ken m libby

During the 24 hours after Michelle Rhee offered to answer questions on Twitter, a total of 1,431 tweets included the hashtag #AskMichelle.¹ The Washington Post and Salon commented on the reaction, noting the hostility directed at Michelle.

My original idea was to sort tweets into those that were attacking Michelle, those that appeared to be serious questions, and unrelated tweets. I revised the categories after sorting through the 1,431 eligible tweets, which includes both original tweets and re-tweets. I ended up using the categories below:

Attacks: Most of the original tweets were hostile towards Michelle. I also included tweets that addressed something other than education or schools, as these questions (here and here, for example) seemed intended to attack Michelle or StudentsFirst. There were 186 of these tweets.

Questions and Michelle’s Answers: A total of 63 original tweets asked the kind of education-related questions Michelle wanted to answer (and she did answer some). I did not include tweets that were questions unrelated to education, or that seemed to be more about attacking Michelle than answering a question. An additional seven of Michelle’s answers to questions used the hashtag.

Commentary on #AskMichelle: A total of 98 original tweets commented on the use of the hashtag, mostly to point out it did not go well for Michelle. The Washington Post and Salon articles were shared quite a bit, and some drew comparisons to last year’s #AskJP debacle.

Unsure/Other: Not all tweets fit neatly into either of the categories above. One person asked, “how do I get a cranberry stain out of my white dress?” Another  asked, “To be or not to be?” There were 12 tweets that I couldn’t put into one of the previous three categories.

Re-tweets: A total of 1,065 tweets were re-tweets. Tweets attacking Michelle made up the majority (775) of the re-tweets. The second most common re-tweets were those commenting on the use of the hashtag (226). Questions relating to education were re-tweeted a total of 30 times. Michelle was re-tweeted 28 times, and six re-tweets were from the Unsure/Other category.

In table form:

A few hours after answer questions, Michelle tweeted, “Boy, the Twitter community can be so cheery & bubbly can’t they? Looking forward to more, substantive chats in the future #edreform”

Alan Golston, president of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s US programs, recently posted some brief comments about the Common Core State Standards.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think the standards are  a major threat to public schools nor a liberal plot to brainwash children. Those seems to be the views of at least some progressive educators and some conservative activists, respectively.

Golston’s comments and the business leaders he quotes present a poor example of both justifying and defending the standards. Golston quotes Kathy Havens Payne of State Farm who makes the  bold claim that the new standards “level the playing field for all children.” I don’t object to the idea that common standards can be part of a broader equity agenda, and, in fact, I think it’s important to have high standards for all children. But if we’re serious about leveling the playing field, common standards can only be one part of that noble goal. Plenty of other factors – including inequitable state school funding formulas, distribution of teachers, and out-of-school factors, just to name a few – contribute the inequitable educational opportunities and outcomes.

Think about it this way: by Payne’s logic, shouldn’t all states have reasonably equitable education systems given that all states have had their own common standards for schools and school districts for a good number of years? The point here is that standards alone aren’t enough to ensure equity. It’s all that other stuff, too. I have little tolerance for CCSS supporters who refuse to look at these other issues as well.

Just as troubling is Golston’s concluding sentence:

What we must do now is support teachers and make good on the promise that they have the tools they need to teach the new standards so that the nation can get the full benefit of this important shift in our education system – a shift that will ensure our nation’s children ready for college and career and a better future.

If Golston is serious about making good on that promise, he’d also suggest we slow down the the implementation of the standards. It’s not at all difficult to see teachers and teacher groups saying they like the standards, but are wary of the rushed implementation. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I doubt the new push by the business community will suggest cautiously moving forward with the implementation of teacher evaluation policies, ensuring schools have appropriate materials connected to the new standards, the chance to re-align instruction, and adequate professional development for educators. Rather, it seems likely that the message will be: we need the Common Core State Standards, and we need them now. That strikes me as a recipe for disaster.

