundation had helped woo clients to Pearson’s business side by paying their way to education conferences that were attended by its employees.

“Under the terms of the agreement to be announced on Friday, the money, aside from $200,000 in legal expenses, will be directed to 100Kin10, a national effort led by a foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, to train more teachers in high-demand areas, including science, technology, engineering and math.

“The fact is that Pearson is a for-profit corporation, and they are prohibited by law from using charitable funds to promote and develop for-profit products,” Mr. Schneiderman said in a statement. “I’m pleased that this settlement will direct millions of dollars back to where they belong.”

“Officials at Pearson and the foundation defended their work.

“We have always acted with the best intentions and complied with the law,” they said, in a joint statement. “However, we recognize there were times when the governance of the foundation and its relationship with Pearson could have been clearer and more transparent.”

“The case shed a light on the competitive world of educational testing and technology, which Pearson has come to dominate. As federal and state leaders work to overhaul struggling schools by raising academic standards, educational companies are rushing to secure lucrative contracts in testing, textbooks and software.

“The inquiry by the attorney general focused on Pearson’s attempts to develop a suite of products around the Common Core, a new and more rigorous set of academic standards that has been adopted by 45 states and the District of Columbia.

“Around 2010, Pearson began financing an effort through its foundation to develop courses based on the Common Core. The attorney general’s report said Pearson had hoped to use its charity to win endorsements and donations from a “prominent foundation.” That group appears to be the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

“Pearson Inc. executives believed that branding their courses by association with the prominent foundation would enhance Pearson’s reputation with policy makers and the education community,” a release accompanying the attorney general’s report said.

“Indeed, in April 2011, the Pearson Foundation and the Gates Foundation announced they would work together to create 24 new online reading and math courses aligned with the Common Core.

“Pearson executives believed the courses could later be sold commercially, the report said, and predicted potential profits of tens of millions of dollars. After Mr. Schneiderman’s office began its investigation, the Pearson Foundation sold the courses to Pearson for $15.1 million.

“The attorney general’s office also examined a series of education conferences sponsored by the Pearson Foundation, which paid for school officials to meet their foreign counterparts in places like Helsinki and Singapore…..”

In recent years, the Gates Foundation has funded AstroTurf “teacher-led groups” to advocate for policies that most teachers reject. One of these groups is called Educators for Excellence.

In this post, a guest blogger for EduShyster explains why he refused to join E4E. Among other things, he could not bring himself to sign the pledge:

“which states that they “pledge to support using value-added test-score data in evaluations, higher hurdles to achieving tenure, the elimination of seniority-driven layoffs, school choice, and merit pay.”

The Gates Foundation has shelled out a lot of money to create teacher groups, led by young teachers with limited classroom experience, to push its anti-teacher agenda. A very clever strategy.

Sue Altman of the new and unaccredited EduShyster Academy notes the irony that Microsoft has finally abandoned its stack ranking system but the schools are stuck with it, thanks to the Gates Foundation and its best buddy Arne Duncan.

What is stack ranking?

“Now, after hiring a new HR person, Microsoft is getting rid of the stack rankings—and good riddance. But thanks in no small part to Microsoft founder Bill Gates, our schools are still ruled by an education reform-mindset that’s informed by the same wrong-headed ideas that Microsoft just rejected.

“The belief that punishment motivates people to work better

“The belief that competition is better than collaboration in an organization

“The idea that worth of employees can be measured by ranking them on narrow criteria and that teamwork, innovation, problem solving and communication don’t count towards that criteria”

Now that Microsoft has decided that its players should not compete with one another, can we boot those ideas out of the schools?

Bill Gates has plans for your child. He wants to know everything he can about your child so he can customize and personalize the deliverables.

A teacher in California told me that his principal enthusiastically signed up for the Gates plan. Here is the survey that every teacher was asked to complete. Where do you think this is going? Is this utopia or dystopia?

**********************HERE IS THE CONTENTS WHEN CLICKING THE LINK:

ORIGINAL Survey Option E: Teacher Survey

We believe in the promise of personalization to dramatically improve student learning. In the future, each student’s learning experience – what she learns, and how, when, and where she learns it – will be tailored to her individual developmental needs, skills, and interests. This is a fundamental shift from the way that students learn today, and as such, we believe that for personalization to truly transform student learning, schools will likely look dramatically different than they do today. Our current efforts support districts and partner organizations in building system-level capacity to design, launch and scale school models that embrace this bold vision of personalized learning.

The purpose of this survey is to understand the teacher perspective on the personalized learning activities happening in schools, including current instructional practices, PD, supports, etc. Further, this survey aims to gauge the level of interest for teachers to implement personalized learning in their classrooms. For this survey, personalized learning is defined as follows: Learning experiences for all students are tailored to their individual developmental needs, skills and interest. Personalized learning can, and should, include the following supporting elements: learner profiles, personal learning paths, individual mastery, and flexible learning environment. These attributes can be further defined as follows:

• Learner profiles: Captures individual skills, gaps, strengths, weaknesses, interests & aspirations of each student

• Personal learning paths: Each student has learning goals & objectives. Learning experiences are diverse and matched to the individual needs of students

• Individual mastery: Continually assesses student progress against clearly defined standards & goals. Students advance based on demonstrated mastery

• Flexible learning environments: Multiple instructional delivery approaches that continuously optimize available resources in support of student learning

While we believe that true personalized learning requires much more than the mere adoption and use of new technologies, we are optimistic about blended instruction – instructional design and delivery that incorporates the use of new technologies alongside traditional instruction – as a means of personalizing learning. As such, we are interested in hearing about your use of technology as part of your personalized learning efforts and implementation.

***************HERE IS THE FIRST PART OF THE SURVEY************

1. What is the name of your school?

*

2. What level is your school? Elementary School

Middle School

Grades K-8

Grades 6-12

High School

Other (please specify)

*

3. What grade level(s) do you teach?
K

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Other (please specify)

All students should have the high school experience that Bill Gates had.

A wonderful campus with a rich curriculum, experienced teachers (79% with advanced degrees), small classes, excellent arts programs, great sports activities, up-to-date science laboratories. Everything that makes for success.

So why does he say that, for other people’s children, class size doesn’t matter?

Why does he support TFA, which sends temps without advanced degrees to the schools of the neediest?

Why does he not fight for the right of every child to have the experience that he had, rather than the dime-store model?