EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

06.07.10

US Education Steps Aside for Bill

Posted in Bill Gates, Finance, Intellectual Monopoly at 6:10 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

US Department of Education seal

Summary: How the Gates family continues to gain power over the operation of public services, education included

THE Gates Foundation is widely known as a charity even though it operates as though it’s a company with people inside panels and conference representatives (the Gates Foundation has a keynote position in the STEM summit). In our previous post we showed that staff which left the Gates Foundation proceeded to serving a similar agenda. It’s called “revolving doors” when it comes to companies such as Monsanto.

Last month we wrote many posts about the new book from Diane Ravitch — one where she criticises the Gates Foundation for interference in public education [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. Watch what happens in Minnesota, which sold out to Microsoft two weeks ago. The head of Minnesota State Colleges and Universities is heading towards the Gates helm.

The MnSCU vice chancellor who’s had her hands full with the system’s credit-transfer issues — a sore subject for students and some legislators — is taking a job at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Linda Baer, vice chancellor for academic and student affairs for Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, will become a senior officer with the Gates Foundation’s Post-Secondary Success Initiative. The Gates Foundation has been spending a lot of money on college readiness and post-secondary efforts across the country — unlike the budget-slashing in public higher education — so it stands to reason such a job would be attractive.

Baer is already being replaced by Olson [1, 2], but mysteries remain about Baer’s motives. The Gates Foundation monopolises/colonises education and its latest hire will probably be invaluable. How about this new one?

Sacramento, California – Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today announced the appointment of Dan Schnur as chair of the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC).

[...]

Schnur has served as an advisor to the William & Melinda Gates Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Broad Education Foundation, James Irvine Foundation and Stuart Foundation on a variety of K-12 education, college and workforce preparedness, governance and political reform efforts.

“K-12 education,” eh? Gates agenda may be served here, as usual.

Larry Ferlazzo writes about “neocolonialism” this month and he names Gates too. Specifically, he refers to Ravitch who warned about the Gates Foundation directing national educational policy:

I often felt frustrated, however, by how most (though not all) foundations who sought public policy change would decide that they knew what the problem was; they knew how it should be fixed; and they knew how long it should take to fix it. Community groups, desperate for funding, would then often tailor their priorities around the funders’ agenda and the funders would become the groups de facto constituency. The groups’ genuine constituency — low and moderate income residents — would then be “brought along”….sometimes, and often for the short-term.

Of course, this strategy is contrary to how many major policy changes have often been made. In many instances, people who are most affected by the problem take a primary role in developing a solution and the political power to make it a reality (I’ll write more about this history in a future post). The foundation-driven strategy is the antithesis of how long-term effective community organizing works.

But many well-meaning foundations just don’t seem to see this.

[...]

We feel that the best way to respond to the research findings in this report that highlight how poverty issues affect student academic achievement is by helping parents, schools, and other community residents participate more in public life and develop the self-confidence and life skills to do so effectively. Funders should support schools and community groups who want to engage residents and local institutions like religious congregations, business groups, neighborhood associations in conversations about how these problems affect their local communities and what they think should be done about it. Funders should support those schools and community groups who want to listen and work with residents as partners. Funders should leverage the relationships they have with public and corporate officials so these community groups can develop their own relationships with them.

[...]

In the education field (and I’m sure in other areas, too), I’d suggest that there are a sizable group of funders who go further, and who can be even more damaging to the long-term public good. This is how Diane Ravitch describes them:

“The Billionaires Boys Club” is a discussion of how we’re in a new era of the foundations and their relation to education. We have never in the history of the United States had foundations with the wealth of the Gates Foundation and some of the other billionaire foundations—the Walton Family Foundation, The Broad Foundation. And these three foundations—Gates, Broad and Walton—are committed now to charter schools and to evaluating teachers by test scores. And that’s now the policy of the US Department of Education. We have never seen anything like this, where foundations had the ambition to direct national educational policy, and in fact are succeeding.

I’d characterize their attitude as being closer to neocolonialism, which a dictionary describes as “dominance by economic and cultural influence.”

Many might say that I’m overstating the case. But it seems to me that Eli Broad doesn’t hide that perspective when he tells the Wall Street Journal:

…he is enthusiastic about all the change that is possible when urban school districts go bankrupt—as Oakland, Calif., did a few years ago—”or what happened in New Orleans, which is the equivalent of bankruptcy.”

What do you think? Am I being too harsh?