Step One: Catchy Title

The title is an important part of any anti-Common Core piece. A popular choice is to incorporate the word “rotten,” which too many just can’t pass up (here, here, here, here, and here). Also popular: something connoting or indicating a leftist/Marxist conspiracy, for instance, “Common Core: Rotten to it’s leftist core,” “Obama Trying To Take Over Public Education With ‘Common Core’ Curriculum That Teaches Socialism,” “‘Common Core’ The Marxist Brainwashing Of America’s Schoolchildren,” or “Common Core GED textbook: ’9/11 hijackers were poor Afghanis.’”

Step Two: Select Your Boogeyman

The obvious choice is President Obama, but don’t limit yourself to the guy in the White House. And, ObamaCore might be catchy (here, here, here, and here), but it’s not terribly creative. Seriously, it just takes ObamaCare and changes ONE LETTER! Bill Ayers is a strong choice for a boogeyman (here, here, here, here, here, and here). Linda Darling-Hammond is the leading boogeywoman (here, here, and here). Combine two or all three for the most potent boogeyman concoction.

Step Three: Pick a Persuasive Argument

Big choice here. Once you have an irresistible title and boogeyman (or more), you need to actually construct your anti-Common Core argument. You have a few options.

You can go with the “Common Core is a socialist/Marxist/communist plot” – but those arguments are getting a lot of airplay already (here, here, here, here, here, and here). Another popular choice is the Common Core is a UN conspiracy (here, here, and here). If you’re more familiar with pedagogy, you could run with the Common Core as a progressive takeover of schools (here, here, and here).

Less common arguments are that Common Core is a secret attempt to indoctrinate students about immigration (here); that the new standards will eliminate cursive instruction (here); that examples of suggested texts are too sexually graphic (here); promotes a “homosexual agenda” (here); that it’s part of “the apology tour for American exceptionalism (here); or that the standards promote “extreme environmentalism” (here).

For those seeking bolder arguments, there is “Common Core forcing Marxism/Nazism on America’s children,” or that it’s comparable to what Hitler did while in charge of Germany (here, here, here, here, here, and here).

The argument that Common Core is federal intrusion into public education? Please, that’s soooo pedestrian and boring. It’s probably important to include so you can say something about the Constitution or states’ rights, but it’s a less flashy argument than some of the ones listed above.

Step Four: Construct a Conclusion

The title, boogeyman, and argument are all essential, but you really need to build to your concluding remarks. The smart move seems to be suggesting the new standards will be an absolute disaster (here), that we must overthrow tyranny (here), the standards cost too much (here), or that anything the feds are involved in is bound to fail (here and here).

Side Comments

In seriousness, opposition from a few key right-wing pundits (Malkin and Beck) seems to have stirred up the anti-Common Core hysteria of late. It’s also possible that the standards didn’t get much attention when they were simply words on a page as opposed to something actually happening in the classroom (at least in some places), complete with assessments tied to the standards. And, it’s completely plausible that the right just needed another topic to cause a stink about.

[Disclosure: I am working for the American Federation of Teachers this summer, although none of my work relates to the Common Core. Additionally, I composed this post on my own time.]

The Jaquelin Hume Foundation is one of the many conservative foundations operating in the United States. Some of the foundation’s work is directly related to education, and much of the foundation’s work impacts education indirectly though tax/fiscal policy and social policy.

For this post I pulled grants listed on the foundations Form 990s for the years 2001-2010. You can download an Excel spreadsheet with this information on my data page. The rest of this post uses that data to look at the various organizations receiving funds from the foundation.

The foundation essentially gives to five different kinds of organizations¹:

• Education organizations (e.g., KIPP, TFA, Alliance for School Choice)
• Think tanks that are part of the State Policy Network, a collection of state-level free-market think tanks
• A variety of other conservative think tanks or advocacy organizations that are not part of the State Policy Network (e.g., Heritage Foundation, Hoover Institution, Independent Women’s Forum)
• A handful of possibly education-related organizations (e.g., Atlantic Legal Foundation, Center for Union Facts)
• Other organizations (e.g., museums; mostly California-based)

Here is a list of education organizations:

[Click on image to enlarge.]

