Archives for category: Gates Foundation, Bill Gates

Somehow the word has gotten through to the Gates Foundation that many teachers don’t like their agenda.

Teachers know that Bill Gates has told governors and the media that American public education is broken and obsolete. Teachers know he created the “blame-the-teacher” narrative. Teachers know he pushed the flawed idea that test scores of students should be used to judge teacher quality. Teachers know that Gates pumped $2 million into the anti-public school agitprop film “Waiting for Superman.”

Teachers are not dumb.

But now the Gates Foundation has launched a campaign to persuade teachers that the foundation cares.

Actions speak louder than words.

Teachers in many states are being evaluated by whether student scores rise or fall. Third graders will be surveyed to see what they think of their teachers. All bad ideas from Gates.

The public school bloggers in Seattle see this effort as a Trojan horse.

It is good Gates is listening. Now teachers must speak truth to power. Let him hear what you think.

Earlier today, Ben Austin wrote an open letter to me on Huffington Post. He expressed dismay about my characterization of him and his group Parent Revolution. Read his letter here. Here is my reply.

Dear Ben Austin,

Thank you for your invitation to engage in dialogue in your letter posted on Huffington Post.

You probably know that I have been writing a daily blog for the past fourteen months and during that time, I have written over 4,000 posts. I can’t remember any time when I have lost my temper other than when I wrote about your successful effort to oust an elementary school principal in Los Angeles named Irma Cobian.

I apologize for calling you “loathsome,” though I do think your campaign against a hardworking, dedicated principal working in an inner-city school was indeed loathsome. And it was wrong of me to say that there was a special place in hell reserved for anyone “who administers and funds this revolting organization that destroys schools and fine educators like Irma Cobian.”

As I said, I lost my temper, and I have to explain why.

I don’t like bullies. When I saw this woman targeted by your powerful organization, it looked like bullying. Your organization is funded by many millions of dollars from the Walton Family Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation. You have a politically powerful organization, and you used your power to single out this one woman and get her fired.

Your organization sent in paid staff to collect signatures from parents. The teachers in the school were not permitted to express their opinion to parents about your efforts to fire their principal. When you succeeded in getting her fired, 21 of the 22 teachers on staff requested a transfer. That suggests that Cobian has the loyalty of her staff and is a good leader.

Who is this woman that you ousted?

All I know about her is what I read in this article in the Los Angeles Times.

It said: “More than two decades ago, Cobian walked away from a high-powered law firm to teach. The daughter of Mexican immigrants, she said she was inspired by a newspaper article about the low high school graduation rates of Latinos and wanted to make a difference.

“Her passion for social justice led her to Watts in 2009.”

Irma Cobain is now in her fourth year as principal of the school, and you decided that her time was up.

What did her teachers say about her?

“Third-grade teacher Kate Lewis said Irma Cobian is the best principal she’s had in nine years at Weigand Avenue Elementary School in Watts.

“Joseph Shamel called Cobian a “godsend” who has used her mastery of special education to show him how to craft effective learning plans for his students.”

“Fourth-grade teacher Hector Hernandez said Cobian is the first principal he’s had who frequently pops into classrooms to model good teaching herself. Recently, he said, she demonstrated how to teach about different literary genres by engaging students in lively exercises using characters from the “Avengers” comic book and film.”

When Cobian arrived at the Weigand Avenue Elementary school four years ago, she found a school with low test scores, low parent involvement, and divisiveness over a dual-language program. “All the students come from low-income families, more than half are not fluent in English and a quarter turn over every year,” the Los Angeles Times story said.

Cobian decided to focus on improving literacy and raising morale. She certainly won over the faculty.

The day after Cobian learned about the vote removing her, she went to a second-grade classroom to give prizes to children who had read 25 books this year. She cheered those who met the goal and encouraged those who were trying. But she could not hide her sadness.

“I need happiness today,” Cobian told the bright-eyed students. “What do I do when I’m sad?”

“Come here!” the students sang out.

For a moment, her sadness gave way to smiles. But later, she said: “I am crushed.”

Ben, how did you feel when you read that? I felt sad. I felt this was a caring and dedicated person who had been singled out unfairly.