There is no doubt about it. The Gates Foundation is changing policy in public schools. We gave a lot of examples and here is a new example from the news:

But it was Hillsborough’s reforms with the Gates Foundation that prompted the largest number of comments from the crowd. Superintendent Elia said her district hopes to pave the way for similar changes across Florida and the nation.

Strings are being attached.

Here is another new example where the Gates Foundation is leaving them to compete by changing themselves according to the paymaster.

August: Only one day into the school year, district officials learned they lost their bid for the Gates grant to improve teacher effectiveness and a system where fewer than 25 percent of high school graduates were deemed ready for higher education.

The Gates Foundation is showing up whenever policies can be tweaked, essentially replacing government function, i.e. privatising it. To wit:

Third, foundation resources—and this will sound almost sanctimonious—are a uniquely precious resource for society at large. Not, in general, by dint of their size, because most philanthropies are not of the Bill Gates or Ford Foundation scale—they tend to be quite small in terms of assets. Nor can they be seen as a replacement for the federal purse in paying for social programs. Their enormous value lies in the versatility and adaptability of their use.

“Gates Foundation support” to make policies can also be found in last week’s news, not to mention another article about Diane Ravitch. The article is titled “In the Thrall of the Billionaire Boys Club”:

I’m no expert on public education either, but I know an expert when I see one. Diane Ravitch has been the nation’s preeminent historian of education since her book The Troubled Crusade: American Education 1945-1980 appeared in 1983. She served as assistant secretary of education under George H. W. Bush. For forty years she has pondered each new proposal for restructuring schools as it has come along, often with considerable sympathy: vouchers, charter schools, curriculum reform, standardized testing, punitive teacher accountability.

In her new book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education, Ravitch describes the evidence that has changed her views of strategies that once seemed promising to her. (Her title’s echo of Jane Jacobs’ great 1961 book on urban life is intentional: she began her career in Manhattan in 1968, at a time when Jacobs was leading her epic battle against highway-planner Robert Moses.) The nostrums that school districts, Congress, and federal officials are pursuing, that mega-rich foundations are supporting, that editorial boards are applauding, are mistaken, she says, fundamentally flawed because they are built on a market metaphor. Schools don’t work like businesses, she says Public education should be preserved “because it is so intimately connected to our concepts of citizenship and democracy and to the promise of American life.” To that end she offers a series of prescriptions:

[...]

Ravitch is especially good on the influence of what she calls the “Billionaire Boy’s Club” – the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (the Microsoft fortune), the Walton Family Foundation (Wal-Mart), and the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation (home-building and finance) – that have eclipsed the older foundations long associated with education policy (Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie and Annenberg) as the powerful big givers. Sometimes described as “venture philanthropies” or exponents of “philanthrocapitalism,” meaning their methods are borrowed from start-up finance and management, the Gates, Walton and Broad foundations see their grants as investments, designed to produce measurable results. And though they preach accountability to teachers, they receive relatively little scrutiny themselves – or even much dissent, given the power of their interlocking grants to exclude critics. All that money buys a lot of silence, Ravitch says, not to mention admiring friends. The Teach for America program, with its youthful cadre of 24,000 veterans, in one of the fruits of philanthrocapitalism; the Race to the Top is another.

These are investments, not donations. Here is more recent information on "philanthrocapitalism". There is a new article titled “Michael Green interview. On Philanthrocapitalism, Thatcher and why globalisation is a good thing.” One has to be careful when there is expansion of US rich lists for national power with national support. It benefits very few people, certainly not the public at large.

Watch who’s working with Gates (the clique of rich families shows up again):

Napa Valley Community Foundation has published the results of a confidential donor survey conducted by the Center for Effective Philanthropy, an independent nonprofit research organization that provides assessment and analysis tools to clients like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

Here is more evidence of the Gates Foundation taking control of education. It’s just days old and it’s critical:

Education conversation and the Gates Foundation

[...]

Meanwhile, Professors, Learned Societies & commercial schools, and some painfully self-serving non-profit foundations and Universities never even address the need for solid pedagogic content. The current crop of in-charge “Leaders” dangerously resembles the Investment Bankers who remain in charge of the economic systems that they nearly bankrupted. A leveraged operation like a major newspaper, teacher organization or more ideally the US Department of Education should hold an ongoing “convention” of the nation’s leading educators to consider and endorse a covenant of principles and more importantly prescriptive practices. This should be done on a website that transparently allows entries to be challenged, tweaked and further specified for different age-grade-situational conditions. Sadly there is no free market in which monitored packaged bids & buys help to identify the best ideas and practices (Sound familiar?).

