Archives for category: International

ProPublica published this long story about how good intentions go bad. The story was also published in TIME magazine.

An idealistic young American woman goes to Liberia, wants to save young girls from poverty and sexual exploitation, and opens a school called “More Than Me.”

Her Liberian partner works diligently by her side to publicize the school and raise money. She wins an award of $1 million from J.P. Morgan Chase for her charitable work in Liberia. The founder was feted at the Forbes 400 awards, where she met some of the nation’s eminent philanthropists.

Meanwhile, her Liberian partner is indulging in his pleasure, which is raping the young girls enrolled in the school. He eventually dies of AIDS, having infected several children with the disease.

A very sad story.

Education International, which represents teachers unions around the world, sent out notice of a disturbing new development. International groups have determined to introduce Marley forces and payment for test scores as their response to educational needs in Africa and the Middle East. The Business-School graduates discovered a “crisis” that has existed since time began: children in impoverished countries are not getting a decent education—or, in some cases, no education at all. Yes, it is outrageous. Why are these great minds not using their brainpower to promote economic development? Asia is booming. Why not transfer some lessons learned to reduce poverty and create good jobs, rather than bring in the hedge funds and social impact investors to monetize education?

Angelo Gavrielatos of Educational International writes:

A new financing facility, the Education Outcomes Fund (EOF) for Africa and the Middle East is in development – with plans to become operational in the coming year. The fund commercialises and commodifies education, using tax-payer aid budgets to support private actors and investors to profit from education provision. Similar funds are being developed targeting India and Latin America.

EI responds

EI has responded directly to the EOF and publicly.

Mobilisation of Member Organisations

Education International is mobilising our Member Organisations in potentially targeted countries, which include Burkina Faso, Chad, Cote d’Ivoire, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, Liberia, Morocco, Nigeria, Palestine, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe, recommending that they take action to pressure their governments not to engage with the EOF.

What is the EOF and how does it work?

EOF is an initiative of the International Commission on Financing Global Education Opportunity (the Education Commission) and the Global Steering Group for Impact Investment (GSG).

As a so-called innovation in education financing, the fund aims to raise $1 billion in development impact bonds (DIBs). DIBs work by employing investment capital to pay services, in this case education provision or education related services, offered by private actors in Africa and the Middle East. If ‘outcomes targets’ are met by the service providers, investors and providers receive a return, financed in part by bilateral donors through national aid budgets.

Putting private actors in the driving seat, disregarding democracy
EOF disregards democratic governance of education by choosing to directly fund private education providers rather than strengthening public systems through the elected national government. Giving investors control and influence over their investments is given precedent over governments’ sovereignty to define their own priorities.

What is more, as reporting systems for outcomes are geared to the needs of private funders, it becomes more difficult for educators, their unions and the broader community to hold their government to account to fulfil their obligation to provide quality education for all.

Funding outcomes narrows education
The EOF argues that its model’s strength lies in the fact that it will only pay for outcomes achieved. However, results-based financing actually negatively distorts quality teaching and learning processes by focusing on narrow outcomes rather than the development of the whole child.

With funding based on students’ test score outcomes, teachers are encouraged to teach to the test. Furthermore, results-based financing creates perverse incentives to invest in short-term gains rather than long term system strengthening. Outcomes in education are not immediate, but take time to manifest, such as its contribution to social, cultural, democratic and economic development.

Apart from the fact that the commodification of education by incentivising private providers and investors by profit-making is highly unethical and in disregard of the right to education, there is no substantial evidence of DIBs in the education sector.

Outcomes bonds leave the vulnerable behind
Importantly, a quest for outcomes and the involvement of profit-making organisations in the education sector leads to the further marginalisation of the most vulnerable groups in society. Evidence shows, when funding depends on test scores, private actors’ student selection processes can discriminate against less able students or alternatively encourage certain students not to participate in tests.

In clear contravention of the global commitment made through SDG4 to leave no-one behind, students from disadvantaged backgrounds, students from minority groups, refugees, students with disabilities or special needs and students living in remote areas lose out.

Proliferation of education privatisation and marketisation

To achieve SDG4, public systems must be strengthened and education must be universally embraced as a human right and a public good, not a market commodity.

Education financing must be sustainable and predictable, there are no shortcuts. It is only through well-funded public education that we will achieve quality education for all, not through attempting to establish new finance mechanisms that undermine the right to education.

Rather than strengthening public systems in regions where increased public financing for education is desperately needed, EOF will finance non-state actors, including for-profit companies and so-called ‘low-fee’ private schools that charge poor families for education of questionable quality.

‘Prime contractors’ will be commissioned by EOF to lead ‘whole-community based interventions’, suggesting that the fund will operate as a massive market creation scheme. Public-private partnerships will also be supported, with Partnership Schools for Liberia (PSL), Liberia’s disastrous experiment with outsourcing education to private providers, held up as a model.

Education is a public responsibility. The SDGs are about assuming those responsibilities. They are essential to the future and cannot be contracted out or sacrificed to the market. And, yes, they require political will to ensure a sufficient and sustainable source of public funding. We cannot rely on charity or the private sector.