Ben, I hope you noticed in the article that Dr. John Deasy, the superintendent of schools in Los Angeles, praised the plan that Cobian and her staff developed for improving the school. He called it a “well-organized program for accelerated student achievement.” He thanked Cobian for her commitment and hard work.” But you decided she should be fired.

Ironically, the parent who worked with you to fire Cobian said she preferred Weigand to her own neighborhood school where she had concerns about bullying. Even stranger, the parents at Cobian’s school voted to endorse her plan. Your parent spokesperson said she did not like the plan because it focused on reading and writing, but she told the reporter from the Los Angeles Times that she actually never read the plan.

I understand from your letter, Ben, that you somehow feel you are a victim because of what I wrote about you. But, Ben, you are not a victim. Irma Cobian is the victim here. She lost her job because of your campaign to get rid of her. She is the one who was humiliated and suffered loss of income and loss of reputation. You didn’t. You still have your organization, your staff, and the millions that the big foundations have given you.

I am sorry you had a tough childhood. We all have our stories about growing up. I am one of eight children. My father was a high-school dropout. My mother immigrated from Bessarabia and was very proud of her high school diploma from the Houston public schools. She was proud that she learned to speak English “like a real American.” My parents were grateful for the free public schools of Houston, where I too graduated from high school. We had our share of problems and setbacks but I won’t go on about myself or my siblings because my story and yours are really beside the point. What troubles me is what you are doing with the millions you raise. You use it to sow dissension, to set parents against parents, parents against teachers, parents against principals. I don’t see this as productive or helpful. Schools function best when there is collaboration among teachers, parents, administrators, and students. Schools have a better chance of success for the children when they have a strong community and culture of respect.

Your “parent trigger” destroys school communities. True to its name, the “trigger” blasts them apart. It causes deep wounds. It decimates the spirit of respect and comity that is necessary to build a strong community. Frankly, after the school shootings of recent years, your use of the metaphor of a “parent trigger” is itself offensive. We need fewer triggers pointed at schools and educators. Please find a different metaphor, one that does not suggest violence and bloodshed.

It must be very frustrating to you and your funders that–three years after passage of the “parent trigger” law– you can’t point to a single success story. I am aware that you persuaded the parents at the Desert Trails Elementary School in Adelanto, California, to turn their public school over to a privately operated charter. I recall that when parents at the school tried to remove their signatures from your petition, your organization went to court and won a ruling that they were not allowed to rescind their signatures. Ultimately only 53 parents in a school of more than 600 children chose the charter operator. Since the charter has not yet opened, it is too soon to call that battle a success for Parent Revolution. Only the year before, the Adelanto Charter Academy lost its charter because the operators were accused of financial self-dealing.

But, Ben, let me assure you that I bear you no personal ill will. I just don’t approve of what you are doing. I think it is wrong to organize parents to seize control of their public school so they can fire the staff or privatize it. If the principal is doing a bad job, it is Dr. Deasy’s job to remove her or him. I assume that veteran principals and teachers get some kind of due process, where charges are filed and there is a hearing. If Cobain was as incompetent as you say, why didn’t Dr. Deasy bring her up on charges and replace her?

I also have a problem with the idea that parents can sign a petition and hand their public school off to a private charter corporation. The school doesn’t belong to the parents whose children are enrolled this year. It belongs to the public whose taxes built it and maintains it. As the L.A. Times story pointed out, one-quarter of the children at Weigand Avenue Elementary School are gone every year. The parents who sign a petition this year may not even be parents in the school next year. Why should they have the power to privatize the school? Should the patrons of a public library have the power to sign a petition and privatize the management? Should the people using a public park have the right to take a vote and turn the park over to private management?

We both care about children. I care passionately about improving education for all children. I assume you do as well. You think that your organized raids on public schools and professionals will lead to improvement. I disagree. Schools need adequate resources to succeed. They also need experienced professionals, a climate of caring, and stability. I don’t see anything in the “trigger” concept that creates the conditions necessary for improvement. Our teachers and principals are already working under too much stress, given that schools have become targets for federal mandates and endless reforms.

I suggest that educators need respect and thanks for their daily work on behalf of children. If they do a bad job, the leadership of the school system is responsible to take action. What educators don’t need is to have a super-rich, super-powerful organization threatening to pull the trigger on their career and their good name.