The Gates Foundation also wants to control public libraries, as we demonstrated in older posts. A bunch of self-serving ‘studies’ is how it’s done. Don’t publications see the conflicts of interest? It’s not as though these studies are independent.

The study was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Institute of Museum and Library Services.

Thanks to an excellent Web site that we never saw before (it’s partly in French), we are beginning to see more evidence supporting Gates’ vision of ‘DRM’ (in the scarcity sense) in books. And to make matters worse, watch how the Gates Foundation impedes criticism:

Bill Gates Foundation: no link without permission, and the 10 issues

According to the Terms of Use of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Web site [1] concerning “Your Links to Our Site” (point #11) :

You are not permitted to link or shortcut to our Site from your Web site, blog or similar application, without obtaining prior written permission from us. (source: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/Pages/terms-of-use.aspx, link created)

Pamela Jones wrote about it: “Bill Gates never did grok the Internet, which, when you think about it, has value *only* because people link to each other, but look at this section:

Much of the Content on the Site is not available for downloading, such as our copyrighted works that we do not distribute or works of others that we are not permitted to distribute. However, we also have a significant amount of Content that we have designated as Content that may be downloaded by you pursuant to these Terms (“Available Content”). YOU MAY REVIEW, DOWNLOAD, COPY, DISTRIBUTE AND USE THE AVAILABLE CONTENT SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF FURTHERING YOUR MISSION IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF YOUR GOVERNMENTAL OR CHARITABLE PURPOSE AND ATTENDANT OPERATIONS. YOU MAY NOT SELL THE AVAILABLE CONTENT OR OTHERWISE DISTRIBUTE IT FOR A FEE. YOU WILL NOT USE OR DISCLOSE IT OR THE SITE TO ANY THIRD PARTIES EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY PERMITTED BY THESE TERMS.

“Now, I’m a paralegal, and I have no idea which is which. What can I download and what can’t I? And is there no fair use in Gatesland? And did I read this correctly, that we can’t disclose the site to third parties? I guess I’m breaking their law then, by telling you about this. Happily, I am a US citizen, and I get to rely on the laws of my country, not the edicts of Gates or his foundation. But if I was glad before that Gates was unable to capture the Internet, think of my enhanced joy on reading these terms of us. If the entire Internet was like this, I’d stop it and get off. This is how his Internet would look, I suppose, and if you read the terms carefully, it’s all rights to them (they get to use and distribute your words, I notice, without you getting to delineate what you do or don’t want them to use) and none to you other than what they specifically grant. Formats-Ouverts links to Tim Berners-Lee on linking and free speech: “The ability to refer to a document (or a person or any thing else) is in general a fundamental right of free speech to the same extent that speech is free. Making the reference with a hypertext link is more efficient but changes nothing else.””

Glyn Moody writes:

Does the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Get the Web?

[...]

Bill Gates’s decision to move away from day-to-day running of Microsoft was doubly shrewd. First, because it allowed him to leave when his company was at its apogee, and to avoid association with its current – inevitable – decline (notice how the meme that Microsoft is irrelevant is becoming widespread?) And secondly, it enabled him to help Microsoft extend its reach – especially in developing countries – by other means, while earning plaudits for his charitable work.

Unpicking the complex weft and weave of philanthropy and self-interest at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation would require an entire book (and no, don’t worry, I won’t be writing it). Rather than plunging into that maelstrom, I wanted to pick up an extraordinary aspect of the Foundation’s site, spotted by Thierry Stoehr.

It’s rather telling that the Terms of Use for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation run to no less than *seven* pages when printed out (who knew that using the Web was such a complicated and risky operation?).

Wildeboer from Red Hat puts it another way: “with linux you are not allowed to interact with Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Win/Mac only”

As usual, the Gates Foundation is trying to control the message with its massive PR teams. Here are the latest prominent examples of PR in the big press, ranging from glorification/PR for Melinda to CNN PR (Larry King) that acts as book promotion for Bill and his father. We saw that last year as well.

Microsoft boosters are all over this, not to mentioned the mainstream/trade press [1, 2, 3], which goes well beyond that to glorify Bill Gates [1, 2].

Bill’s known problems of megalomania are being brought up again:

Bill Gates and his dad, Bill Gates Sr., admitted to a soldout audience Wednesday night that the future founder of Microsoft was such a discipline problem as a young teen that he and his parents went into family therapy for two years.

