Lawmakers Begin to Connect the Dots Between Gates and Common Core

This from Living in Dialogue:

Common Core proponents are mounting a full court press in a belated recognition that their testing juggernaut is running into some serious obstacles around the country. Former TFA CEO Wendy Kopp shared her opinion today that the Common Core test results are a "welcome wake-up call" that will "...finally give families an accurate barometer of whether our kids are mastering the skills they need to succeed in a knowledge-based global economy, early enough that we can intervene."

Meanwhile New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said yesterday that "there has to be a death penalty for failing schools, so to speak," making it clear that the dismal test scores will continue to be used to decimate schools in high poverty neighborhoods.

But some lawmakers have begun to connect the dots between the Common Core and the various people singing its praises. In Michigan, here is what representative Tom McMillin had to say two days ago, in response to testimony from Chester Finn, of the Fordham Institute, which can be counted among the architects of test-driven reform.

At around minute 26, McMillin points out that Chester Finn's colleague at the Fordham Institute, Michael Petrilli, had stated that after Arne Duncan hired four Gates Foundation staffers to high level positions in the Department of Education, "the Gates Foundation's agenda has become the country's agenda in education." Finn said he disagreed, however he acknowledged that "the Gates Foundation paid for the development of the Common Core standards. There's no disputing that."

McMillin responded:

And they also paid $6 million to Fordham (Institute) and then you guys evaluate the Common Core standards and decide if they're any good or not. Don't you see a real conflict there, when Fordham gets $6 million, and then they're told to turn around and say Gates' project is a great thing?

Finn: I have no idea where you got the $6 million figure from.

McMillin: From the Gates Foundation web site.

Finn:

Approximately three times too large in terms of any actual receipts that Fordham has gotten. We are evaluating the implementation of Common Core standards with Gates dollars, and that's in the early stages 'cause implementation is only just beginning. The Gates Foundation had nothing whatsoever to do with our original 2010 evaluation of the standards themselves. We were not receiving any funds from Gates for that purpose at that time. Anybody that knows me and the Fordham track record knows we are not influenced by our funders.

Let's interrogate this a bit. According to an accounting prepared by Mercedes Schneider, the Fordham Foundation has received $1,961,116 to promote the Common Core.

So Chester Finn may be correct in his estimation of how much they have been paid for that specific purpose. However, a look at Schneider's more comprehensive analysis of funding reveals a long term investment by Gates in the Fordham Institute, beginning back in 2003. The total amount Fordham has received from the Gates Foundation over the past decade is actually $6,711,462, including a million dollars just this year for "operating expenses," which presumably would include Chester Finn's salary.

Chester Finn may indeed believe everything he says about Common Core without regard to his sponsorship by the Gates Foundation. But that sponsorship creates a real conflict of interest, and his organization cannot be considered a legitimate source of independent expertise on matters such as the Common Core.

This is the first time I have seen legislators calling attention to the blatant conflict of interest inherent in "think tanks" posing as neutral experts on issues like Common Core, while receiving significant funding from the same corporate foundations sponsoring the projects.

In Boston, corporate reform dollars also seem to be raising some problems for candidates. Mayoral candidate John Connolly last week asked Stand For Children to cancel their plan to spend $500,000 in support of his candidacy. Although he had sought their support, he apparently thought better of it when he saw the reaction from voters. He also asked Democrats for Education Reform to stop spending money on his behalf.

Both voters and legislators seem to be slowly waking up to the well-financed "reform" operation that is in motion across the country. If a political candidate turns down a half million dollar donation, that money must be toxic indeed.

The hard work of activists and educators across the country has begun to pay off. Public perceptions are shifting. The recent PDK/Gallup poll showed that public support for the use of test scores for teacher evaluation has fallen from 52% to 41% in just one year. Fewer than 25% believe that more student testing has led to better public schools. It also showed that most Americans are unaware of the Common Core. They are going to be learning about them more, as the assessments roll out, with the predicted disastrous results.