Ben, thanks for the open letter and the chance to engage in dialogue. If you don’t mind, I want to apologize to Irma Cobain on your behalf. She was doing her best. She built a strong staff that believes in her. She wrote a turnaround plan that Dr. Deasy liked and the parents approved. Ms. Cobain, if you read this, I hope you can forgive Ben. Maybe next time, he will think twice, get better information, and consider the consequences before he decides to take down another principal.

Diane Ravitch

Paul Horton, a history teacher at the University of Chicago Lab School, wrote a letter to Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, the top-ranking Democrat on the Senate committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), when the Senator announced his intention to retire.

Horton asked whether the senator was aware of the corporate influence on Race to the Top and the Common Core standards.

Horton told the senator that critics of these programs are not extremists:

“In fact…critics of the RTTT mandates and the CCS come from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and the libertarian wing of the Republican Party. In the national education debate, the status quo agenda that is being pushed comes from the corporate middle of both parties that is backed by many of those who have been the biggest beneficiaries of the current economic “recovery” in Seattle, Silicon Valley, and Manhattan (and Westchester County) and large foundations.”

Horton urges Senator Harkin to call Secretary Duncan to a hearing to testify under oath and answer the following questions:

“How many of your staffers have worked for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? Who are they, and why did you hire them?

“What role did these staffers and Bill Gates have on the formulation of the RTTT mandates?

“How much classroom teaching experience do the principal authors of the RTTT mandates have, individually, and as a group?

“Why are these individuals qualified to make decisions about education policy?

“Were you, or anyone who works within the Department of Education in contact with any representative or lobbyist representing Pearson Education, McGraw-Hill, or InBloom before or during the writing of the RTTT mandates?

“What is the Broad Foundation? What is your connection to the Broad Foundation? What education policies does the Broad Foundation support? How do these policies support public education? How do these policies support private education? What was the role of the Broad Foundation in the creation of the RTTT mandates?

“How many individuals associated with the Broad Foundation helped author the report, “Smart Options: Investing Recovery Funds for Student Success” that was published in April of 2009 and served as a blueprint for the RTTT mandates? How many representatives from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation assisted in writing this report? What was their role in authoring this report? How many representatives of McKinsey Consulting participated in authoring this report? What was David Coleman’s role in authoring this report?

“Do you know David Coleman? Have you ever had any conversations with David Coleman? Has anyone on your staff had any conversations with David Coleman? Did anyone within the Department of Education have any connection to any of the authors of the Common Core Standards? Did anyone in your Department have any conversations with any of the authors of the Common Core Standards as they were being written?

“Have you ever had any conversations with representatives or lobbyists who represent the Walton Family Foundation? Has anyone on your staff had any conversations with the Walton Family Foundation or lobbyists representing the Walton Family Foundation? If so, what was the substance of those conversations?

“Do you know Michelle Rhee? If so, could you describe your relationship with Michelle Rhee? Have you, or anyone working within the Department of Education, had any conversations with Students First, Rhee’s advocacy group, about the dispersal foundation funds for candidates in local and state school board elections?

“This is just a start. Public concerns about possible collusion between the Department of Education and education corporations could be addressed with a few straightforward answers to these and other questions.

“Every parent, student, and teacher in the country is concerned about the influence of corporate vendors on education policy. What is represented as an extreme movement by our Education Secretary can be more accurately described as a consumer revolt against shoddy products produced by an education vendor biopoly (Pearson and McGraw Hill). Because these two vendors have redefined the education marketplace to meet the requirements of RTTT, they both need to be required to write competitive impact statements for the Anti-Trust Division of the Department of Justice.”

This is an extraordinary letter. Please read it. Send it to your friends. Send it to everyone on your email list. tweet it. These are questions that should be answered by the Secretary, under oath, in public hearings.

American education is being radically reconstituted and centralized, with little or no democratic deliberation. The public hears bland assurances about “high standards for all,” “college and career readiness for all,” and other unproven claims and assertions about sweeping changes that have not been subject to trial or open debate or careful review.

Horton asks tough questions. The American public deserves real answers–not flowery rhetoric– about who made the decisions to reconstruct the nation’s education system, with what evidence, and for whose benefit.