A few notes about the above:

• I believe CANEC was either the precursor to California Charter School Association or the Association’s previous name.
• The Personalized Learning Foundation was a project of the Center for Education Reform
• I’m assuming MAPSA is the Michigan Association of Public School Academies (charter schools)

And organizations that are part of the State Policy Network, a collection of state-level free-market think tanks:

Other conservative think tanks:

Education-related organizations (that also do some non-education work):

And, finally, the other organizations:

The Hume Foundation is a well-known supporter of conservative politics, and that support is quite obviously continuing.

While the foundation supports some education organizations that are hardly conservative (e.g., Center for Teaching Quality, Editorial Projects in Education), the majority of the funding goes to conservative advocates. For instance, the Association for American Educators, Center for Education Reform, Education Next, California Teachers Empowerment Network, Foundation for Excellence in Education, and Education Action Group all received funding from the Hume Foundation, and all of those would certainly be considered conservative/libertarian organizations.

A recent Washington Post article about Michelle Rhee makes the following claim:

Rhee, as the chief executive of StudentsFirst, which employs 124 and is based in Sacramento, earns an annual salary of $61,000, according to federal tax filings.

My best guess is that the reporter looked at the Form 990 for StudentsFirst Institute (a 501c3). That form covers October 12, 2010 through July 31, 2011 and lists Rhee’s salary as $61,250, plus an additional $1,250 from related organizations (StudentsFirst, a 501c4). However, it’s pretty likely that – at least for the years after 2011 – Rhee’s salary will be a good deal higher than that. The IRS applications for StudentsFirst and StudentsFirst Institute¹, available through the NY Charities Bureau website, offers additional information.

From the StudentsFirst application:

Note that it is actual or estimated compensation.

And the StudentsFirst Institute application:

There are (probably) two possibilities here: Rhee will be making about $200k in FY 2012, or she’ll be making about $125k. The former is simply adding the anticipated $75k from StudentsFirst in 2012 and $125k from StudentsFirst Institute (although no year is listed). The second possibility is that the $125k reported on the StudentsFirst Institute application includes any payment from StudentsFirst. Either way, the $61,000 “annual salary” is likely a good deal off.²

Secondly, a recent Nation article makes the following claim about Students for Education Reform (SFER):

SFER has received $1.6 million from Education Reform Now…

But that number isn’t quite accurate. Education Reform Now is the fiscal sponsor of SFER, a set-up that (I think) would allow SFER to receive funds before they had fully established a 501c3. From the ERN 2010 Form 990:

And:

So that $1.6 million is for StudentsFirst and SFER. I’m not sure how much ERN received for SFER, but it almost certainly wasn’t a full $1.6 million.

For those with an interest in SFER’s funding, the only donation I’ve seen (on a Form 990) is $100k from Jonathan Sackler and Mary Corson’s Bouncer Foundation in 2011. That foundation’s Form 990 is available here. Sackler is also a SFER board member. The Draper Richards Kaplan Foundation also lists SFER as a funded organization, but the foundation’s Form 990 for 2011 isn’t available yet and the website doesn’t list a dollar amount.

I tend to not thing either one of these inaccuracies is that big of a deal, but it does indicate – at least to me – that some of the information about organizations in the non-profit sector is either not that accessible, or people don’t know where to look for some of this information. Heck, I’ve spent a reasonable amount of time reading through this kind of stuff and I still get tripped up at times.

During the 2012 election cycle, Stand for Children spent about $750,000 on Washington state elections. The Washington Education Association (WEA) spent around $2 million. Most of Stand’s money came from in-state donors, although a few out of state donors also contributed: Reed Hastings ($50,000), Stacy Schusterman ($25,000), Katherine Bradley ($5,000) and Pamela Welch ($100).