This is the key moment of vulnerability for this entire accountability regime. If the public is willing to accept that 70% of our students deserve to be considered failures, and thousands more schools deserve the "death penalty" for the low scores they will be getting, then public education will continue to decline. If the public realizes, however, that students are getting MORE tests, and teachers are getting even more pressure to teach to the tests, and none of this is really improving the quality of education, then the tide will turn.

We can anticipate an increase in the rhetoric from corporate reformers, who will express ever more "urgency" that their increasingly destructive policies be implemented. But this song is so similar to the tune played for NCLB, the public has begun to recognize the tired melody. It is time to unplug that jukebox for good, and allow teachers and students the freedom to make their own music, without the payola playlist from the Gates Foundation and their representatives.

It should be noted that Education Week also receives funding from the Gates Foundation.

Note: I have written previously on these issues related to funding and policy: 

Is InBloom Enthusiasm Inspired by Gates Grants?
Yes, Virginia, There Really Is a Billionaire Boys Club
Can We Exorcize "Evil" From the Education Reform Debate?
Payola Policy: NCTQ Prepares its Hit on Schools of Education
Cui Bono: The Question Rarely Asked, Let Alone Investigated
TeachPlus: Astroturf in Indiana
Jonah Edelman Reveals Corporate Education "Reform" at Work in Illinois 

What do you think? Are lawmakers and the public becoming more aware of the way big money is influencing education policy?

A Brief Audit of Bill Gates’ Common Core Spending

This from deutach29:

This is a post about Bill Gates and his money, a brief audit of his Common Core (CCSS) purchases. Before I delve into Gates accounting, allow me to set the stage with a bit of CCSS background.

It is important to those promoting CCSS that the public believes the idea that CCSS is “state-led.” The CCSS website reports as much and names two organizations as “coordinating” the “state-led” CCSS: The National Governors Association (NGA), and the Council for Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). Interestingly, the CCSS website makes no mention of CCSS “architect” David Coleman:

The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a state-led effort coordinated by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).  The standards were developed in collaboration with teachers, school administrators, and experts, to provide a clear and consistent framework to prepare our children for college and the workforce. [Emphasis added.]

Nevertheless, if one reviews this 2009 NGA news release on those principally involved in CCSS development, one views a listing of 29 individuals associated with Student Achievement Partners, ACT, College Board, and Achieve. In truth, only 2 out of 29 members are not affiliated with an education company.

CCSS as “state-led” is fiction. Though NGA reports 29 individuals as involved with CCSS creation, it looks to be even fewer:

NGA first directly involved governors in nationalizing education standards in June 2008, when it co-hosted an education forum with the Hunt Institute, a project of former North Carolina Gov. James Hunt Jr. In December 2008, NGA, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), and Achieve Inc. released a report calling for national standards. The report recommended “a strong state-federal partnership” to accomplish this goal.

Those three nonprofits answered their own call the next few months, deciding to commission Common Core. NGA and Hunt’s press releases during that time, and a paper describing NGA’s Common Core process by former NGA education director Dane Linn, provide no endorsement of such activity from more than a handful of elected officials. [Emphasis added.]

Also involved in creation of CCSS is Student Achievement Partners, the company David Coleman started in 2007 in order produce national standards. Student Achievement Partners has no work other than CCSS.

Now to Bill Gates and his money.

The four principal organizations associated with CCSS– NGA, CCSSO, Achieve, and Student Achievement Partners– have accepted millions from Bill Gates. In fact, prior to CCSS “completion” in June 2009, Gates had paid millions to NGA, CCSSO, and Achieve. And the millions continued to flow following CCSS completion.

Prior to June 2009, NGA received $23.6 million from the Gates Foundation from 2002 through 2008. $19.7 million was for the highly-disruptive “high school redesign” (i.e., “small schools”) project, one that Gates abandoned.

After June 2009, NGA received an additional $2.1 million from Gates, the largest payout coming in February 2011,

…to work with state policymakers on the implementation of the Common Core State Standards, with special attention to effective resource reallocation to ensure complete execution, as well as rethinking state policies on teacher effectiveness

Amount: $1,598,477 [Emphasis added.]