There is a surprising overlap between the views of the Tea Party and those of some in the left towards the Common Core. In Indiana, Democrats and Tea Party activists combined to defeat far-right State Superintendent Tony Bennett and elect educator Glenda Ritz. Democrats opposed his support for privatization and his haughty treatment of teachers: Tea Party activists opposed him for his zealous support for the Common Core.

Anthony Cody here describes the issues that unite political opposites:

1. “Sharing of student and teacher data with third party developers of all sorts, with no guarantees of privacy. As noted in this post, there are plans in place in some states such as Illinois and New York, and others as well, to collect massive amounts of data, which will be housed in a cloud based databank maintained by inBloom, a non-profit created by the Gates Foundation for this purpose.” Parents of all persuasions are equally concerned about invasions of their children’s privacy.

2. Both sides are upset by the secretive proceeds in which the Common Core was developed and foisted on the schools across the nation.

3. The federal government is legally barred from interfering in curriculum yet the Department of Education has been deeply involved in promoting the Common Core.

But the two groups part company on other issues, such as allegations that Bill Ayers wrote the Common Core (he did not) or that Linda Darling-Hammond is part of some conspiracy (she is not).

I received a letter from a veteran teacher who recognized herself as my teacher Mrs. Ratliff, whom I wrote about in chapter 9 of my recent book The Death and Life of the Great American School System. When I read about all the schemes to measure the worth of students by the test scores of their students, I thought about Mrs. Ratliff, who was both my homeroom teacher and my literature teacher. She had high standards, she was no-nonsense, she demanded the best of her students, and students lined up to get into her classes. I wondered if there would be more Mrs. Ratliffs, in light of the new demand that everything and everyone be measured by standardized tests. Mrs. Ratliff didn’t give any standardized tests. I wondered what she would think of the autocratic, mindless new world in which we live now.

Beverly Hart wrote (and I post here with her permission):

Dear Diane:

I was reading your latest book and came to the chapter “What Would Mrs. Ratliff Do?” The more I read about her, the more I realized that I was reading about myself! I was stunned to see the parallels: I teach high school English (and U.S. History), I insist on accuracy in students’ writing (do it over until you get it right), I wield a hefty red pen, I am stingy with A’s (you really have to earn an A, none of this grade inflation), and I love teaching the great writers and thinkers. (For many years I also taught Latin until, unfortunately, it died out.)

I am in my 45th year of teaching at the same small rural high school in central Illinois and am teaching children of my former students. I believe passionately in the value of a strong public education system, and I am troubled when bureaucrats who really know nothing about teaching proscribe from on high and reduce the art and science of teaching to standardized test scores that are based on many untenable assumptions. I feel like an anachronism as I try to uphold standards of excellence in a world of mediocrity.

I know why I have continued to teach for these many years—it’s all about my students. I get positive feedback from former students who have gone on to success in higher education and in careers. “Thank you, Mrs. Hart, for teaching me how to write” is an oft-heard comment. I also have my current students evaluate my classes anonymously. Recently my American Studies students (a double period class that integrates American literature and U.S. History) evaluated how the class was going so far after the first 9 week grading period. “I love this class” appeared on several papers. “You can definitely tell you enjoy teaching this class” wrote one student. “You really know your stuff. I’m excited to have a teacher who loves history so much” wrote another. “I appreciate your passion in this class. I come in here every day, and I learn” stated another student. I have a whole file bulging with student evaluations, but one comment has really stuck with me: “A very good teacher, the kind of teacher that makes it worth coming to school.” No standardized test can ever measure the impact of the Mrs. Ratliffs of the world.

For 14 years I served on the Board of Education in my home district and am now also an assistant principal with a focus on curriculum and professional development (in addition to a full teaching load). I certainly give the taxpayers their money’s worth. When students attempt to dissuade me from giving them an assignment, I remind them that I have to give them their money’s worth. Groans and the rolling of eyes follow this lecture about no free lunch.

Well, I have rambled on, and now it is time to close. I admire your taking a stand and speaking out on the state of public education in this country. I remain a strong advocate of a quality public education system that has made this country great.

Sincerely,

Beverly Hart

Nicholas Tampio, who teaches at Fordham University, doesn’t understand why Bill Gates has been allowed to use his billions to gain control of American public education.

Tampio says that innovation comes not from standardization but from diversity, from differing ideas and perspectives.

