Bill Gates, Education Reform and Philanthrocapitalism. .

Joy Pullman of the Heartland Institute wrote an article Education Policies Led by Gates, Not States questioning the intent and outcome of Bill Gates' investment in education reform:

The world’s largest philanthropy has targeted education policymaking, sparking debate among education wonks and watchdogs over whether some of its activities cloak government actions and amount to lobbying.

An article written by  RiShawn Biddle Common Core Foes’ Laughable Gates Foundation Conspiracy-Theorizing in Dropout Nation dismissed Ms. Pullman's research and chalked it up to a conspiracy by conservatives:

Covering the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s efforts on the school reform front — along with the usual angst among traditionalists and even some conservative reformers about its influence on education policy — is old hat for yours truly as well as for nearly any education reporter and commentator on the scene. So the piece by otherwise-stellar Heartlander Editor Joy Pullman on the foundation’s role behind the effort by 45 states and the District of Columbia to enact Common Core reading and math standards was a bit ho-hum. Except for the fact that so many Common Core foes quoted in the piece were spinning the philanthropy’s efforts as some sort of conspiracy against the American democracy.

The Heartland article echoes much of what Susan Ohanian, Seattle Education and here on MEW have been writing about Bill Gates' educational reform for years.  Regardless of party affiliation or political leanings, writers and researchers see an ominous trend of private companies setting public policy and what that means for the democratic process.

Here are some of the comments on Mr. Biddle's site:

First of all, lest people think I am a John Bircher, or a right wing conspiracy theorist, or Republican, or a policy wonk, let me state at the outset what I am: I am a mathematics teacher and a lifelong Democrat.

I was intrigued with the following in the above article: “Meanwhile the argument advanced in the piece (insinuated by the otherwise-sensible Jay P. Greene declaration that the Gates Foundation “orchestrated” the adoption of Common Core) that the standards were enacted without any sort of democratic input fails to consider the actual process involved. This included a lengthy comment period conducted by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, the outfits that represent elected state chief executives and the state school chiefs who are often elected or appointed by state boards of education. ”

I am very familiar with the public comment process. I am a co-founder of the U.S. Coalition for World Class Math, and I and others prepared a set of comments on both the draft and final versions of the standards. It is true that the NGA and CCSSO opened up the drafts for public comments to anyone who wished to submit them.

The Coalition submitted comments. Our comments on the final draft can be at our website. 

Since the consortium (NGA and CCSSO) were not bound by any federal laws such as the Administrative Procedures Act, they could do with the comments as they pleased. Having worked for the federal government for many years, I happen to know that when we solicited public comments on regulations that my agency drafted, we had to read every one, and make the comments available to the public to read (on the web) and publish a document responding to the various comments. If we disagreed, we had to say why. These folks did not do that. They did not make the comments publicly available, (we asked if they would do so and they said “no”). They did write a summary document but it provided a summary of only some of the comments. They did not give reasons why they disagreed with various comments.

While it is laudable that they opened up the drafts for comments, please be aware that the process could have been a bit more transparent and “democratic”, for lack of a better word.

and

I can take criticism, and appreciate it especially from a friend, and I think you’re right the accusations lean against Gates. But as you see from the article, Gates refused to comment and have its say, which I would have treated fairly and printed.

I do not think anyone was or is into a conspiracy. As you’ll note from the article, folks agreed Gates was both more transparent than other nonprofits and staffed with intelligent, well-meaning people. It also clearly does some good in the world (think the polio campaign).

And I agree with Greene that Gates has a right to fund whatever it wants. I am not against big money. Bill Gates earned those billions. But when a nonprofit gets awfully close to actual policymaking outside the public eye, that is troublesome to someone with a reporting bent who is big into transparency. If nonprofits are going to make policy, or “catalyze” policy, their transparency should be the same as that required of governments. I mean public hearings, public votes, public access to documents and staffers, a responsibility to respond to criticism, and so forth. So far, nothing. We’ve got a bunch of bureaucrats, facilitated by Gates, working undercover for several years inside a big black box.