Years ago, Gates paid NGA to “rethink policies on teacher effectiveness.”

One man, lots of money, nationally shaping a profession to which he has never belonged.

As for CCSSO: The Gates amounts are even higher than for NGA. Prior to June 2009, the Gates Foundation gave $47.1 million to CCSSO (from 2002 to 2007), with the largest amount focused on data “access” and “data driven decisions”:
March 2007

Purpose: to support Phase II of the National Education Data Partnership seeking to promote transparency and accessibility of education data and improve public education through data-driven decision making

Amount: $21,642,317 [Emphasis added.]

Following CCSS completion in June 2009, Gates funded CCSSO an additional $31.9 million, with the largest grants earmarked for CSSS implementation and assessment, and data acquisition and control:
July 2013

Purpose: to CCSSO, on behalf of the PARCC and SBAC consortia to support the development of high quality assessments to measure the Common Core State Standards

Amount: $4,000,000

November 2012

Purpose: to support the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) in helping States’ to build their data inoperability capability and IT leadership capacity

Amount: $1,277,648

October 2012

Purpose: to support strategic planning for the sustainability of the Common Core State Standards and the two multi-state assessment consortia tasked with designing assessments aligned with those standards

Amount: $1,100,000

June 2011

Purpose: to support the Common Core State Standards work

Amount: $9,388,911

November 2009

Purpose: to partner with federal, state, public, and private interests to develop common, open, longitudinal data standards

Amount: $3,185,750

July 2009

Purpose: to increase the leadership capacity of chiefs by focusing on standards and assessments, data systems, educator development and determining a new system of supports for student learning

Amount: $9,961,842  [Emphasis added.]

Gates money also flowed to Achieve, Inc.; prior to June 2009, Achieve received $23.5 million in Gates funding. Another $13.2 million followed after CCSS creation, with $9.3 million devoted to “building strategic alliances” for CCSS promotion:
 June 2012

Purpose: to strengthen and expand the ADP Network, provide more support to states for CCSS implementation, and build strategic national and statewide alliances by engaging directly with key stakeholders

Amount: $9,297,699  [Emphasis added.]

CCSS is not “state led.” It is “Gates led.”

How foolish it is to believe that the man with the checkbook is not calling the CCSS shots.
The “nonprofit” Student Achievement Partners, founded by CCSS “architect” David Coleman, also benefits handsomely via Gates. All that Student Achievement Partners does is CCSS, and for that, in June 2012, Gates granted Coleman’s company $6.5 million.

In total, the four organizations primarily responsible for CCSS– NGA, CCSSO, Achieve, and Student Achievement Partners– have taken $147.9 million from Bill Gates.

Common Core Gates Standards.

Let us now consider major education organizations and think tanks that have accepted Gates money for the express purpose of advancing CCSS:

American Enterprise Institute: $1,068,788.
American Federation of Teachers: $5,400,000.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: $3,269,428.
Council of Great City Schools: $5,010,988.
Education Trust: $2,039,526.
National Congress of Parents and Teachers: $499,962.
National Education Association: $3,982,597.
Thomas B. Fordham Institute: $1,961,116.

(For most of the organizations above, Gates has funded other reform-related efforts, including those related to charter schools, small schools, teacher evaluation, and data systems. My comprehensive listing of Gates grants for the organizations above [and then some] can be found here:  Gates Foundation Grants to Select Education and Policy Groups)

From the list of organizations above, I would like to highlight a few particular Gates purchases.

First is this one, paid to the Fordham Institute:
Date: January 2011

Purpose: to track state progress towards implementation of standards and to understand how what students read changes in response to the standards

Amount: $1,002,000 [Purpose emphasis added.]

Even though CCSS was never piloted, Gates and Fordham want to watch state “progress” in implementing CCSS, and they even want to know how the untested CCSS shifts the curriculum– even though reformers are quick to parrot that CCSS is “not a curriculum.” This “tracking” tacitly acknowledges CCSS is meant to drive curriculum.