If we believe that all children, regardless of their background or circumstances, regardless of the community, country or continent in which they live have a right to quality education, governments and the international community must invest in the expansion and strengthening of quality, free, universally accessible public education.
More information

Education Outcomes Fund (EOF) for Africa and the Middle East: Is it a Game Changer? by Keith M Lewin, Emeritus Professor of International Development and Education, University of Sussex, provides a detailed critique of the EOF.

Angelo Gavrielatos
Project Director – EI

Angelo Gavrielatos​
Project Director
Email: Angelo.Gavrielatos@ei-ie.org
Tel: +32 2 224 06 11
Fax: +32 2 224 06 06
5 bd du Roi Albert II | 1210 Brussels | BELGIUM
http://www.ei-ie.org

Alyson Klein wrote a useful overview of emerging critiques of our national obsession with standardized testing. As Marc Tucker points out, we are likely the only country that tests every child every year. As Daniel Koretz says in the article in Education Week, human judgement should be part of any consequential decision about school quality.

More to the point, and she doesn’t mention this, our massive spending on standardized tests has brought diminishing returns. How many more years will we wait before policymakers and legislators conclude that the Testing Charade (Koretz’s term) has exhausted its value and has become a costly burden?

Because she writes as a journalist, not an expert, she includes contrary views from spokesmen for assessment corporations who make a living selling the same old tests, the more the better for the bottom line.

She begins:

It’s a spring ritual: Every year in the U.S., millions of schoolchildren take annual, standardized state tests to get a sense of how well their states, districts, schools, and even teachers are helping them learn.

Another sampling of students take the National Assessment of Educational Progress—or NAEP, better known as the Nation’s Report Card. Those results, released periodically, fill in the gaps to show how students in a particular state are performing relative to their peers.

That’s how accountability and assessment have worked in the United States at least since the advent of the No Child Left Behind Act back in 2002 and continuing with its replacement, the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015.

And in fact, NAEP and Advanced Placement tests are prime components of Quality Counts’s Achievement Index, which grades and ranks states in this politically fraught category.

The United States is unique among countries in subjecting students so often to standardized tests, but as testing experts note, the resulting deluge of data comes with significant trade-offs on exam quality. And despite a few innovations under ESSA, plenty of them also wonder whether the road-not-taken might have produced a more nuanced and useful, if less frequent trove of information.

Testing every student every year is a costly prospect, said Marc Tucker, the president and CEO of the National Center on Education and the Economy, a research and policy organization in Washington. Tucker’s research has focused on the policies and practices of the countries with the best education systems.

And the expense means that the tests are often lower quality than tests used in other countries, and a poor gauge of the higher-order critical thinking skills that students need in college, the workforce, and life, he added.

We’ve made it virtually impossible to have the quality of tests that other nations that are far ahead of us are using to determine how well their own kids are doing,” Tucker said. “So what we’ve done is to deprive ourselves of tests that will enable us to measure the things that are the most important about whether or not are kids are going to be ready for what’s coming. That’s a very poor trade. A very poor trade.”

By contrast, very few of the highest-performing countries test students every year, Tucker said. And when they do test, they often use deeper assessments that include performance tasks or writing prompts, giving educators a richer understanding of what students know and are able to do.

Singapore, for example, outperforms the U.S. on international measures such as the Program for International Student Achievement, or PISA, in average reading, math, and science performance. It tests students only about three times in the course of their careers—once at the end of elementary school, once in middle school, and once in high school, Tucker said.”

Someone should calculate the billions spent on standardized testing over the past 20 years, and we could then imagine how that same money might have been used to improve the conditions in schools.

But then, the standardized testing industry has lobbyists, and the children don’t.

Last year, Carol Dweck received the Yidan Prize of nearly $4 million for her work on “growth mindset.”

This year the prize went to statistician Larry Hedges and India’s Anant Agarwal, for his “innovative open source online platform.”

Were these bold choices? Safe choices? Relevant choices? Choices likely to change the life chances of millions of children around the world?

What do you think?

Andy Hargreaves recently retired as a professor at Boston College. In this article, which appeared in the Toronto Star as part of a debate, he advises Canada to abandon mandatory testing. Canada tests every student in grades 3 and 6.

If you open the article, you can vote for or against mandatory testing.

Don’t you wish our students were tested only in grades 3 and 6?

He writes:

“Finland uses samples. Israel samples a different subject every year in three-year cycles. Provinces and countries are already compared by samples on national and international assessments. Streamline the work of the Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO) around samples and this government will meet its accountability requirements and also save a big chunk of more than $130 million over four years that can go straight into the classroom.

“Bigger data is no substitute for better leadership. Some experts believe sampling makes it hard to pinpoint problems in small sub-groups in a school or board, like equitable achievement for a particular ethnic minority. Statisticians have an answer for this – that you can vary the nature or size of the sample to include and protect these groups. But an even better answer is that when subgroups get very tiny in small schools or boards, we don’t need more data about everybody. We just need better feedback from and relationships with the people right in front of us.