Quality of the Common Core aside (and that policy was one of several the article mentions), this sort of activity does threaten the democratic process, and I’m surprised you, who take such nuanced positions on policies and are a big vote for the little guy, do not at least partly agree. (from Joy Pullman)

and

As a mother who served 12 years on a public school board and now grandmother of 6 who will be starting school in the next few years, I want to say that this offer is ignoring the fact that local control is important to parents and to the children they love. What happens when parents find problems with a standard or the curriculum that will be forced upon every district to comply to those standards? (and problems will be found, believe me….but don’t worry, they’ve written disclaimers so it can’t come back on them–see below*) Those parents will be told, “sorry, we can’t do anything about this…go to the federal government”. Good luck with that one! Also, I would like to point out that the tests that are also going to be required by CCS will require schools to have certain hardware and software that many schools don’t have at this point. And surprise, surprise…these tests seem to require Microsoft computer products. Also, the Gates Foundation gave a significant amount of money to the National Chamber of Commerce (that they distributed to state CC’s) to promote Common Core standards. It’s not a conspiracy when it’s a fact. As they say, “follow the money”.

 *Warranties and Disclaimer:
THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS ARE PROVIDED AS-IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, AND NGA CENTER/CCSSO MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTIBILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NONINFRINGEMENT, ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF ERRORS, WHETHER OR NOT DISCOVERABLE.

Limitation on Liability:
UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL NGA CENTER OR CCSSO, INDIVIDUALLY OR JOINTLY, BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY LEGAL THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER FOR CONTRACT, TORT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR A COMBINATION THEREOF (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH RISK AND POTENTIAL DAMAGE. WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING, LICENSEE WAIVES THE RIGHT TO SEEK LEGAL REDRESS AGAINST, AND RELEASES FROM ALL LIABILITY AND COVENANTS NOT TO SUE, NGA CENTER AND CCSSO.

and

Bill Gates is not only a “philanthropist” in education, he also is one in health care. He has come under scrutiny not only for his educational programs, but also for his influence in vaccination, population control and food genetic modification efforts.

Below is an interesting article from New Internationalist Magazine, asking the same questions as Joy Pullman, except these questions concern Gates’ involvement in global health programs. This magazine hardly appears as if it is conservative and the writer details how Gates’ resources and influence are shaping governmental actions. From the article:

“For critics, then, the way ‘venture philanthropy’ focuses on measurable impact may obscure the less tangible, but equally important, goals of democracy and empowerment. As the philanthropy analyst Michael Edwards has asked: ‘Would philanthrocapitalism have helped fund the civil rights movement in the US? I hope so, but it wasn’t “data driven”, it didn’t operate through competition, it couldn’t generate much revenue, and it didn’t measure its impact in terms of the numbers of people who were served each day. Yet it changed the world forever.’ ”

The article is aptly entitled “The flip side to Bill Gates’ charity billions”: http://newint.org/features/2012/04/01/bill-gates-charitable-giving-ethics/

Now substitute the word “education” for “healthcare” in the following reader’s comment and you will understand the reason the Heartland article and various other articles by others (including Susan Ohanian and Seattle Education) questioning Gates’ involvement is not laughable in the least, but should cause great concern and worry about private entities setting public policy:

“The article suggests that people are dying because capitalism provides excess rewards to a small number of individuals,
It does? Whilst I have some sympathy with that point of view I don’t see where is is stated or implied in the article.

If anything the OP is talking about the danger of handing control to private business rather than states, especially in a context of state healthcare provision having been largely dismantled as a result of structural adjustment policies. Private mega philanthropy provides large subsidies to selective parts of the healthcare establishment. With no state presence to counteract that market distortion — thus destabilizing an already volatile situation. I think that that is what the ’flip-side’ in the title is referring to.”