Next is this Gates purchase of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI):
Date: June 2012

Purpose: to support their education policy work in four distinct areas:
Exploring the Challenges of Common Core, Future of American Education Working Groups, Innovations in Financial Aid, and Bridging K-12 and Higher Ed with Technology

Amount: $1,068,788 [Purpose emphasis added.]
Gates is paying AEI to promote educational policy that bolsters CCSS. And Gates is getting his money’s worth from AEI “scholar” Frederick Hess, who offers these two articles advising “Common Core’ites.”

Third is the Gates purchase of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT):
Date: June 2012

Purpose: to support the AFT Innovation Fund and work on teacher
development and Common Core State Standards

Amount: $4,400,000
Even though AFT was not invited to the CCSS table until the “standards” had already been drafted by the CCSS Inner Circle noted above, and even though CCSS has not been piloted, AFT only called for a testing moratorium and not for a cease-and-desist of CCSS altogether. It appears that accepting $4.4 million in order to “work on teacher development and Common Core Standards” precludes “just saying no” to what amounts to the CCSS Colossal Education Experiment.

Fourth is the Gates purchase of the National Education Association (NEA). In July 2013, NEA officially endorsed CCSS, and in July 2013, Gates paid NEA for its support in the form of two grants totaling $6.3 million:
Date: July 2013

Purpose: to support the capacity of state NEA affiliates to advance teaching and learning issues and student success in collaboration with local affiliates

Amount: $2,426,500

Date: July 2013

Purpose: to support a cohort of National Education Association Master Teachers in the development of Common Core-aligned lessons in K-5 mathematics and K-12 English Language Arts

Amount: $3,882,600
NEA was not at the CCSS birthing table with NGA, CCSSO, Achieve, and David Coleman’s Student Achievement Partners. However, after the establishment of CCSS without teachers, now Gates is willing to pay a teachers union to create curricula that in the end do not really matter since the CCSS power is in the assessments that are completely out of NEA’s control.

I have saved my favorite CCSS-Gates purchase for last, this one to the Council of Great City Schools (CGCS):
Date: June 2011

Purpose: to promote and coordinate successful implementation of the new common core standards in major urban public school systems nationwide

Amount: $4,910,988

Date: March 2010

Purpose: to support the development of a cross-sector proposal to pilot test the new common core standards in a set of selected cities

Amount: $100,000  [Purpose emphasis added.]

It seems that Gates paid CGCS $100,000 to propose a pilot study of CCSS in 2010 (not to conduct a pilot study– just to draft the idea for a pilot). Fifteen months later, there is no mention of a “proposal” much less a pilot study materializing; instead, Gates pays CGCS to “just go ahead” and “coordinate successful implementation” of the untested CCSS.

So much Gates cash, and so many hands willing to accept it.

Bill Gates likes Common Core. So, he is purchasing it. In doing so, Gates demonstrates (sadly so) that when one has enough money, one can purchase fundamentally democratic institutions.

I do not have billions to counter Gates. What I do have is this blog and the ability to expose the purchase.

I might be without cash, but I am not without power.

Can Bill Gates buy a foundational democratic institution? Will America allow it? The fate of CCSS will provide crucial answers to those looming questions.

Washington Monthly's Annual College Guide is Out

This from Washington Monthly:

Welcome to the Washington Monthly College Guide and Rankings. Unlike U.S. News and World Report and similar guides, this one asks not what colleges can do for you, but what colleges are doing for the country. Are they educating low-income students, or just catering to the affluent? Are they improving the quality of their teaching, or ducking accountability for it? Are they trying to become more productive—and if so, why is average tuition rising faster than health care costs? Every year we lavish billions of tax dollars and other public benefits on institutions of higher learning. This guide asks: Are we getting the most for our money?

Introduction: A Different Kind of College Ranking

• National University Rankings
• Liberal Arts College Rankings
• Best-Bang-for-the-Buck Rankings
• Master’s University Rankings
• Baccalaureate College Rankings
• Community College Rankings

A Note on Methodology: 4-Year Colleges and Universities
A Note on Methodology: Community Colleges

Meritocracy or Bias?

