bill gates

The Next Phase in Corporate Education Reform Resitance, Part I

Deborah Duncan Owens corporate education reform , , , ,

A few days ago Shaun Johnson announced that he will take a break from his blogging and advocacy on The Chalk Face.  In part, he notes his discontent with those involved in the corporate education reform resistance movement for not offering an alternative to CSSS and RTTT initiatives.  Johnson states:

“Of all the education reform opponents out there, how many give us a peek into their classrooms? Who gives us a glimpse of that grand alternative they so vehemently support? I honestly can’t think of that many. I’m trying to think of prominent reform opponents who post pictures or evidence of their good works. What does your classroom look like? If you oppose standardized testing and curricula, the common core, and other hallmarks of market based reforms, then I am looking forward to pictures or accounts, retellings or even video, of your teaching. Can I see it? Actually, how do I even know you’re good at your job and you’re not out there just saying no to everything?”

I disagree with Shaun Johnson that those who resist corporate driven education reform initiatives have failed to demonstrate a better alternative.  Simply making a statement like this is an acquiescence to the entire agenda of education reformers who have claimed for many years now that the public school system is a complete failure and in need of systemic reform.  There are and have been many, many examples of excellent teachers and teaching models since the advent of public education in the United States.  And the teaching profession has made this fine work public.  Public education critics have ignored any fine examples of excellent teaching practices or models originating from public schools or public school supporters.  Those who seek to privatize education cannot afford to spotlight anything excellent ensuing from the public sector.

I do, however, agree with P. L. Thomas, professor of education at Furman University, who writes about education reform on his site The Becoming Radical as he calls for the next phase of resistance to corporate education reform.  According to Thomas, most of the years in which public school teachers and advocates have been embroiled in the “accountability” movement can be classified as phase 1.  Systemic education reformers used the early decades of the accountability movement to subject educators “to the role of the child” and “we were asked to be seen but not heard.”  We are now in phase 2 of the accountability movement.  We are, as Thomas describes, like an adolescent beginning to experiment “with our rebellious selves,” pitching a “completely warranted tantrum.”  Phase 2 has been successful in creating a grassroots movement of resistance and getting the attention of policy makers, politicians, parents, and teachers.

We are, however, ready for the next phase of resistance.  There is a point, when conducting qualitative research, that we have “saturated the data.”   Loudly and clearly we have publicly demonstrated, through academic scholarship and analysis, through blogs and tweets, through public discourse, through demonstrations, and a myriad of other forums that corporate education reform is the wrong path.  We have successfully created, in Thomas’ words, “some cracks in the education reform machine” and are poised to move into phase 3,  “our young adulthood as a resistance.”

So, what will phase 3 look like?

I think it is time to own our convictions that we, as resisters of corporate education reform, are right.  We have the data and we have the moral high ground.  We know that VAM models are flawed, that high stakes testing is counter-productive and harmful, that the charter school movement is a failed experiment, that data mining is problematic, and that “choice” has more to do with schools choosing students rather than children and parents choosing schools.  We are no longer shocked by example after example of greed, distortion, and corruption.  We still need to document those examples and Diane Ravitch’s blog serves as an excellent repository.  But how many examples of Bill Gates’ bad ideas and bad investments in education reform do we need?  How many times do we need to document Pearson’s role in the catastrophe of CCSS and high stakes testing?  We have, in short, saturated the data.  Unless we move into the next phase of resistance, I fear that we will become like the shrill voices of tea-party gadflys who can be so easily dismissed by their critics.  I agree with Thomas that we must remain indignant and angry.  However, do we want to be dismissed for our laser like focus on the faces and voices of individuals instead of the failed ideas and policies?  Is Bill Gates the face of corporate education reform?  One would certainly think so.  But faces like Bill Gates are a moving target.  Consider Michelle Rhee, for example.  She was the face of education reform for a time.  She has moved on, however. And while the resistance movement was successful in making her the face of ill conceived ideas in education reform, and perhaps causing her to move away from education reform discussions, her ideas live on.  Bill Gates may move on as well.  But his ideas will live on if we continue to make to focus on him rather than the policies he supports with his vast wealth.