Translation from healthcare concerns into educational concerns:  Bill Gates and other education reformers have had the control of education handed to them (away from the states), and educational provisions giving control to local school boards and state agencies have been restructured toward federal/private company control.  Private mega philanthropy provides large subsidies to selective parts of the educational establishment.  There is no state/local presence or authority to counteract that market distortion.

I can't figure out why this appears laughable and a conspiracy theory when, in fact, this is what is occurring in education.

Common Core Organization Operates in Secrecy with Taxpayer Money. Why?

Why are meetings that use tax dollars for public education planning closed to the taxpayers who are paying for the services and providing the children for the public education system?

Truth in American Education wondered why taxpayer Heather Crossin was unable to attend a recent meeting of the Council of Chief State School Officers held in Indiana.  CCSSO is a private trade organization using federal and state funding (taxpayer money) to write/direct public education standards/assessments.  Crossin not only could not attend the meetings, she could not discover the persons on the panel writing the Social Studies standards your teachers will be teaching and your children will be learning.  From heartland.org:

Indiana resident Heather Crossin, whose children attend schools implementing the Core, attempted to attend an October 2012 CCSSO meeting in her Indianapolis hometown. Crossin called Michele Parks, a CCSSO meeting planner, to see if she could attend. No, Parks said. Crossin asked to see a list of people on the Social Studies standards writing team: “I was told that was not available for public release,” Crossin said.

Ten weeks entailing dozens of emails and phone calls to at least six CCSSO spokesmen and personnel for access to the Indianapolis meeting or any others at last yielded an email to School Reform News from spokeswoman Kate Dando in December: “our meetings/sessions at our meetings are open to press really on a case by case basis,” she wrote.

How much money does CCSSO receive? 

CCSSO receives tax money from more than state dues. It receives millions from the U.S. Department of Education.

“Approximately 13% and 33% of the Council’s revenue and 25% and 34% of accounts receivable were provided by U.S. Department of Education grants or contracts for fiscal years 2011 and 2010, respectively,” the nonprofit’s 2010-2011 financial statement reads.

Applying the 2011 percentage to that year’s revenues yields an estimated $3,450,930 in CCSSO revenue from the federal government, just in that year. In 2011, $558,000 came from the 2009 stimulus bill for CCSSO’s involvement with one of two networks creating new tests to fit the standards.

In 2010, the U.S. DOE granted those two networks $330 million in stimulus funds. This action, more than any other, led conservative supporters of the Common Core to complain of federal interference in education, a constitutionally protected state function.

Maybe it's time to ask your state educational agency and legislators how much money is paid to CCSSO with taxpayer funding in your state.  If you can't get a seat at the table, then maybe it's time to pull the state and district funding for this organization and allow the Federal government to fully fund this organization.

Oh, but that's right.  It's "state led", right?  If it's "state led" then why are there mandates set by the DOEd that the states must pay for via CCSSO costs and district costs for implementation?  It's illegal for the Federal government to set Federally mandated educational direction for states but does it seem to you that's what has happened? 

As Truth in American Education asks:

Some reporters have attended some CCSSO meetings, usually on background, she said, which means they cannot directly quote what they hear. Why?

 Why? Exactly… what do they have to hide?

Britain's Lesson on Common Core Standards. How's That Working Out?

Recently we discussed the DESE document sent to a state senator describing common core standards. We questioned several statements put forth by DESE:

• the "close alignment" of the ShowMe Standards to the Common Core Standards even as the Fordham Institute rated Missouri as receiving a "D" in communication arts and math when compared to the Common Core Standards,

• the statement that the standards implementation should be seamless and not costing Missouri any extra assessment time and money, even as assessment training will be necessary for teachers and administrators,

• the standards are state-led and not national-led even as Ed Week has published articles with concerns about the federal funding and control of curriculum resources,

• the fact no mention was made of the computers (and the funding ) needed by districts for the mandated assessments to be completed on line

Missouri and even US citizens are not the only ones asking questions of their Boards of Education. Here is an article entitled "Ed Problems Reside at Core" from the Heartland Institute pointing out the fallacies of common core standards in Britain, where they have been instituted for some time. Robert Holland makes good arguments against the adoption of these standards that DESE believes will help Missouri children excel in education:

President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address illustrated just how much political duplicity has entered the debate about national education standards. While crowing about the success of his Race to the Top in purchasing states’ buy-in to the so-called Common Core math and English standards — and asking Congress for even more bribe money — the president then stood truth on its head by depicting the incipient national curriculum developed by Washington insiders as a grass-roots effort.