“The side effects outweigh the benefits. If you have an illness and try some drugs to ease it, you don’t want the negative side effects to outweigh the benefits. The negative side effects of testing a whole population in any grade are immense. Test results are known to the media and to real estate agents. Some school board administrators put excessive pressure on their schools and teachers in high-poverty areas to hit the numbers. Principals will then do almost anything to get the scores up. The stakes and stress are incredibly high.”

When Donald Trump Jr. and other campaign officials met with several Russians in Trump Tower in June 2016,the subject was the Magnitsky Act. Not many Americans know what that Act is or why it is named for Magnitsky or who Magnitsky was. When Trump Sr. was asked about the meeting, he said it was about adoptions. Puzzling, no?

When Trump Sr. met with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, Putin made what Trump called “an incredible offer.” Putin would let Mueller has questions of the 12 Russian intelligence officers he indicted if Trump would send Putin certain people he wanted to interrogate. They included former Ambassador Michael McFaul, who had been an outspoken critic of Putin’s human rights record, and Bill Browder, a businessman who had been associated with Sergei Magnitsky.

To understand what is going on, read this Wikipedia entry about Sergei Magnitsky. It ties together a Magnitsky, Browder, adoptions, and Putin.

Open the link to see the other links and footnotes.

Sergei Magnitsky

Born
Sergei Leonidovich Magnitsky
8 April 1972
Odessa, Ukrainian SSR, Soviet Union
(now Odessa, Ukraine)
Died
16 November 2009 (aged 37)
Matrosskaya Tishina Prison, Moscow, Russia

Sergei Leonidovich Magnitsky (Russian: Серге́й Леони́дович Магни́тский; 8 April 1972 – 16 November 2009) was a Russian tax accountant who specialized in anti-corruption activities. His arrest in 2008 and subsequent death after eleven months in police custody generated international media attention and triggered both official and unofficial inquiries into allegations of fraud, theft, and human rights violations in Russia.[1][2][3]

Magnitsky alleged there had been large-scale theft from the Russian state, sanctioned and carried out by Russian officials. He was arrested and eventually died in prison seven days before the expiration of the one-year term during which he could be legally held without trial.[4] In total, Magnitsky served 358 days in Moscow’s Butyrka prison. He developed gall stones, pancreatitis, and a blocked gall bladder, and received inadequate medical care. A human rights council set up by the Kremlin found that he had been physically assaulted shortly before his death.[5][6] His case has become an international cause célèbre.[7]

The U.S. Congress and President Obama enacted the Magnitsky Act at the end of 2012, barring those Russian officials believed to be involved in the lawyer’s death from entering the United States or using its banking system. In response, Russia condemned the Act, claimed Magnitsky was guilty of crimes, and blocked hundreds of adoptions by Americans.[8] In the decade before the Magnitsky Act, 33,000 Russian orphans were adopted by American families internationally.[9] Since the Russian adoption ban, annual adoptions of several hundreds have halted completely, currently remaining at zero.

In early January 2013, the Financial Times wrote that “the Magnitsky case is egregious, well documented and encapsulates the darker side of Putinism”.[10] It endorsed the idea of the EU countries imposing similar sanctions against the implicated Russian officials.[10]

In 2012, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, a Sarajevo-based network of investigative centers, successfully traced some of the missing Russian funds to a company owned by Denis Katsyv, the son of Pyotr Katsyv.[11] The money had been invested into a real estate firm that was buying luxury Wall Street apartments in New York City. The U.S. Department of Justice filed a seizure order to recover the apartments in September 2013.[12]

In 2013, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit news organization, obtained records of companies and trusts created by two offshore companies. These included information on at least 23 companies linked to an alleged $230 million tax fraud in Russia, a case that was being investigated by Sergei Magnitsky. The ICIJ investigation also revealed that the husband of one of the Russian tax officials deposited millions in a Swiss bank account set up by one of the offshore companies.[8]

Background

Magnitsky was an auditor at the Moscow law firm Firestone Duncan, working for its owner, Jamison Firestone.[13] He represented the investment advisory firm Hermitage Capital Management, which had been accused of tax evasion and tax fraud by the Russian Interior Ministry.[14]

Over the years of its operation, Hermitage had on a number of occasions supplied to the press information related to corporate and governmental misconduct and corruption within state-owned Russian enterprises.[15] Hermitage’s company co-founder, American Bill Browder, was expelled from Russia in 2005 as a national threat. Browder has said that he represented a threat only “to corrupt politicians and bureaucrats” in Russia, and believed that the ouster was conducted in order to leave his company open for exploitation.[1] In November 2005, Browder had arrived in Moscow to be told his visa had been annulled. He was deported the next day and has not seen his Moscow home since.[7]

On 4 June 2007, Hermitage’s Moscow office was raided by about 20 Ministry of Interior officers. The offices of Firestone Duncan were also raided. The officers had a search warrant alleging that Kamaya, a company administered by Hermitage, had underpaid its taxes. This was highly irregular, as the Russian tax authorities had just confirmed in writing that this company had overpaid its tax. In both cases, the search warrants permitted the seizure of materials related only to Kamaya. But, in both cases the officers illegally seized all the corporate, tax documents and seals for any company that had paid a large amount of Russian taxes, including documents and seals for many of Hermitage’s Russian companies.[16] In October 2007, Browder received word that one of the firms maintained in Moscow had a judgment against it for an alleged unpaid debt of hundreds of millions of dollars. According to Browder, this was the first he had heard of this court case and he did not know the lawyers who represented his company in court.[7] Magnitsky was assigned to investigate the case.

