Archives for category: Gates Foundation, Bill Gates

Here is a list of organizations that have spoken out for and against the referendum on the ballot to permit charter schools and a “parent trigger” to create even more charter schools in Washington State.

Look at the list and see if you can tell which one has grassroots support from parents and teachers.

Earlier posts have described how this ballot proposal was funded by some of the richest men in the state, not public school parents. The voters in Washington have turned down charters three times previously. Some people never take no for an answer. Let’s see what happens in November.

When writing about Richard Rothstein, I scarcely know where to begin.

He has written several major books. Anyone who wants to understand the challenge of poverty in our society must read Rothstein’s seminal work, Class and Schools.

He was responsible for drafting the EPI paper that brought together nearly a dozen scholars to explain why value-added assessment–or judging teachers by student test scores–was riddled with problems.

I got to know Richard many years ago when he wrote a regular column for the New York Times. We used to meet and disagree, but he never lost his cool, and he never stopped trying to explain patiently why I was wrong. Over time, I discovered, he was right on almost everything about which we had disagreed.

He understands the importance of public education. He objects when people defame public education, especially when they have no facts. If you want to get a flavor of his careful, thoughtful, judicious approach to issues, read this response to Bill Gates’ claim that educational achievement has been flat for many years. Richard Rothstein refuted what he said with clear and persuasive evidence.

For his courage, for his intelligence, for his dedication to democratic ideals, Richard Rothstein joins our honor roll as a hero of American public education.

Alex Kotlowitz asks this important question in the New York Times on Sunday.

The question is important for several reasons.

First, because the self-proclaimed reformers assert that great teachers can and do overcome poverty. You might say that this slogan is their anti-poverty program. Wendy Kopp, Bill Gates, and Arne Duncan have all said on many occasions that if there is a “great” teacher in every classroom, that will take care of poverty. Or, in a variation, fix the schools first, then fix poverty.

They never explain how a great teacher overcomes homelessness, hunger, poor health, and other conditions associated with poverty. Lyndon B. Johnson said in 1965 that you can’t put two people in a race at the same starting line and assume it’s a fair race if one of them is shackled. LBJ knew then what the reformers today never learned.*

Second, it’s heartening to see this article in the New York Times because the Times has been hostile to teachers and their unions on the editorial page. The Times is no friend of public education. Its editorial writer thinks that teachers need carrots and sticks to raise test scores, indifferent to the consistent failure of such policies.

How nice to see Alex Kotlowitz in the pages of the Times.

*At Howard University, President Lyndon B. Johnson said, “Imagine a hundred-yard dash in which one of the two runners has his legs shackled together. He has progressed ten yards, while the unshackled runner has gone fifty yards. At that point the judges decide that the race is unfair. How do they rectify the situation? Do they merely remove the shackles and allow the race to proceed? Then they could say that “equal opportunity” now prevailed. But one of the runners would still be forty yards ahead of the other. Would it not be the better part of justice to allow the previously shackled runner to make up the forty-yard gap, or to start the race all over again? That would be affirmative action toward equality.”
Commencement Address at Howard University (June 4, 1965)

The Gates Foundation, on its blog-site called “Impatient Optimists,” responds to Anthony Cody’s searing critique of the foundation’s support for market-based reforms.

Please read Anthony’s post, then the Gates’ response.

Also read Anthony’s post about poverty, and Gates’ response.

I think it is shameful that the foundation’s representative begin by questioning whether Anthony believes that poor children can learn. This is the standard reformer tactic to anyone who raises the issue of poverty as an impediment to learning. They would have us believe that being hungry and homeless is just an excuse for bad teachers; that it doesn’t matter if children can’t see the front of the room, can’t hear the teacher, because they have never been screened for vision and hearing. No excuses!

To say this to Anthony Cody, who taught for nearly 20 years in the public schools of Oakland, California, is especially shameful. Do foundation executives who sit in plush headquarters in Seattle have the authority to impugn his bona fides?

Read the exchange. And ask yourself why the Gates Foundation has the moral authority to define the nation’s education agenda. Its two hobby horses right now are teacher evaluation and charter schools. It has spent hundreds of millions to find the magic formula that would identify those “bad” teachers and put a “great” teacher in every classroom. Now school districts across the nation are dancing to Gates’ tune, and no one knows whether the arcane mathematical formula designed by economists and statisticians really do produce “great” teachers, or even identify them. One sure result of this endeavor is that many millions will be–have been–diverted from instruction to testing and building data systems to tie test scores to teachers.

As for charters, study after study shows that they typically get the same results as public schools. Study after study shows that many charters exclude ELLs and special education students. There are some with high test scores, some with low test scores, but on average they don’t get better scores than public schools. The reason that Gates insists that they ARE public schools is because they are not. They are privately managed schools receiving public funds. Getting public dollars does not make them public schools. They are part of a larger movement of privatization, to remove an essential public institution to private control. No wonder the Wall Street crowd loves them so, regardless of results. No wonder the for-profit sector is growing.

Thanks to Anthony Cody for persuading the Gates Foundation to go public. They had nothing to say on the subject of poverty and in this post, they demonstrate that they continue to neglect its effects on students’ ability to succeed in school.

Jan Carr, an author of children’s books, is a dedicated public school parent. She wrote a post wondering why the powerful elites in our society are so obsessed with testing and data. She wondered why they care so little for developing critical thinking.

Jan wrote: “I’ve been a scrappy public school mom for 12 years and counting, and I’ve watched the increasing encroachment of the data and accountability business, which would have our kids prepping for and taking deadening tests at every turn, and our teachers endlessly graded and derided for test results that are a meaningless distraction from real learning. A rich and full education digs deeper; it’s inextricably entwined with books, literature, writing, and the life of the mind; it develops critical thinking.”