He recalls when Gates used the power of his technology to replace WordPerfect with Microsoft’s Word. I remember that well, because I thought WordPerfect was far superior to Word and was disappointed when the better software was stamped out by Gates’ passion to standardize.

Tampio thinks that Common Core may stamp out competing ideas. He writes:

“The Common Core may raise standards in some school districts, but one ought to read the literature with a critical eye. The Common Core has not been field-tested anywhere. The Common Core does not address many root causes of underperforming schools, such as hungry students or dangerous neighborhoods. And the Common Core has an opportunity cost, namely, that it forces thriving school districts to adopt programs that may be a worse fit for the student body.

“We can learn a lesson from the recent history of the computing industry. Apple and Microsoft have pressed each other to make better applications, phones, notepads, and cameras. Though Gates may have wanted to vanquish Apple, Steve Jobs prompted him to improve his products, which in turn benefited every computer user. Competition brings out the best in people and institutions. The Common Core standardizes curricula and thereby hinders competition among educational philosophies.”

He argues:

“America needs many kinds of excellent programs and schools: International Baccalaureate programs, science and technology schools, Montessori schools, religious schools, vocational schools, bilingual schools, outdoor schools, and good public schools. Even within programs and schools, teachers should be encouraged to teach their passions and areas of expertise. Teachers inspire life-long learning by bringing a class to a nature center, replicating an experiment from Popular Science, taking a field trip to the state or national capital, or assigning a favorite novel. A human being is not a computer, and a good education is not formatted in a linear code.”

Anthony Cody describes the campaign to put mayors in charge of school districts and the reasons behind it.

The biggest supporter of mayoral control is Arne Duncan. When mayoral control was up for renewal in Néw York City, he weighed in to support it. He lobbied against any effort to give the mayor’s appointees set terms; he insisted they should serve at the pleasure of the mayor to give his absolute authority over every decision.

That allowed the mayor to ignore protests against school closing and charters, both of which are priorities for Duncan.

Who else supports mayoral control? The Gates Foundation, the Broad Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation. The billionaires don’t like democracy.

Unfortunately, mayoral control hasn’t worked out so well for Néw York City, Chicago, and D.C., but why let evidence get in the way of a desire for total power?

Anthony Cody has an excellent post that explains what you need to know about the massive data-collection program called inBloom.

The database will contain detailed personal information about students and teachers. The corporation cannot guarantee the security of this data.

Arne Duncan made inBloom possible by loosening the regulations of FERPA, the federal law that is supposed to protect student privacy.

Let’s just say that this whole project is an outrage. It is a massive invasion of privacy. As the grandparent of a public school student, I am furious! I don’t want Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch, and Joel Klein to have my family’s personal information.

Researchers Sarah Reckhow of Michigan State University and doctoral student Jeffrey Snyder reported at an AERA session that foundation giving is increasingly concentrated on a small number of recipients.

Foundation funding is moving away from giving to public schools–attended by 90% of American students–and is going instead to “challengers” to the system, especially charter schools–attended by about 5% of American students.

The story in Education Week says:

“At the start of the decade, less than a quarter of K-12 giving from top foundations—about $90 million in all—was given to the same few groups. Five years later, 35 percent of foundation giving, or $230 million, went to groups getting support from other foundations, and by 2010, $540 million, representing 64 percent of major foundation giving for K-12, was similarly aligned.”

The groups now getting the lion’s share of foundation funding are KIPP, Teach for America, the NewSchools Venture Fund, the Charter School Growth Fund, and the D.C. Public Education Fund.

None of the main recipients of foundation funding are models for American education. All are committed to privatization. The best known alumni of TFA are Michelle Rhee, John White of Louisiana, and Kevin Huffman of Tennessee, all of whom support vouchers and charters.

When will the foundations wise up and stop supporting failed policies?

Don’t they care about the 90% of American children who attend public schools? Or do they think that someday all schools will be run by private entrepreneurs?

Uri Treisman of the Dana Center at the University of Texas spoke about mathematics and equity at the annual NCTM meeting in Denver.

But he spoke about much more. He spoke about student performance on international tests; about the effect of poverty on achievement; about opportunity to learn; about the Common Core; about charter schools; about VAM.

Many who saw his speech said it was the best they had ever heard.

Please watch it. You will be glad you did.