This from Inside Higher Ed:

Critics of affirmative action generally argue that the country would be better off with a meritocracy, typically defined as an admissions system where high school grades and standardized test scores are the key factors, applied in the same way to applicants of all races and ethnicities.

But what if they think they favor meritocracy but at some level actually have a flexible definition, depending on which groups would be helped by certain policies? Frank L. Samson, assistant professor of sociology at the University of Miami, thinks his new research findings suggest that the definition of meritocracy used by white people is far more fluid than many would admit, and that this fluidity results in white people favoring certain policies (and groups) over others.

Specifically, he found, in a survey of white California adults, they generally favor admissions policies that place a high priority on high school grade-point averages and standardized test scores. But when these white people are focused on the success of Asian-American students, their views change.

The white adults in the survey were also divided into two groups. Half were simply asked to assign the importance they thought various criteria should have in the admissions system of the University of California. The other half received a different prompt, one that noted that Asian Americans make up more than twice as many undergraduates proportionally in the UC system as they do in the population of the state.

When informed of that fact, the white adults favor a reduced role for grade and test scores in admissions -- apparently based on high achievement levels by Asian-American applicants. (Nationally, Asian average total scores on the three parts of the SAT best white average scores by 1,641 to 1,578 this year.)

When asked about leadership as an admissions criterion, white ranking of the measure went up in importance when respondents were informed of the Asian success in University of California admissions.

"Sociologists have found that whites refer to 'qualifications' and a meritocratic distribution of opportunities and rewards, and the purported failure of blacks to live up to this meritocratic standard, to bolster the belief that racial inequality in the United States has some legitimacy," Samson writes in the paper. "However, the results here suggest that the importance of meritocratic criteria for whites varies depending upon certain circumstances. To wit, white Californians do not hold a principled commitment to a fixed standard of merit." ...

Poll Shows Highest Level of Public Disapproval for Vouchers Ever

This from Firedoglake:

A new PDK/Gallup Poll reveals bad news for the corporate education reform movement to privatize public education. According to the poll vouchers, previously considered a useful wedge weapon against public schools are more unpopular than ever.

This week, the 45th annual PDK/Gallup Poll of the Public’s Attitudes Toward the Public Schools was released. Although it hit on several hot education topics, such as the Common Core State Standards and Teacher Evaluation, one of the poll’s most notable results was the public’s growing disapproval of private school vouchers.
The survey reported the highest level of opposition to private school vouchers in its history: 70 percent of the public opposes private school vouchers. This is even higher than the opposition marked in 2012 (55 percent) and 2011 (65 percent).

Vouchers along with charter schools form the major core of the Corporate reform movement and have been the subjects of countless PR campaigns and a fraudulent documentary film. Obviously the messaging is not working.

This increasing public disillusionment with private school vouchers severely hampers proponents’ arguments that private school vouchers are the answer to the country’s educational woes.  In fact, given the public opposition to taxpayer-funded private schools, it is more evident that legislators pushing vouchers are serving their ideological needs, rather than the needs of their constituents.

It seems the more people are educated about privatization the less they support it. Ironically the corporate reform of  public education movement needs ignorance to survive.

Monitored and Ignored: Ravitch and the Rest of Us

This from Living in Dialogue:

Last week former Department of Education communications director Peter Cunningham wrote a post that seems to be a sort of preemptive strike on Diane Ravitch, anticipating the release of her book, Reign of Error, the Hoax of Privatization and the Danger to America's Public Schools.

Paul Thomas offered a cogent reply to Cunningham's post here. Cunningham's critique of Ravitch is remarkable for its lack of substance. He seizes on her critique of the purposely engineered high failure rates on New York's Common Core tests as evidence that she wants to lower standards. He even goes so far as to suggest that she is implying that poor and minority students "are not college material." This is classic straw man material. Misrepresent someone, then attack the effigy you have erected.