That’s right. Bill has always been a problematic person. The late Ed Roberts, Gates’ employer at MITS in the early days of the PC, said that Bill Gates “acted like a spoiled kid, which is what he was.” He still is. This PR exercise is just part of his character; it’s glorification as opposed to truism. Here in the UK Gates has just scored another self-glorifying piece.

But it is not just the corridors of power that Gates is attempting to influence. Three weeks ago, in India, he was involved in a round-table discussion with “all the big banks, the big cellphone companies and the regulators” to try to reach an agreement on delivering mobile phone banking to India’s poorest.

And in the US there is USA Today to glorify Gates (with responses in other self-serving outlets).

Reuters covered this public appearance of the Gates family, summarising it as: “Bill Gates Sr says wealth is ‘not having to worry’” (easy for him to say).

It is not the first time that we see this pair, namely Bill Gates working together with his father, whose role in monopolisation and lobbying we routinely show here (more recently when it comes to tax evasion). The public is a lot more complacent and calm if the oppressor is portrayed as a national hero to be revered.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

What Else is New


  1. IP Kat is Lobbying Heavily for the UPC, Courtesy of Team UPC

    When does an IP (or patent) blog become little more than an aggregation of interest groups and self-serving patent law firms, whose agenda overlaps that of Team Battistelli?



  2. Leaked: Conclusions of the Secretive EPO Board 28 Meeting (8th of September 2016)

    The agenda and outcome of the secretive meeting of the Board of the Administrative Council of the EPO



  3. Letter From the Dutch Institute of Patent Attorneys (Nederlandse Orde van Octrooigemachtigden) to the Administrative Council of the EPO

    The Netherlands Institute of Patent Attorneys, a group representing a large number of Dutch patent practitioners, is against Benoît Battistelli and his horrible behaviour at the European Patent Office (EPO)



  4. EPO's Board 28 Notes Battistelli's “Three Current Investigations/Disciplinary Proceedings Involving SUEPO Members in The Hague."

    The attack on SUEPO (EPO staff representatives) at The Hague appears to have been silently expanded to a third person, showing an obvious increase in Battistelli's attacks on truth-tellers



  5. Links 28/9/2016: Alpine Linux 3.4.4, Endless OS 3.0

    Links for the day



  6. Cementing Autocracy: The European Patent Office Against Democracy, Against Media, and Against the Rule of Law

    The European Patent Office (EPO) actively undermines democracy in Europe, it undermines the freedom of the press (by paying it for puff pieces), and it undermines the rule of law by giving one single tyrant total power in Eponia and immunity from outside Eponia (even when he breaks his own rules)



  7. Links 28/9/2016: New Red Hat Offices, Fedora 25 'Frozen'

    Links for the day



  8. Team Battistelli Intensifies the Attack on the Boards of Appeal Again

    The lawless state of the EPO, where the rule of law is basically reducible to Battistelli's ego and insecurities, is again demonstrated with an escalation and perhaps another fake 'trial' in the making (after guilt repeatedly fails to be established)



  9. After the EPO Paid the Financial Times to Produce Propaganda the Newspaper Continues to Produce UPC Puff Pieces, Just Ahead of EU Council Meeting

    How the media, including the Financial Times, has been used (and even paid!) by the EPO in exchange for self-serving (to the EPO) messages and articles



  10. Beware the Patent Law Firms Insinuating That Software Patents Are Back Because of McRO

    By repeatedly claiming (and then generalising) that CAFC accepted a software patent the patent microcosm (meta-industry) hopes to convince us that we should continue to pursue software patents in the US, i.e. pay them a lot more money for something of little/no value



  11. The US Supreme Court Might Soon Tighten Patent Scope in the United States Even Further, the USPTO Produces Patent Maximalism Propaganda

    A struggle brewing between the patent 'industry' (profiting from irrational saturation) and the highest US court, as well as the Government Accountability Office (GAO)



  12. Patent Trolling a Growing Problem in East Asia (Software Patents Also), Whereas in the US the Problem Goes Away Along With Software Patents

    A look at two contrasting stories, one in Asia where patent litigation and hype are on the rise (same in Europe due to the EPO) and another in the US where a lot of patents face growing uncertainty and a high invalidation rate