Exposing the scandal

In his investigation, auditor Magnitsky came to believe that the police had given the materials taken during the police raids to organized criminals, who used them to take over three of Hermitage’s Russian companies and who fraudulently reclaimed $230m (£140m) of the taxes previously paid by Hermitage.[4][17] He also claimed police had accused Hermitage of tax evasion solely to justify the police raids, so they could take the materials needed to hijack the Hermitage companies and effect the tax refund fraud. Magnitsky’s testimony implicated police, the judiciary, tax officials, bankers, and the Russian mafia.[4] In spite of the initial dismissal of his claims, Magnitsky’s core allegation that Hermitage had not committed fraud—but had been victimized by it—was eventually validated. A sawmill foreman pleaded guilty in the matter to “fraud by prior collusion”, though the foreman would maintain that police were not part of the plan.[17] Before then, however, Magnitsky became the subject of investigation by one of the policemen against whom he had testified as involved in the fraud. According to Browder, Magnitsky was “the ‘go-to guy’ in Moscow on courts, taxes, fines, anything to do with civil law.”[7]

According to Magnitsky’s investigation, the documents that had been taken by the Russian police in June 2007 were used to forge a change in ownership of Hermitage.[7] The thieves used the forged contracts to claim Hermitage owed $1 billion to shell companies. Unbeknownst to Hermitage, those claims were later authenticated by judges. In every instance, lawyers hired by the thieves to represent Hermitage (unbeknownst to Hermitage) pleaded guilty on the company’s behalf and agreed to the claims, thereby obtaining judgments for debts that did not exist; all while Hermitage officials were unaware of these court proceedings.[7]

The new owner, based in Tatarstan, turned out to be Viktor Markelov, a convicted murderer released two years into his sentence.[7] The company’s fake debt was used to make the companies look unprofitable in order to justify a refund of $230 million in tax that the companies had paid when they had been under Hermitage’s control. The refund was issued Christmas Eve of 2007. It was the largest tax rebate in Russian history.[7]

Hermitage contacted the Russian government with the findings of its investigation. The money, which was not Hermitage’s, belonged to the Russian people. Rather than opening a case against the police and the thieves, the Russian authorities opened a criminal case against Magnitsky.[7]

Custody and death

Magnitsky was arrested and imprisoned at the Butyrka prison in Moscow in November 2008 after being accused of colluding with Hermitage.[4] Held for 11 months without trial,[4] he was, as reported by The Telegraph, “denied visits from his family” and “forced into increasingly squalid cells.”[17] He developed gall stones, pancreatitis and calculous cholecystitis, for which he was given inadequate medical treatment during his incarceration.[4] Surgery was ordered in June, but never performed; detention center chief Ivan P. Prokopenko later said that he “…did not consider Magnitsky sick… Prisoners often try to pass themselves off as sick, in order to get better conditions.”[18]

On 16 November 2009, eight days before he would have had to have been released if he were not brought to trial, Magnitsky died. Prison officials at first attributed his death to a “rupture to the abdominal membrane” and later to a heart attack.[4] Reporters learned that Magnitsky had complained of worsening stomach pain for five days prior to his death and that by the 15th, he was vomiting every three hours, and had a visibly swollen stomach.[18] On the day of his death, the prison physician, believing Magnitsky had a chronic disease, sent him by ambulance to and later transferred him to Matrosskaya Tishina prison’s medical unit, which was equipped to help him.[19] But the surgeon there—who described Magnitsky as “agitated, trying to hide behind a bag and saying people were trying to kill him”—prescribed only a painkiller, and left him to receive a psychiatric evaluation.[18] Magnitsky was found dead in his cell a little over two hours later.

According to Ludmila Alekseeva, leader of the Moscow Helsinki Group, Magnitsky had died from being beaten and tortured by several officers of the Russian Ministry of Interior.[20] The official death certificate stated “closed cerebral cranial injury” as the cause of death (in addition to the other conditions mentioned above), and the post-mortem examination showed numerous bruises and wounds on Magnitsky’s legs and hands. Another post-mortem from 2011 summarized the death as being caused by “traumatic application of the blunt hard object (objects)” as confirmed by “abrasions, ecchymomas, blood effusions into the soft tissues”.[21]

Journalist Owen Matthews described Magnitsky’s suffering in Moscow’s Butyrka prison:

According to [Magnitsky’s] heartbreaking prison diary, investigators repeatedly tried to persuade him to give testimony against Hermitage and drop the accusations against the police and tax authorities. When Magnitsky refused, he was moved to more and more horrible sections of the prison, and ultimately denied the medical treatment which could have saved his life.[22]

Aftermath and official investigations

According to Russian news agency RIA Novosti, Magnitsky’s death “caused public outrage and sparked discussion of the need to improve prison healthcare and to reduce the number of inmates awaiting trial in detention prisons.”[23]