As I posted in September, Bill Gates is actually late in coming to the table of corporate education reform discussions.  Those who came before him, like Lou Gerstner of IBM fame and David Kerns of Xerox fame, flexed their techno-corporate muscles and helped usher in the policies we are now living with in the Obama/Duncan era of CCSS and RTTT.  Defeating or silencing individuals is not the solution.  We must focus on the ideas and policies as the problem.  We must vote in our own best interest and in the best interest of our children.  We will know we are in phase 3 of the resistance once we begin to see policies being addressed more than the faces of the people who are being used to promote the corporate education reform agenda.

Bill Gates and the “Boogeymen” of Free Market Systemic Education Reform

Deborah Duncan Owens Common Core, Common Core Book, corporate education reform, free market education reforms, privatization of education , , , , ,

By Thomas J. Fiala

In an attempt to explain, by a fellow traveler who also supports America’s important public school system, how the CCSS came to be, blogger Peter Greene (http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/) posted the following:

“When David Coleman and Gene Wilhoit (summer 2008) decided they wanted to standardize American education, they did not come up with a plan to sell such a program on its education merits. They called on Bill Gates to use his money and power to convince state governments to legislate systemic changes to education.”

Let’s remember that philanthropist Bill Gates (who had already reaped the benefits of free market capitalism) was not new to the free market feeding ground of systemic public education reform in 2008. He had been increasingly funneling millions of dollars for systemic reform since at least 2001-02. In 2005, he gave the keynote speech at the National Governor’s Association Summit. He gave millions to the original 2001 American Diploma Project and supported the project’s 2004 report “Ready or Not” that has been heralded as a forerunner to the CCSS. Very importantly, in July 2008 this project trotted out the report “Out of Many One” that added more detail and clarity to the eventual creation of the CCSS. We do not know specifically what was discussed during the Coleman, Wilhoit, Gates meeting in 2008. However, it seems logical that the report “Out of Many,” an extension of the 2004 ADP report “Ready or Not,” was something that was included in the meeting that was used to convince Gates to infuse even more money into systemic education reform. Clearly, Coleman and Wilhoit had a plan in hand when they met with Gates in the summer 2008 meeting. However, it is clear that Gates was already on board the systemic education reform express.

We need to be careful with making Gates the wellspring of the CCSS. Gates is a really big fish that financially helped facilitate the creation of the standards. The story of the origins of the CCSS, however, is even scarier than simply looking at the insidious and manipulative hand of the Gates Foundation – and that’s scary enough! Gates, however, is merely one of the corporate voices that echoes throughout the path to the Common Core and currently is by far the biggest voice. Our country’s total allegiance to free market ideology and to the supremacy of the corporate vigilantes has resulted in a strange conglomeration of free market policy makers devoted to school choice initiatives, philanthropist organizations lending credence to free market ideologues, and venture capitalists poised to make a buck on charter schools, high stakes testing, the infusion of expensive technology as a central focus in school curriculums, and a vast number of “opportunities” created by RTTT and other education policies over the years.

What is most frightening to me as a supporter of America’s locally controlled public schools, is that Gates and a whole raft of other corporate and governmental players were involved in an alternate universe of education reform that was a reflection corporate and governmental mutualism. This relationship was able to carve a path to the CCSS even while NCLB – the “official” reauthorization of the ESEA – was holding the attention of those of us in education trying to deal with the ramifications of NCLB. This, and much more, will be made clear in Deb’s new book, “Origins of the Common Core: How the Free Market Became Public Education Policy.”

We supporters of locally controlled public schools cannot allow these free market types to destroy one America’s most important institutions! Peter Greene’s voice is important in the struggle.  We are fellow travelers.  I am merely adding to his and other voices in our collective attempt to take back our public schools.