Education progressives who delight in this disingenuous exercise of power to push national standards (and soon, federally subsidized tests as well) upon all U.S. public schools ought to take warning from England, a country where statist curricular guidelines are firmly entrenched.



The whimsical words of Roger Miller’s old country tune come to mind: “England swings like a pendulum do.” When a nation with monolithic standards for its schools experiences a shift in political control, the pendulum almost certainly will lurch right or left for education ideology as well.



Witness the changes under way in England led by the Conservative coalition’s minister of education, Michael Gove. The Daily Mail of London reports Gove has severely criticized the previous Labor government for having stripped basic knowledge out of the English, geography, history, and music curricula.



When the leftist Laborites had their turn at mandating what all British children should know and be able to do, they eliminated important leaders such as Sir Winston Churchill from teachers’ suggested lesson plans. The supposed purpose was to give teachers more “flexibility.”



Teachers got loads of leeway, in fact, because “at present, the only historical figures in the entire secondary history curriculum are William Wilberforce, the architect of the abolition of the slave trade, and Olaudah, a freed slave whose autobiography helped persuade MPs (Members of Parliament) to ban slavery,” the Daily Mail reported.


Similarly, “the secondary geography curriculum does not mention a single country apart from the UK or any continents, rivers, oceans, mountains, or cities. It does, however, mention the European Union and global warming.”



In addition, “the secondary music curriculum fails to mention a single composer, musician, or piece of music.”


Gove observes left-wing ideologues believe schools “shouldn’t be doing anything so old-fashioned as passing on knowledge, requiring children to work hard, or immersing them in anything like dates in history or times tables in mathematics.”



Leading the charge for the Tories, the education minister plans to fill in the knowledge gaps. For instance, he will reinstall such authors as John Keats, Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, and Thomas Hardy in the English standards. An overhaul of the history curriculum is supposed to ensure that all children thoroughly learn Britain’s “island story” before graduating.



Proponents of knowledge-based learning on both sides of the Atlantic will applaud Gove’s intentions. But what will happen to England’s national education standards when the political pendulum swings back and the Laborites return to power? Out will go the basics and in will come the multiculturalism and political correctness once again. None of this reflects the preferences of parents.



The United States is not yet at the point of no return regarding national standards. There are standards only for English and mathematics, but proponents are talking about adding history and science and maybe more. Forty-four states have voted to accept the national standards, many of them doing so (as the president himself indicated) in a bid to gain favor with the Obama administration in its distribution of Race to the Top cash. However, with only a dozen states winning grants and the Republican-led House unlikely to approve more such loot, some states’ political leaders are talking about revoking their adoption of the Common Core standards.



Now is the time for the nation to decide whether we really want to commit to education standards forever subject to political manipulation by Washington and crazy swings in the national political pendulum. Would we prefer to have a national minister of education decide what our children will study, or be able to choose for ourselves from among schools offering diverse curricula and methods?



Within a marketplace will probably be an approach just right for each child. Parents can’t be sure of that when Washington’s politicians and special interests are writing a common playbook.

The "school choice" being pushed by special interests in Missouri and other states won't be offering diverse curricula and methods. The charters, the trigger option, and open enrollment legislation will create schools under the same common curricula and methods as traditional public school. The "marketplace" of choice is just a move to a new building...you are still stuck with the same standards and assessments from the public school you just left. The "common playbook" is an appropriate label for what is masquerading as "educational reform".