An independent investigatory body, the Moscow Public Oversight Commission, indicated in December 2009 that “psychological and physical pressure was exerted upon” Magnitsky.[24] One of the Commissioners said that while she had first believed his death was due to medical negligence, she had developed “the frightening feeling that it was not negligence but that it was, to some extent, as terrible as it is to say, a premeditated murder.”[18]

An official investigation was ordered in November 2009 by Russian president Dmitry Medvedev.[25] Russian authorities had not concluded their own investigation as of December 2009, but 20 senior prison officials had already been fired as a result of the case.[19] In December 2009, in two separate decrees, Medvedev fired Alexander Piskunov, deputy head of the Federal Penitentiary Service, and signed a law forbidding the jailing of individuals who are suspected of tax crimes.[26] Magnitsky’s death is also believed to be linked to the firing of Major-General Anatoli Mikhalkin, formerly the head of the Moscow division of the tax crimes department of the Interior Ministry.[27] Mikhalkin was among those accused by Magnitsky of taking part in fraud.

Wikinews has related news: Russian police to ‘check’ officer allegedly involved in large theft and murder
Opalesque TV released a video on 8 February 2010, in which Hermitage Capital Management founder Bill Browder revealed details of Sergei Magnitsky’s ordeal during his 11 months in detention.[28] On 25 June 2010 radio-station Echo of Moscow announced that Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs Department for Own Security started investigations against Lieutenant Colonel Artyom Kuznetsov, who has been accused of improper imprisonment of Magnitsky. The investigation was in response to appeal by the Hermitage Capital Management and United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.[29] In February 2011, the investigation, which had not yet identified any suspects, was extended to May.[30]

In November 2010, Magnitsky was given a posthumous award from Transparency International for integrity. Magnitsky, according to the awards committee, “believed in the rule of law and died for his belief.”[7] A film produced to highlight Magnitsky’s persecution has been shown to the American Congress and British, Canadian, German, Polish, and the European parliaments.[7]

In July 2011, Russia’s Investigate Committee initially acknowledged that Magnitsky died because prison authorities restricted medical care for him.[31] Russian authorities also opened criminal cases against the two doctors who treated him; Dr. Dmitri Kratov, the chief medical officer at Butyrskaya Prison, and Dr. Larisa Litvinova who managed Magnitsky’s treatment towards the end. Dr. Kratov was demoted soon after Magnitsky’s death and was charged with involuntary manslaughter from negligence and is facing five years in prison. Dr. Litvinova may receive up to three years in prison if convicted of causing death through professional negligence.[32] An independent prison watchdog commission reported that the prison doctors were pressured by investigators to deny treatment, and Dr. Litvinova disclosed to the Public Oversight Commission that she was trying to get approval for Magnitsky’s treatment. However, investigators looking into the death of Magnitsky cleared Oleg F. Silchenko, who oversaw the investigation of Magnitsky, of any wrongdoing. Charges of professional negligence against Dr. Litvinova were dropped due to statute of limitations issues.[33] On 23 December 2012, as the trial neared its end, the prosecutor conducting the trial against Dr. Kratov suddenly reversed course and sought acquittal, citing no direct connection between Kratov’s actions and Magnitsky’s death.[34] On 28 December 2012, a Tverskoy court found Kratov not guilty of negligence causing Magnitsky’s death,[35] thus complying with the prosecution’s request.[36]

In 2012 Pavel Karpov, former Russian Interior Ministry officer accused by Magnitsky and Browder of being the main beneficiary of the tax fraud, filed a libel suit in London. He lost it eventually and was ordered to pay over £800’000 to Hermitage Capital Management and, in 2016, was additionally fined for “contempt of court”.[37]

In February 2012, the Russian police announced their intention to resubmit charges of tax evasion against Magnitsky for a second[clarification needed] trial. As pointed out in the press, this was the first posthumous trial in Russia. William F. Browder, who lives in London, was a co-defendant tried in absentia.[38] On 11 July 2013, a court in Moscow found Magnitsky guilty of tax evasion in the posthumous trial. The court also found Magnitsky’s onetime client, the US-born British investor William Browder, guilty of evading some $17 million in taxes.[39]

In 2016 a large criminal investigation was completed in Russia where a number of public officers from tax, security, and customs agencies were involved in large scale VAT carousel fraud schemes, very similar to the one that was used in the fraud against Hermitage Capital, and with the same high-ranking officers providing krysha (Russian: Крыша, “protection”) in both cases. A few low-ranking officers were convicted in the case, but no mid- or high-ranking officers were even indicted, despite total losses to the budget exceeding 20 billion rubles.[40] Since worsening of relations with the European Union after 2014, the version officially promoted in Russia is that Bill Browder’s Hermitage Capital was responsible for tax fraud and that Magnitsky died as result of his conspiracy involving Alexey Navalny, which was highlighted in a 2016 “investigative” film by Andrei Nekrasov. Both Magnitsky’s wife and mother, whose manipulated citations were used in the film, wrote a protest letter criticizing the film for bias and manipulations.[21][41]

On 21 March 2017, the Magnitsky family’s lawyer, Nikolai Gorokhov fell, or was thrown, from the 4th floor of his apartment building in Moscow. Seriously injured, he was taken to hospital by helicopter.[42]

Increasing international reactions

In late 2010, international attention to the matter intensified, with the European Parliament calling for 60 officials believed to be connected to Magnitsky’s death to be banned from entering the European Union, and the Parliament of Canada resolving to deny visas to and freeze the Canadian assets of allegedly involved officials.[43] The EU Parliament also urged members to freeze assets of officials, while similar measures were under consideration in the United States.[44][45] In October 2010, US Senator John McCain co-sponsored the Justice for Sergei Magnitsky Act, which would forbid entry to the US to 60 individuals named in court documents related to the Magnitsky case. McCain said the law would help to “identify those responsible for the death of this Russian patriot, to make their names famous for the whole world to know, and then to hold them accountable for their crimes.”[46] The law is considered analogous to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 in the precedent it hopes to create.[47] In July 2011, the US stated that dozens of Russian officials were barred from entering the United States due to their involvement in the death of Magnitsky.[48]

The Russian Foreign Ministry described the Canadian resolution as “an attempt to pressure the investigators and interfere in the internal affairs of another state”,[49] while in a November statement the head of the lower house’s international committee Konstantin Kosachyov criticized the European Parliament’s conclusions, indicating that sanctions violated the “presumption of innocence” principle and should await the resolution of the Russian court.[50] Bloomberg reported in December that, according to an Interfax story, “identical measures” would be taken by Russia if a European Union ban was put into place.[45] In mid-December, the European Parliament passed the resolution allowing the officials to be banned by member states and their assets to be seized.[51]

In January 2011, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Juan E. Méndez, opened an investigation into Magnitsky’s treatment and death.[52]

In November 2011 a permanent exhibition with the title “Sergei Magnitsky – witness for justice and democracy in Russia” was opened in the Checkpoint Charlie Museum in Berlin. [53]

In December 2012, the United States passed a law called “Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012” which, among other things, authorized the president to sanction people responsible for violations of human rights in Russia.[54]

Similar acts are being considered in the UK parliament[55] and Irish Dáil.[56]

In December 2012, the Russian parliament passed a bill[57] which was widely regarded by mass media, including Russia’s media,[58] as retaliation for the Magnitsky bill. Russia’s bill signed into law by Putin on 28 December 2012,[59] banned, inter alia, Americans from adopting Russian children.

In the 2013 meetings of the World Economic Forum, the issue surfaced at the highest level, with Reuters reporting that before Medvedev gave his opening speech, some 78 percent of respondents voting in an audience packed with hundreds of Western executives and politicians agreed that Russia’s biggest problem was weak government and corporate governance.[60]

On 1 October 2015, Sergei Magnitsky was posthumously awarded ‘Honourable Mention’ at the Allard Prize for International Integrity ceremony. The Magnitsky family attended the ceremony and responded, “Sergei would have been so proud and humbled by this nomination. He always strived to live his life in the best possible way, with honesty and integrity. Six years after his untimely and heartbreaking death, it is awards such as this that keep Sergei’s memory alive. Being nominated for the Allard Prize gives his whole family a huge sense of pride and once again asserts that his life was not sacrificed in vain. Our whole family is immensely grateful for the attention this award will give to the global Magnitsky justice campaign which emerged from our tragedy.”[61]

The Guardian reports here on the collapse of a privatization program in England supported by both the Labor and Conservative parties. The idea sounds very much like our corporate charter chains. If a school was scoring poorly, hand it over to a private “trust” that renames it an academy and takes control of the school.

“Multi-academy trusts” are government-funded, run by private entities, and the schools are no longer locally controlled.

Lots of potential for graft and scandal.

“Wakefield City Academies Trust was in 2015 named a “top-performing” academy sponsor by Nicky Morgan, then education secretary, and handed a £500,000 slice of a £5m fund to improve schools in the north of England. Since then, things have gone awry. The trust has sunk to the bottom of the league tables to become one of the lowest-performing academy chains in the country. And it has been plagued by question marks over its finances.

“In July 2016, the Education Funding Agency investigated the trust. Its draft report, leaked to the TES, found that its interim chief executive, the businessman Mike Ramsay, had paid himself £82,000 over a three-month period. It concluded that the trust was in an “extremely vulnerable position as a result of inadequate governance, leadership and overall financial management”. Later that year, it was reported that the trust had paid almost £440,000 to IT and admin companies owned by Ramsay and his daughter.

“The trust was nevertheless allowed to carry on. Then, in September last year, it suddenly announced it would be looking for new sponsors for all 21 of its schools – but not before it had transferred more than £1.5m of reserves from its schools to its central coffers, entirely permissible in the current system. Some of this was funds raised by parents. It’s not clear whether any of this money will be left when the trust winds up, or whether those schools will see it again.

“The collapse of Wakefield City Academies Trust has sent shockwaves through our area,” says the local Labour MP Jon Trickett, who has for months been seeking answers from the government. “For many parents, it has been disturbing to find that their children’s futures could be threatened by the recklessness of people with very limited educational experience.”