But I have been thinking about another subtext in his piece. He writes:

During the Obama administration's first term, I served as Assistant Secretary for Communications and Outreach in the U.S. Department of Education, where one of my jobs was to monitor criticism of our policies and develop our responses. One of the people I monitored pretty closely was Diane Ravitch.

A blogger named RagingHorse has posted an interesting interpretation of this, with the provocative headline, "What Right Does the US Department of Education Have to 'Monitor' Diane Ravitch".
He (or she) writes:

The US Department of Education "monitored " Diane Ravitch ? And others ? Who are they ? To what end ? Does this mean that the DOE, like the FBI and the CIA and the NSA is building dossiers on those, like Dr. Ravitch, who have the temerity to point out their inconsistencies, absurdities, failure and lies?

I am also disgusted and wonder, how many more critics did Mr. Cunningham "monitor? " What does it mean to 'monitor" somebody? Do taxpayers know that their money is paying for this ? Does Congress ? What has this to do with education ? Is there now a Monitoring Departing in the DOE to keep an eye on dissidents ?

A reader named Josh Kilroy responds to RagingHorse, writing:

I think this entire post is based on a willful misunderstanding. Cunningham clearly meant nothing more than following what criticisms were being leveled against the administration, esp from formerly respected figures like Ravitch.

I find myself agreeing with both points of view. I agree with Josh Kilroy about what Cunningham probably meant when he wrote that he was "monitoring" Ravitch, but I am also disturbed by the idea.

I am disturbed in part because it means that it is likely that I am also being "monitored."

I actively sought a dialogue with the Arne Duncan and the Department of Education way back in November of 2009, when I wrote an open letter to President Obama, and started a Facebook group called Teachers' Letters to Obama. In December of that same year I sent a packet of more than 100 letters to Secretary Duncan and the White House. In return I got a short note from a staffer at the DoEd, and no response at all from the White House. Eventually, the Teachers' Letters group got a short phone conference with Secretary Duncan, and he followed up with a short personal call as well. But that was a very frustrating and aborted sort of dialogue, where the main emphasis on the part of Department of Education was to convince us all that we were somehow incapable of accurately perceiving their policies and their real-world consequences. Widespread frustration with this sort of response, and with administration policies, led to more than 6000 of us gathering in front of the White House at the Save Our Schools March in the summer of 2011.

So I have actively sought to get responses from the administration. Why then would I feel disturbed to find out they are "monitoring" people like Diane Ravitch - and perhaps myself?

There are several layers. First, Cunningham asserts that Diane Ravitch:

...was not interested in a genuine conversation with us but rather was interested in driving her anti-administration message, even if it meant resorting to tactics that are beneath someone of her stature: ad hominem attacks on the secretary, cherry-picking data, setting up straw man arguments, taking language out of context and distorting its meaning, and ignoring sound evidence that conflicts with her point of view.

This man spent years monitoring Diane Ravitch, yet he provides us with not a single example of any of these behaviors. They would be hard to find, because although Ravitch does not mince words, she almost always cites evidence to support her views.

There is another level on which the term "monitoring" resonates, and it relates to our perceptions of government authority. This reminds me of people's reactions to domestic surveillance. Some people, who perhaps have never been mistreated by the police or other authority figures, have no problem with constant surveillance. "What's the problem if you have nothing to hide?" Others, who may have had family members investigated in years past, or have been the subjects of police action themselves, have an entirely different attitude. When governmental authorities are "monitoring" you it is usually hostile - and Cunningham clearly was not friendly. Then Cunningham writes,

At a certain point, I made the decision that, rather than engage with her, we would ignore her and, for the most part, we did.

This seems to have been the fate of other critics of administration policy. We have been monitored, and otherwise ignored.

Unless we actually connect in such a compelling way that we cannot be ignored. That is what happened when I pointed out that President's off the cuff comments at a town hall meeting were actually a devastating critique of his own administration's policies. That earned me an email from one of Peter Cunningham's staff, Justin Hamilton, with the subject line "correction to your post," offering to "clarify any confusion" over the administration's position. This was the most substantive exchange, as he had put himself in a position where I could ask him some real questions in order to clear up all this confusion. This exchange even made it into the New York Times.