I read her latest post and asked Mike Petrilli of the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute to respond to it. I have known Mike for many years, and I hold out hope that someday he too will evolve and renounce the reforms he now champions. I think this will happen when his own children encounter them, as Jan Carr’s did.

I invite readers to comment on this discussion.

This is Mike’s commentary:

Dear Ms. Carr,

I enjoyed reading your post about critical thinking; it sounds like you and your son have been lucky to have had some very talented teachers.

l’ve never met Bill Gates, or Eli Broad, or Michael Bloomberg, or Rupert Murdoch; I can’t speak for what lies in their hearts. But I find it very unlikely that they don’t want children to “think critically” because they want to produce a generation of drones. I know that sort of rhetoric is common on the left (including from the late Howard Zinn) but to believe it you have to also believe that Barack Obama, the late Ted Kennedy, the liberal icon George Miller, and countless other liberal supporters of education reform are also out to unplug our children’s minds. That doesn’t pass the “critical thinking” test.

What motivates these folks, as I understand it, is an earnest belief that in today’s knowledge economy, the only way poor kids are going to have a shot at escaping inter-generational poverty is to gain the knowledge, skills, and character strengths that will prepare them to enter and complete some sort of post-secondary education–the pathway to the middle class. And that while reading and math scores don’t come close to measuring everything that counts, they do measure skills that have been linked to later success in college, the workplace, and life.

I suspect that all of these men would like to see students engaged in more of the kind of critical thinking that you describe, and that’s one reason many support the move to the more rigorous “Common Core” standards for English Language Arts and math. The ELA standards, in particular, are designed to push students toward this sort of complex thinking.

The testing movement has caused a lot of harm, I agree, in terms of narrowing the curriculum and encouraging bad teaching. Moving to better standards and tests is one way to address that. But by throwing out the baby with the bathwater we risk going back to the days when poor and minority kids were held to very low expectations–and their achievement plateaued as a result.

In the last two decades, poor and minority kids have made two grade levels of progress in reading and math, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress. The hope–and it’s really only a hypothesis at this point–is that those greater math and reading skills will help a generation of kids do much better in college and the real world than they otherwise would have. The question for educators and reformers is: How do we keep the good that’s come from testing and accountability while eliminating the bad?

Mike Petrilli

If you add the scores on standardized tests for five years in a row, can you tell who the best and worst teachers are?

No.

But that’s the theory behind value-added assessment.

The idea is that an “effective” teacher raises test scores every year. The computer predicts what the test scores are supposed  to be, and the teacher who meets the target is great, while the one who doesn’t is ineffective and should be shunned or banished.

But study after study shows that value-added assessment is rife with error. As this paper from the National Academy of Education and the American Educational Research Association shows, value-added assessment is unstable, inaccurate and unreliable. Teachers who get high ratings one year may get low ratings the next year. Teachers are misidentified. Data are missing. The scores say more about which students were in the classroom than the teachers’ “quality” and ability to teach well.

Teachers of the gifted are in trouble because the students are so close to the ceiling that it is very difficult to “make” them get higher scores.

Teachers of special education are in trouble because their students have many problems taking a standardized assessment. A teacher wrote me last year to tell me that her students would cry, hide under their desks, and react with rage; one tore up the test and ate the paper.

Teachers of English language learners are in trouble because many of their students don’t know how to read English.

A superintendent in Connecticut wrote me to say that his state department of education is pushing the Gates’ MET approach. I urged him to read Jesse Rothstein’s critique. In fact, the MET study won the National Education Policy Center’s Bunkum award for research that reached a conclusion that was the opposite of its own evidence.

For a fast and accurate summary of what research says about value-added assessment, read this article by Linda Darling-Hammond.

VAM is junk science. Bunk science.

Just another club with which to knock teachers, wielded by those who could never last five minutes in a classroom.

State Representative Marci Maxwell is a hero who joins our honor roll for bravely standing up for public education.

She  wrote an article in which she urged voters to reject an initiative to authorize charter schools in Washington State.

She pointed out that the state’s voters have turned down charters three times previously.

Bill Gates and other billionaires and entrepreneurs are funding this effort topet voters to approve charters.

In other states, legislatures have approved charter legislation without going to the voters. Some have used ALEC model legislation, others have been influenced by campaign contributions. But it’s rare that voters have a chance to express their views about creating a dual system of schools dividing a limited amount of public funds.

Thank you, Rep. Maxwell, for helping to educate the public.

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?

 

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.

In a comment on Anthony Cody’s brilliant post, Deborah Meier explains why the Gates Foundation failed in New York City. She may be responding to the name of its blog “Impatient Optimists.” The foundation’s lack of patience caused it to crush the very practices and policies it should have nurtured. It wanted results–fast. It wanted measurements–quickly. Its impatience doomed its efforts:

Among other problems with Gates, it was their impatience for results that led them and others to abandon the arduous, time-consuming process of trying to expand the innovative networks that existed before they entered the field.  Rather than learn from them, they absorbed only the shallowest of the lessons they could have been taught.  I know, I remember, I was there at the time.  Our shared central “dogma” was and is: democracy isn’t doomed but it requires endless patience and endless respect for those most intimately involved–teachers, kids, families, neighbors.  Those are the only “changes” that last, and the only ones that build democracy rather than undermine it.  

But the Gates Foundation  wanted to show quick results–scale-up, reproduce more.  Faster.  They tempted us with money…   They wanted some easy way to measure success, so they settled for test scores.  We resisted, but…   We’re still around, but holding on by a fingernail.   Easy and fast–is partly what’s wrong with the schools most young people now attend.   It’s the one thing Gates and they seem to have learned from each other.  

What works?   We need schools that improve because we love them, and we love the work that gets accomplished in them.