“Wakefield City is one in a series of high-profile failures of trusts forced to give up all their schools. The magazine Schools Week reported just last week that Bright Tribe, the trust with the lowest-performing secondary schools in the country, would also be closing and handing back its 10 schools.

“Are these failures the inevitable consequence of a quasi-market system, predicated on the idea of takeovers? Or a sign of something deeply rotten at the heart of the government’s flagship education policy?

“Academies have been a jewel in the education policy crown for both Labour and Conservative governments in the past 25 years. According to Professor Becky Francis, director of the Institute of Education at University College London, Labour’s academies programme was “focused on the revitalisation of schooling as an engine of social mobility in deprived areas”. She says the idea of bringing in business and philanthropic sponsors – including big names such as the London-based French financier Arpad Busson – “not just for money but for expertise” was controversial from the start.”

We and the Brits have this in common. Both nations have eagerly abandoned responsibility for the quality of education and thrown the schools to the vagaries of the marketplace.

Nancy Bailey reports on Betsy DeVos’ trip to Europe and what she learned: Nothing. She returned convinced that American education sucks, which is what she thought before she left for Europe.

She returned convinced that education is workplace preparation, that public schools must be destroyed along with the teaching profession.

Can this GERM be quarantined?

The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, which oversees the international tests called PISA, plans to start testing five-year-olds.

Early childhood education experts at DEY (Defending the Early Years) Are appalled. They have heard that several states have volunteered to participate in pilot testing, but secrecy is so tight that they don’t know which states they are. If you work in a state education department, please let us know if your state is one of them.

Reader Laura Chapman decided to research how this monstrous idea got off the ground. Here is her Research:

“The new International Early Learning and Child Well-being study (IELS)- dubbed “Baby PISA” will focus on testing 5 year-olds on narrow academic skills achievement. But…

If you go to the links beyond this headline, you will see a more complete description of the tests and surveys that are part of the package. This is not to say that I endorse the internationalization of tests for five-year olds and related surveys of parents and staff. I do not. The computer interface is a bummer. These tests and surveys will end with international stack rankings, just like everything else from OECD. Here is more information about the tests in the International Early Learning Study (IELS), officially administered in the US by the National Center of Education Statistics https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/iels/study_components.asp

Because this blog post indicates there was no consultation with experts from the US, I have spent the afternoon poking around to find more information. The short story is this: Around 2001, OECD enlisted high profile US experts in the early stages of work on early childhood, but for research not clearly related to test development. By 2015, only two US experts were listed as contributors to the project and the tests were being field tested–a fact announced in one session of an OECD conference titled: “Data Development for Measuring Quality in Early Childhood and Education and Care: International ECEC Staff Survey and International Survey of Early Child Outcomes” (p. 29). https://www.oecd.org/leed-forum/activities/Brochure-fpld2015-web.pdf

In 2015, the contact person for the tests was Arno Engel, a consultant for OECD’s Directorate for Education and Skills. Engel was also an Associate Lecturer with the University of Bayreuth, Germany. At that time six other scholars, were also working for OCED on early childhood research and assessments. Brief bios are here, none based in the US. http://www.oecd.org/education/school/international-early-learning-and-child-well-being-study.htm

This OECD project seems to have originated in 1998-99 with a series of commissioned papers under the title, Starting Strong, with the first publication in 2001. That publication summarized “themes” in papers from 12 OECD countries—Australia, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/earlychildhoodeducationandcare.htm

I found the 2001 “Starting Strong” report from the United States, with “themes” that suggest the authors could not have imagined the current computer-based tests. Here are the topics (themes) and contributors.

I – DEFINITIONS, CONTEXT, AND PROVISION
Introduction and Definitions, Policy and Program Context, Overview of Current Provision—Sheila B. Kamerman: Compton Foundation Centennial Professor for the Prevention of Children, Youth, and Family Problems at the Columbia University School of Social Work, Co-Director of the Cross-National Studies Research Program at the School, and Director of the Columbia University Institute for Child and Family Policy and Shirley Gatenio a PhD candidate and Adjunct Lecturer at the Columbia University School of Social Work

II – POLICY CONCERNS
Quality—Debby Cryer: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Access to ECEC Programs—Edna Ranck: Director of public policy and research for National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies, early education historian and independent consultant for early childhood

Regulatory Policy and Staffing—Gwen G. Morgan: Coordinator of the Advanced Management seminars for Day Care Directors, Chair of the Social Policy Committee of the Day Care Council of America.

Program Content and Implementation—Lilian Katz: Professor of Early Childhood Education, Director of ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Family Engagement and Support—Barbara T. Bowman: Erikson Institute (a graduate school based in Chicago specializing in studies of child development, named for Erik Erikson developmental psychologist).

Funding Issues—Steve Barnett & Len Masse: Both from the Center for Early Education at Rutgers, Graduate School of Education, Rutgers—The State University of New Jersey.