  13. The EPO's Continued Push for Software Patents, Marginalisation of Appeals (Reassessment), and Deviation From the EPC

    A roundup of new developments at the EPO, where things further exacerbate and patent quality continues its downward spiral



  14. The Battistelli Effect: “We Will be Gradually Forced to File Our Patent Applications Outside the EPO in the Interests of Our Clients”

    While the EPO dusts off old files and grants in haste without quality control (won't be sustainable for more than a couple more years) the applicants are moving away as trust in the EPO erodes rapidly and profoundly



  15. Links 27/9/2016: Lenovo Layoffs, OPNFV Third Software Release

    Links for the day



  16. The Moral Depravity of the European Patent Office Under Battistelli

    The European Patent Office (EPO) comes under heavy criticism from its very own employees, who also seem to recognise that lobbying for the UPC is a very bad idea which discredits the European Patent Organisation



  17. Links 26/9/2016: Linux 4.8 RC8, SuperTux 0.5

    Links for the day



  18. What Insiders Are Saying About the Sad State of the European Patent Office (EPO)

    Anonymous claims made by people who are intimately familiar with the European Patent Office (from the inside) shed light on how bad things have become



  19. The EPO Does Not Want Skilled (and 'Expensive') Staff, Layoffs a Growing Concern

    A somewhat pessimistic look (albeit increasingly realistic look) at the European Patent Office, where unions are under fire for raising legitimate concerns about the direction taken by the management since a largely French team was put in charge



  20. Patents Roundup: Accenture Software Patents, Patent Troll Against Apple, Willful Infringements, and Apple Against a Software Patent

    A quick look at various new articles of interest (about software patents) and what can be deduced from them, especially now that software patents are the primary barrier to Free/Libre Open Source software adoption



  21. Software Patents Propped Up by Patent Law Firms That Are Lying, Further Assisted by Rogue Elements Like David Kappos and Randall Rader (Revolving Doors)

    The sheer dishonesty of the patent microcosm (seeking to bring back software patents by misleading the public) and those who are helping this microcosm change the system from the inside, owing to intimate connections from their dubious days inside government



  22. Links 25/9/2016: Linux 4.7.5, 4.4.22; LXQt 0.11

    Links for the day



  23. Patent Quality and Patent Scope the Unspeakable Taboo at the EPO, as Both Are Guillotined by Benoît Battistelli for the Sake of Money

    The gradual destruction of the European Patent Office (EPO), which was once unanimously regarded as the world's best, by a neo-liberal autocrat from France, Benoît Battistelli



  24. Bristows LLP's Hatred/Disdain of UK/EU Democracy Demonstrated; Says “Not Only Will the Pressure for UK Ratification of the UPC Agreement Continue, But a Decision is Wanted Within Weeks.”

    Without even consulting the British public or the European public (both of whom would be severely harmed by the UPC), the flag bearers of the UPC continue to bamboozle and then pressure politicians, public servants and nontechnical representatives



  25. Released Late on a Friday, EPO Social 'Study' (Battistelli-Commissioned Propaganda) Attempts to Blame Staff for Everything

    The longstanding propaganda campaign (framing staff as happy or framing unhappy staff as a disgruntled minority) is out and the timing of the release is suspicious to say the least



  26. Links 23/9/2016: Latest Microsoft and Lenovo Spin (Now in ‘Damage Control’ Mode)

    Links for the day



  27. White Male-Dominated EPO Management Sinks to New Lows, Again

    Benoît Battistelli continues to make the EPO look like Europe's biggest laughing stock by attempting to tackle issues with corny photo ops rather than real change (like SUEPO recognition, diverse hiring, improved patent quality, and cessation of sheer abuses)



  28. Journalism 102: Do Not Become Like 'Managing IP' or IAM 'Magazine' (the Megaphones of the EPO’s Management)

    Another look at convergence between media and the EPO, which is spending virtually millions of Euros literally buying the media and ensuring that the EPO's abuses are scarcely covered (if ever mentioned at all)



  29. Journalism 101: Do Not Believe Anything That Benoît Battistelli and the EPO's Management Say (Also Don't Fall for the UPC Hype)

    A survey/review (or an overview) of recent articles about the EPO and why they're wrong (mostly because they parrot the official lies from Battistelli's department)



  30. Patent Law Firms, David Kappos, and IAM 'Magazine' Still Shelter Software Patents by Cherry-Picking and Lobbying

    Amid the gradual collapse of software patents in the United States there are disingenuous efforts to bring them back or maintain a perception that these patents are still potent


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts