Thursday, November 01, 2007

Democrats? Independent?

My work focuses primarily on neoconservative and neoliberal think tanks and their influence on ed. policy. Recently I’ve been taking a closer look at think tanks/organizations that claim to represent "democrats" or to be “independent.”

I know that many of you are aware of the Heritage Foundation, of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, and the American Enterprise Institute, all organizations understood by myself and a number of others to lean heavily to the political right. But have you heard of the Democrats for Educational Reform or the Education Sector? I warrant several of you have not, so this post will serve as a brief introduction. Over the course of the next few weeks, I'll detail how these organizations generate consent for corporate friendly school reform.

Democrats for Educational Reform

Two years ago, a group of education reformers in New York and Washington, DC got together to see if an all-Democratic group could help nudge our party to press for real education reform. We were disheartened by the widespread failure of the public school system to give poor kids in America an opportunity to compete in the modern world, and we were frightened by our own party’s unwillingness to take on powerful entrenched interests to help them.
I am not sure which entrenched interests they mean, but given that Joe Williams runs the organization, I understand the phrase to mean unions.

A quick message to union members nationwide, most democrats pander to you like conservatives to evangelicals. At the same time, if there are individuals visiting this site who think the unions support teachers, teaching, or democracy, I’ll need you to explain Randi Weingarten’s, president of the United Federation of Teachers, agreement to implement merit pay based on test scores, and while you are at it, I could do with an explanation of the NEA’s determination to reauthorize NCLB without significant changes to AYP or privatization initiatives...

From the “What we stand for” section of DFER’s website:

• We support policies which stimulate the creation of new, accountable public schools and which simultaneously close down failing schools.
• We support mechanisms that allow parents to select excellent schools for their children, and where education dollars follow each child to their school.
• We support governance structures which hold leaders responsible, while giving them the tools to effectuate change. We believe in empowering mayors to lead urban school districts, so that they can be held accountable by the electorate.
• We support clearly-articulated national standards and expectations for core subject areas, while allowing states and local districts to determine how best to make sure that all students are reaching those standards.

The Democrats for Educational Reform include, but are not limited to:

• Boykin Curry – Eagle Capital, co-founder of Girls Prep Charter School, NYC.
• Tony Davis - Anchorage Capital, board chair for Achievement First in Brooklyn.
• Charlie Ledley - Cornwall Capital, NYC, board member and treasurer of Harlem Village Academy and Leadership Village Academy Charter Schools.
• Sara Mead - New America Foundation, former analyst for Education Sector and the Progressive Policy Institute, Washington, D.C.
• John Petry - Gotham Capital, co-founder of Harlem Success Academy Charter School, NYC.
• Andrew Rotherham - Member, Virginia Board of Education, co-director, Education Sector, former White House education advisor to President Clinton, author of the blog,
• Whitney Tilson - T2 Partners and Tilson Funds, vice chairman of KIPP Academy Charter Schools in NYC, co-founder of the Initiative for a Competitive Inner City.
• Caprice Young - President of the California Charter Schools Association, former president of the Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education, and former assistant deputy mayor in Los Angeles.

These are the “democrats” for educational reform?

Is there a party speaking for democracy through education? If so, can you point me in that direction?

Education Sector

Founded in 2005 by Andrew J. Rotherham (former aid to Clinton and member of the Democrats for Educational Reform) and Thomas Toch, “Education Sector is an independent education think tank.” Claiming to be “nonpartisan” and “both a dependable source of sound thinking on policy and an honest broker of evidence in key education debates,” Education Sector produces both research and policy analysis and markets “outstanding work by the nation's most respected education analysts.” The “nonpartisan” and “independent” Education Sector’s Board of Directors, Research Advisory Board, and Non-Resident Fellows include individuals such as:

• Bruno V. Mano, a trustee of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, and longtime advocate for charter schools;
• Ira A. Fishman, “a national leader in educational technology, [who] was special counsel to the Federal Communications Commission during the commission's crafting of the E-Rate program for schools and libraries . . . .He served as the first Chief Executive Officer of the Schools and Libraries Corporation, the non-profit organization created to administer the E-Rate program.” The E-Rate program was riddled with fraud and millions of tax dollars were wasted and stolen;
• Eric Hanushek and Paul T. Hill, both members of the Hoover Institute’s Koret Task Force;
• Frederick M. Hess, Director of Education Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute; and
• Various members of the Center for Reinventing Public Education, which “engages in research and analysis aimed at developing focused, effective, and accountable schools and the systems that support them.”

This list of individuals makes the following statement problematic at best and a flat-out lie at worst. I apologize for the long quote, but it speaks to the necessity for the creation of some body, some organization, active in both public and political spheres, working to negate “democratic” and/or “independent” propaganda.
Education policymaking in the United States suffers from a dearth of high-quality, independent analysis. Far too often, the quality of deliberation and decision-making on critical education issues is compromised by ideologically driven research and commentary. Important debates are dominated by the distorted claims and counterclaims of individuals and institutions with ideological or political agendas. Many policymakers and the public, as a result, simply don't trust much of the evidence put before them on key education questions. In a 2003 survey by the Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media, a large majority of journalists covering education dismissed most education research as “ideologically motivated.” The journalists told surveyors that they “hunger for assistance from an objective, neutral source” in education debates. There is thus a tremendous need for a new, rigorously independent voice in education policymaking. Education Sector will be such a voice, an organization devoted to innovative solutions to the nation's most pressing educational problems, a source of sound thinking on education policy and an honest broker of evidence in key education debates in Washington and nationally. Education Sector will produce rigorous, independent research and analysis on a wide range of elementary-, secondary-, and higher-education topics. We will eschew the ideological orthodoxies that have polarized the national debate on so many education issues. We believe that public officials, journalists, business leaders, and the public at large will embrace education reform if they believe such reform is justified by solid, independent evidence. Education Sector will play a key role in producing such evidence and making it readily understandable to a broad audience of policymakers, the media, and other opinion-makers with the power to leverage meaningful change in American education.
Take a look again at the people running the Sector and explain to me how they can "eschew the ideological orthodoxies that have polarized the national debate on so many education issues."

The Education Sector is one of many, hundreds perhaps, organizations “producing evidence and making it readily understandable to a broad audience.” As this “evidence” is produced and distributed, where are we? And here I mean the we on this blog as well as the “we” in organizations such as AESA, followed by the “we” in academia who believe children, and this country, deserve more than what they've been fed for, well depending on who you ask, the last 200 some odd years.

At present organizations such as these dominate policy making. I’m interested in ending that dominance. Perhaps the problem is that we have not pushed ideology enough. The belief that education should serve democracy is an ideological position, is it not? Perhaps we need to do a better job of marketing that brand...


Aaron Schutz said...

Nice post. This is important stuff to understand. Glad to have you on board.

philip said...

Cheers...glad to be on board and looking forward to the future...

teacherken said...

Good job Philip

For those who don't know, to add to what you have written, Hanushek has for years pushed the idea that money does not make a difference, and his work has been used by opponents of public schools to justify cutting funds for public education, despite the fact that Laine, Hedges Greenwald etc took apart his work when it first came out, and Allen Sinai reexamined his data and clearly showed how Hanushek's presentation could not b supported.

As to Rotherham - he thinks he knows everything and anyone who disagrees with him is wrong. One reason I would have had trouble supporting my former governor (Mark warner) for president was what he had demonstrated on education, for which one of the strongest data point was his appointment of Rotherham to the state board.

Pardon the mild rant, freading this first thing in the morning was upsetting.

philip said...

Cheers Ken...Here's the entire email that I received this morning from Charles Barone, former staffer for Miller, who is working desperately to reauthorize NCLB:

"Dear Friends & Colleagues:

Last month, we launched a new website called "Swift & Change
Able" ( dedicated to providing independent
commentary on the No Child Left Behind Act.

We appreciate all our new readers, If you haven't had a chance yet to
view the site, here is a recap of a few highlights:

"Is The 'NCLB Bubble Kid' Theory About to Burst?"

"Whole Weast, Montgomery County Bread"

"NCLB Primary Colors"

"The Psychology of Social Change"

I asked him how he could be a democrat and independent at the same time, and he told me he was bipartisan.

Am I missing something here?

philip said...'ll want to check out the cartoon on Swift and's my letter to the artist.

I've seen your work on Swift and Changeable, and I must admit, I'm stunned. How is it that an artist can support NCLB? Are you at all aware of what this legislation has done to the arts in public schools? Especially in poor schools. Don't believe me? Come to the schools (30 of them) where I work and take a look at what they've done to the arts in the name of raising scores on tests which have no empirical evidence to be effective in educating children.

Or do poor kids not need beauty? Arguably, it is through the arts that we become fully human, to deligitimate them, as NCLB does, dehumanizes children.

Would you have all artists paint the same way...or use paint for that matter?

Your most recent cartoon depicts freshmen congressional reps being led around by a corporate boss. You might ask Big Swifty how much money Miller recieves from testing companies each year. Or you might look for yourself, as it is public information.

And then you might rethink what you are doing.

Philip Kovacs

Anonymous said...

I'm so glad to see your post. I've believed for some time now that that those who think of themselves as Democratic centrists are one of the biggest obstacles to good education policy. They are so devoted to the idea of top-down, test-driven reform that nothing else really matters. I've asked some of them what sort of evidence it would take for them to reconsider the idea of test-based accountability and their response is that there really isn't anything that would change their mind. They tend to be masters of teacher bashing that doesn't really look like teacher bashing and they've stopped even trying to disguise their union bashing. Part of the problem is that progressives haven't really stepped up to call them on it. As you suggest, learning who they are and where their influence lies is an important step.


Duane Campbell said...

thanks for the post. This is valuable information.
A parallel issue is the number of organizations which claim to be Civil Rights Organizations and endorse NCLB. For some, the claim to be a Civil Rights organization is dubious. It serves a valuable purpose in their efforts.
For example, the Education trust, and National Council de la Raza. Note the sources of their corporate money. An example, look at NC de la Raza and how quickly they compromised on immigration reform.
Duane Campbell

Anonymous said...


Your blog entry was really informative :). Also, I have a request for you. We, at Vaestro (, are trying to build a community of audio bloggers. I would be very grateful if you could look at it sometime and try using it's service :). It's free...and in need for quality bloggers like you.

Simone (

Robert Thompson said...

This kind of important stuff is always needed, thanks.

Muazzam Mehmood
Study Stuff Downloads for Brain Hunters
Phd & MPhill Discussions over Study problems, new Ideas & Expertise
Tutorial: Cryptography & Linux Security