Evaluation and Research—Kristin Moore: Social psychologist with Child Trends and
Jerry West, National Center for Education Statistics

Noteworthy innovations—Victoria Fu: Professor of human development, College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences, Virginia Tech; co-author Teaching as Inquiry: Rethinking Curriculum in Early Childhood Education

III – CONCLUDING ASSESSMENTS

General shifts in ECEC policy—Richard M. Clifford: Senior scientist emeritus at the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. (No bio in original report).

Future trends Moncrieff Cochran—Professor Emeritus in Human Development in the College of Human Ecology at Cornell University. (No bio in original report).

Issues for further investigation—Sharon Llynn Kagan, Virginia and Leonard Marx Professor of Early Childhood and Family Policy, Co-Director of the National Center for Children and Families at Teachers College, Columbia University, and Professor Adjunct at Yale University’s Child Study Center

Click to access 27856788.pdf

In the 2015 paper, Starting Strong IV: Monitoring Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care, I found only two contributors from the United States. They were Sharon Lynn Kagen: who contributed to the first report and Mr. Steven Hicks: a Nationally Board Certified Teacher in Early Childhood and former Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Early Learning in the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education at the U.S. Department of Education (Obama Administration). He is now Assistant State Superintendent for the Division of Early Childhood Development at the Maryland State Department of Education.
https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/starting-strong-iv_9789264233515-en#page1

In the most recent report, Starting Strong 2017: Key OECD Indicators on Early Childhood Education and Care (189 pages), I found not a single contributor from the United States. The absence of any contributor was conspicuous.

By 2017, NCES had outsourced the US testing contract to Westat, an employee-owned statistical services corporation in Rockville, Maryland. The NCES description of this IELS project says: “ an international consortium was contracted to develop the study measures and fine tune the study design…” but there is no information about that “consortium.”

I am trying to get a list of the members of that international consortium and the names of the experts who were enlisted to “fine tune the study design.” Perhaps someone reading this blog knows who these unpublicized members are. It is no wonder that the test looks as if it came from nowhere known to current workers in early childhood education. The test will produce national rankings and these will make headlines even if the sample sizes are small (and they are).

Marc Tucker recently wrote a post in which he responded to a question from Mike Petrilli of the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Mike asked why Marc didn’t look at charter management organizations as models of systems that work. (I would have added “that work for some,” since charters are free to choose their students and oublic schools are not.)

Marc answered. (I’m always reluctant to post articles behind a pay wall.)

“I can see why Mike would take that view. As charter systems have grown, they have had to do what any well-run business has to do: figure out how to hire, train and support first-rate staff, produce the best possible results at an acceptable cost, find efficiencies and improve productivity. As these charter school networks grow, they have to face the challenge of growing without compromising quality, creating leadership structures that will preserve the culture the founders created without suffocating the initiative of the people on the ground and so on.

“Freed of many of the political and legal constraints that public school systems face, some of these charter management companies have been rather innovative as they have dealt with these and many other challenges. It would be natural to see them as a test bed for better ways to organize and manage public school systems. Why, Mike wanted to know, was I so uninterested in viewing them that way? A very reasonable question.

“Part of the answer is the strategy I prefer to use to search for better ways to organize and manage school systems at the scale of a state or nation. The approach that makes the most sense to me is to start by ideinitifying the systems that produce superior results and then try to find out if there are common principles that inform the structure of those systems that distinguish them from less successful systems. I know of no top-performing systems at the scale of a state or nation the success of which can be attributed to their charter-like characteristics. There are top-performing systems that feature choice, but choice does not explain their success. What does explain their success is their adherence to principles that they share in common with systems that do not have strong choice-oriented policies. The Netherlands and Flemish Belgium are good examples of such countries. So is Hong Kong…

“Because choice for parents and students among significantly different alternatives is the core principle of the charter idea, the question we should be asking about the charter idea is not whether any one charter school is better than the typical public school serving a comparable student body, but whether charter schools as a group produce better student performance than regular public schools as a group, when serving comparable students. It is, of course, possible to find very good charter schools but it is no less possible to find equally outstanding regular public schools. When we look in the aggregate at all the charters in any given state, and compare them to all the regular public schools in that state serving the same demographic, virtually all studies show no conclusive advantage for the charters.

“But my reading of the data produces a more troubling conclusion. Both in the United States and abroad, choice policies tend to exacerbate racial and socio-economic segregation. The minority, low-income parents who have the time, education, drive and cars to take advantage of the choices offered, do so and those who do not have these things, do not. The result is that the low-performing schools are drained of the students and parents who have the desire and means to take advantage of the options offered, leaving behind those who don’t, leaving in their wake schools that are even more isolated, chaotic and desperate than they were before…

“I have not given up on our public schools, in our inner cities or anywhere else. It is not just the lowest-performing schools that are in trouble. The students in every quartile of performance in the entire country are behind their counterparts in the top-performing countries. I would spend the rest of my career studying charter school management systems if someone could present any evidence that implementation of charter systems at scale would lift the performance of American students to globally competitive levels. But I have yet to see that evidence.”

I agree with most of what Marc says but I don’t accept international test scores, as he does, as the measure of our students or our schools. Our problems as a society are far greater than what test scores measure, and what they do measure is far too narrow to capture the dynamism of our youth.