And it is about to happen again, in spades, when Diane Ravitch releases her new book. That book will be the best rebuttal to Cunningham that we could wish for. It is packed with evidence of the failure of the phony reform project led by Duncan and Gates. And solid proposals to improve education for all children.

Diane Ravitch seems to get under people's skin like nobody else. She has done what is very scary to do. Confronted with evidence that her ideas were running off track, she re-evaluated and began looking at the issues with new eyes. Concerns she had dismissed before began to make sense. People whom she had seen as hopeless dreamers were not so far off base after all. She cannot be ignored because the truth is the opposite of what Cunningham claims. She has evidence on her side. And she has earned a following among educators and parents who will become even better informed a month from now when her new book is in the hands of the many thousands who will buy it. I have a small suggestion. Preorder her book now. And when you do so, order an extra copy and mail it to your Congress person or state legislator.

Our only hope is to move once again to a place where she, and the rest of us pulling for public schools -- can no longer be "monitored and ignored." If those responsible for the policies that are allowing our public schools to be tested into oblivion and privatized out of existence are forced to respond, we have shifted from defense to offense, and that is where we have got to be if we are going to actually save public education in America.

EKU President Benson Addresses Faculty, Staff at First Convocation

This from EKU News:

In a Convocation address punctuated by numerous rounds of applause from faculty and staff, new Eastern Kentucky University President Michael T. Benson shared a vision for the campus today that encompassed his commitment to what he called the three P’s: people, places and programs.

Benson, who assumed the EKU presidency Aug. 1 after serving the past seven years as president of Southern Utah University, said Eastern’s “most important capital asset is the people who work here. The most important thing will be to take care of you and appreciate the role that every one of you plays.”

Eastern’s 12^th president then announced a salary increase of 2.5 percent for all University employees, effective Oct. 1, only the second across-the-board raise in five years. “This is a start on our part to say ‘thank you for what you do for the institution.’”

Benson added that salary issues related to compression and equity will be addressed “in a holistic way” and outlined a process for the establishment of a merit pool.

He also noted that the University is reducing the number of vice presidents from six to five and that those five will include a vice president for student success and a vice president for university relations and branding.

“First and foremost, a university is about teaching,” Benson said, “and we’re going to put as much as we can into that primary focus.

As part of an effort to keep communication lines open and gather input from faculty and staff, Benson announced the establishment of an online “suggestion box” at president.eku.edu/suggestions.

“This is not to suggest we are bereft of ideas or lack imagination,” he said. “This is the first phase in a larger campus-wide initiative to elicit more input. I’m going to try my best to create a respectful environment where everyone feels free to speak.”

In talking about the importance of place, Benson said, “We’re going to start doing things that beautify the campus.” He announced a $250,000 gift from Ron and Sherrie Lou Noel (whose earlier gift enabled the establishment of the Ron and Sherrie Lou Noel Studio for Academic Creativity) to go toward the addition of a “reading porch” to the John Grant Crabbe Main Library and unveiled preliminary designs for a “pedestrian mall” between the Library and Weaver Building.

The University’s top capital construction priority remains Phase 2 of the New Science Building, followed by a new facility for the College of Education.

As for programs, Benson said: “The things we do well we do really, really well. We can’t be everything for everybody. We will have to make some hard choices going forward.”

He indicated that process will “take some time” and require further input from the campus community.

In closing, Benson told faculty and staff: “There is a lot expected of me. There is a lot expected of you. There’s no better feeling than meeting or exceeding expectations. Nobody is going to outwork me, nobody is going to outwork the President’s Council, and nobody is going to outwork our faculty and staff. We’re going to achieve some great things at Eastern Kentucky University.”

To view the entire presentation, visit video.eku.edu/fall-convocation-2013.

Fall classes begin at EKU on Monday, Aug. 19.

A big thanks to Vanessa Gallman, Jaci Carfagno, and the editorial board at the Herald-Leader for running my Op-ed, which was critical of H-L's parent corporation and the quality of local reporting.

#integrity

Here's the lightly- (and well-) edited version of Profit over Product.

Outsized profit expectations harm education news

By Richard E. Day in the Herald-Leader:

It appears that former Herald-Leader and Los Angeles Times editor John Carroll was on to something when he predicted, in 2006, that outsized profit expectations in the newspaper industry would have a destructive effect on journalism. Seven years and several rounds of newsroom layoffs later — all in the service of maximized profits — its effects can be seen in education reporting on these pages.

EKU Assoc Prof Richard E. Day

When Rosalind Hurley-Richards received the $25,000 Milken Educator Award in 1996 it was news and the Herald-Leader ran a story about Commissioner Wilmer Cody's visit to Squires Elementary School for the award presentation. When she was named Kentucky Teacher of the Year in 1997 for her "real world" approach to teaching, it was news again, and the Herald-Leader followed her progress as a national finalist. In 1997, the paper reported that Hurley-Richards was directing her own program at the Preparatory Academy at Lexington and that she was speaking at a conference for black career women in 1998.

Even before his arrival as superintendent of Fayette County Public Schools, the Herald-Leader reported on Stu Silberman's success in Daviess County and his interest in the state education commissioner's post. Beginning in 1999 there were hundreds of stories about his work in the local schools.

But for some reason, it was not news — or at least, the Herald-Leader did not cover it — when in 2009 Silberman suspended and dismissed Hurley-Richards for "conduct unbecoming a teacher" after she disciplined an unruly child in the hallway at Cardinal Valley Elementary School. What circumstances could have led to such a shocking event? Herald-Leader readers might never know.

By the time the Kentucky Supreme Court vindicated Hurley-Richards in April (no story) — in what Fayette County Education Association officials were calling a landmark case — she had been through an administrative hearing (no story), Fayette Circuit Court (no story) and the Kentucky Court of Appeals (no story).

Was the lack of coverage an editorial decision or simply a lack of newsroom resources?

When a teacher's aide crashed her car, with two children as passengers, and snapped a utility pole on Georgetown Street and was charged with a DUI recently, the Herald-Leader ran the story and printed her name. But when Fayette County schools director of human resources Melodee Parker wrecked her car downtown in 2011 and was cited for driving under the influence, there was no story.

On Kentucky School News and Commentary (Theprincipal.blogspot.com), an education blog I moderate, these and other unreported stories have caused some parents to entertain wild speculations about the quality of Herald-Leader reporters, and motives for reporting, or not reporting, certain stories. Some question whether the paper is protecting the school district by passing on certain embarrassing stories. Others have suggested the school district pays off reporters. Readers are confused, and these speculations are very unfortunate.

I suspect the real answer lies elsewhere.

Even before the great recession damaged economic conditions globally, journalism professionals were recoiling from historically high profit expectations by their parent corporations. As Carroll warned, continued expectations of 20 percent profit margins in the newspaper industry would damage the quality of journalism. "At a 20 percent margin, I feel strongly that we are cashing in the paper's future in favor of current earnings," Carroll told NewsHour. In the battle between those who see themselves as serving shareholders and those who see themselves serving readers, the shareholders are winning.

I am very concerned about what news corporations have done to newsrooms and I believe there are qualitative deficiencies in today's coverage that are leaving the community in the dark on too many important topics. One is left with the impression that the few remaining reporters are too often unaware of what's going on or ill-equipped to do anything about it. But McClatchy is still insisting that the Herald-Leader produce a return between 15 percent and 20 percent. Apparently shareholders care less about high quality coverage than lining their own pockets, and the net effect is harmful to democracy. 

Richard E. Day blogs at Theprincipal.blogspot.com. Email: Richard.day@eku.edu.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2013/08/12/2761921/outsized-profit-expectations-harm.html#storylink=cpy

From Cartoonist Matt Wuerker

These from a gallery of cartoons by POLITICO's Matt Wuerker: