Monday, June 30, 2014

A Grieving Father Pulls a Thread That Unravels Illegal Bank Deals

Sometimes our legal system manages to go after rich and powerful wrongdoers.  Unfortunately, this seems to require horrific crimes and years of waiting.  This is the story of Stephen Flatow, a man who was determined to wring some justice out of the system.

A Grieving Father Pulls a Thread That Unravels Illegal Bank Deals

Stephen Flatow of West Orange, N.J., accused Iran of financing the terrorist group responsible for the suicide bombing that killed his daughter, Alisa, in 1995.

A bus bombing two decades ago — and a New Jersey father’s quest for justice — inadvertently set off a chain of events that led American prosecutors to accuse some of the world’s biggest banks of transferring money for nations like Iran.
On Monday, that crackdown culminated with the guilty plea of BNP Paribas, which admitted to doing billions of dollars in deals with Iran and other countries blacklisted by the United States and agreed to pay a record $8.9 billion penalty to state and federal authorities.
The trail that ultimately led to BNP began in 2006, when the Manhattan district attorney’s office came upon a lawsuit filed by the father, who blamed Iran for financing the Gaza bus bombing that killed his 20-year-old daughter. Buried in the court filings, prosecutors found a stunning accusation: a charity that owned a gleaming office tower on Fifth Avenue was actually a “front” for the Iranian government, a claim that the prosecutors ultimately verified.
The prosecutors soon discovered that Credit Suisse and Lloyds, two of the world’s most prestigious banks, had acted as Iran’s portal to the United States financial system. To disguise the illicit transactions — the United States is closed for business to Iran — Credit Suisse and Lloyds stripped out the Iranian clients’ names from wire transfers to the Fifth Avenue charity and affiliated entities. The findings led the Manhattan prosecutors and the Justice Department in Washington to announce criminal cases against both banks.
As those cases were coming to light in 2009, a whistle-blower stepped forward to point the finger at BNP, France’s biggest bank. That tip has now materialized in a landmark criminal settlement, with BNP pleading guilty to criminal charges, capping a sweeping investigation into how the bank processed billions of dollars on behalf of Sudan and Iran.
The twists and turns leading to the BNP case — a series of whistle-blower tips and fortuitous discoveries recounted in interviews with current and former prosecutors — open a window into the interconnected yet shadowy world of global finance...

Friday, June 27, 2014

Death by University? A young man was hounded to death for downloading academic journals

Watch This Film About Why Aaron Swartz Matters More Than Ever



Aaron Swartz was a young, bright genius who believed in the open Internet. A self-made millionaire by the age of 19, he co-founded Reddit, was part of the creation of RSS and became a political organizer and Internet hacktivist who was instrumental in the fight against SOPA.
The Internet’s Own Boy, a film first released at Sundance and now opening to the public today, follows the story of his life and his tragic suicide in 2013 at the age of 26.
Swartz had been in a two-year legal battle for using MIT’s network to systematically download 4.8 million academic journal articles from JSTOR. He was facing $1 million in fines and 35 years in prison. As Boing Boing’s Cory Doctorow put it, Swartz was being prosecuted for “taking too many books out of the library.”
Film director Brian Knappenberger, who crowdfunded the film on Kickstarter, believes this movie is more than just about Swartz’s life, tragic though it was. He says it’s a commentary on the system, the Internet and the challenges we as a society face to keep it free.
“Aaron’s rallying the troops against SOPA. He’s talking to a lot of people and on TV, but at the same time he’s going through his own private hell, taking away his personal freedom, his own money. The prosecutor put all this pressure on him and he couldn’t even talk about that and it was really isolating,”
Knappenberger, who previously wrote and directed “We Are Legion,” a film about hacktivism, happened to be on a panel with Wired reporter Quinn Norton about a week after Swartz’s death. Norton had just written an in-depth account about the federal investigation into Swartz.
“I began to notice this anger in the industry that was welling up from the net,” Knappenberger told me over the phone. Though he included a lot of moving parts in the story (Swartz was involved in quite a bit), Knappenberger said it was so striking to him that what had happened to Swartz was not uncommon in our criminal justice system.
The story of Aaron Swartz is not just about being an activist caught up in the legal system. It’s a fight between government and hacktivism. It’s about exploring new territory and protecting freedom for us all. As Knappenberger put it, “[Swartz] symbolizes a kind of choice. He is the Internet’s own boy.”
The film opens in theaters across the country and online today.
You can also sign the petition to counter federal attorney misconduct. Tell the Department of Justice #NoMoreAarons by clicking here.

Sunday, June 22, 2014

Sweetwater probe nets first jail sentence; Former Sweetwater board member gets 45 days

See all posts re South Bay Indictments.

Sweetwater probe nets first jail sentence
Former Sweetwater board member gets 45 days
By Greg Moran
San Diego Union-Tribune
June 20, 2014

Gregory Sandoval, a former Sweetwater schools trustee, on Friday became the first defendant in the South County schools corruption probe to be sentenced to jail for accepting fancy meals and other gifts from contractors seeking business with the district.
Sandoval, who is also a former administrator at Southwestern College, pleaded guilty in April to a felony conspiracy charge and a misdemeanor charge of failing to report gifts he received from school construction executives on required disclosure forms in 2008.
Superior Court Judge Ana Espana sentenced Sandoval to six months in custody. She ordered him to serve 45 days of that in jail, and serve the remaining 135 days on home detention.
He was also fined $7,995, ordered to perform 120 hours of community service and put on probation for three years.
Espana denied a request from Sandoval’s lawyer to reduce the felony to a lesser misdemeanor. She also ordered him into jail custody immediately, to begin his sentence.
Sandoval, 60, is one of 18 trustees, school officials and contractors who were charged in an expansive probe into the cozy relationships between school officials and the contractors angling for work funded by voter-approved bond programs.
The investigation focused on Sweetwater Union High School District but also included officials from Southwestern College and the San Ysidro School District.
Most have pleaded guilty and received sentences of probation or home detention, as well as fines and community service work.
But prosecutors with the San Diego County District Attorney’s office said that Sandoval was one of more corrupt of the defendants, receiving lots of gifts and meals.
For example Jaime Ortiz, a construction management executive with the firm SGI that was involved in the construction work, testified in front of a grand jury empaneled for the case that Sandoval demands for dinners and being treated to other social events was “constant.”
One time Ortiz said Sandoval called him when Ortiz was in SGI offices in Los Angeles and said he wanted to meet. He said he wanted to go to a luau at a Pacific Beach hotel that evening. Ortiz boarded a plane for the short flight then paid for the dinners for himself, his wife and Sandoval and his wife.
Sandoval was initially indicted on 29 charges including bribery and perjury. He ended up admitting in his plea deal to accepting $2,770 in gifts from another contractor, Henry Amigable, and not reporting those gifts on his state-mandated economic disclosure forms.
Jeremy Warren, one of his lawyers, said in court papers that Sandoval accepted responsibility for his acts. He said at the time of the wining and dining Sandoval recently had lost his job at the college in the wake of sexual harassment accusation that he was later cleared of, but he remained a Sweetwater trustee. Warren said he was at a low point in his life when he began being courted by Amigable and others.
In 2010 Sandoval got a new job as an administrator at Moreno Valley College, but resigned from that $151,811 job after his guilty plea in April.

Friday, June 20, 2014

Dear Google Blogger: Please quit sabotaging this blog; the public has a right to know about decision of the California Court of Appeal

Click HERE to see complete article.

Also see the post that was sabotaged on June 20, 2014.

All links and labels disappeared from the right column of the home page of this blog:


Where did they go?  To the very bottom of the page! I don't think Google really wants to harm this blog; it probably got one of the "take-down" requests that have become so common. But who could have sent the request? Perhaps it was someone in the office ofMichael Roddy, chief executive of the San Diego Superior Court. He has approved some strange antics at the Court involving this case.

Dear Google Blogger: Please quit sabotaging this blog; public has right to know about decision of California Court of Appeal

See the post that was sabotaged on June 20, 2014.

Dear Google legal department:
You sabotaged, within the past couple of hours, a completely legitimate post.

I assume that someone has asked you to enforce Judge Judith Hayes' injunction, but it seems that you don't understand exactly what the injunction is. Here it is:

"... injunction enjoining and restraining Defendant from continuing to publish or republishing by any method or media, including but not limited to all electronic data, websites and web pages, the defamatory statements alleged in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint pertaining to Plaintiff and any of its lawyers past or present, and future publication of statements with regard to Plaintiff and its lawyers accusing illegal conduct or violation of law, unethical conduct, lack of professional competence or intimidation…”

This injunction was issued after the court granted a summary adjudication without weighing any evidence.  Does Google want to conceal the actions of the court from the American public?

Clearly, I did not violate this injunction in the post (see below) that you have sabotaged. In fact, I have erased over 400 posts about Stutz law firm.  Why isn't that enough for Google and the people who are asking your legal department to censor my blog.

But you seem to want to prevent me from mentioning anything about the case just decided by the California Court of Appeal.

Shame on you. Why are you doing this? The post does NOT contain any statement "accusing illegal conduct or violation of law, unethical conduct, lack of professional competence or intimidation" on the part of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz law firm.



Here is the post:

The Court of Appeal issued a decision yesterday in the Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz v. Maura Larkins defamation case.  It upheld the anti-free speech injunction and default entered by Judge Judith Hayes against me in San Diego Superior Court.



Judge Hayes' 2009 injunction in this case was ruled unconstitutional.
So what was different this time?


The only area in which I prevailed in my appeal of was getting the $10,000 punitive damages award thrown out.  The Court didn't have much choice about this.  The plaintiff had provided no evidence of my ability to pay.

So, obviously, since the Court of Appeal conclude that my appeal of the unwarranted imposition of punitive sanctions was worthy, there's no way the Court would have ordered me to pay Stutz' costs, right?

Wrong.

The court has revealed its thinking very clearly in its decision to order me to pay Stutz' costs.  The Court apparently feels strongly that blogs like mine that criticize trial courts and attorneys should be silenced. Even though I prevailed in part, the Court ordered me to bear costs!

It's odd--and interesting.  The Court appears to be sending a warning to all bloggers who might want to inform the public about the tactics of public entity lawyers--and the judges who go beyond the law to defend them. In fact, the Court of Appeal ruled in 2011 that Judge Judge Hayes had violated the Constitution.
 

I can't entirely blame the Court of Appeal for taking the side of the big law firm.   I should have filed more and better oppositions, and earlier and better appeals.

And I should have had a lawyer.  Not just any lawyer, but one who holds a position of respect in the community of judges and lawyers.

 In this same case, the Court of Appeal threw out a different injunction of Judge Hayes as unconstitutional.  Professor Shaun Martin represented me in that appeal.  I wrote the Opening Brief, but I have the feeling that the Court might have ruled differently if Mr. Martin hadn't written the Reply and given the oral arguments.

Also, it probably wouldn't have hurt if I had done a fundraiser for one of the judges running in the recent election.  One of the partners of Stutz law firm did that.  I imagine I didn't earn any Brownie points from the Court by publicly pointing out the questionable behavior of Superior Court Judge Judith Hayes.

THE FUTURE

I've erased about four hundred posts from this blog today, and I'll do more erasing as soon as I can.  Many of the posts I erased contained only a tangential reference to Stutz law firm.  When I have time, I'll find those posts and erase the names of Stutz and/or its lawyers, and republish the post.

It's kind of a good feeling to take these names off my blog.  I feel free, light, unburdened.   I think I'm going to enjoy not thinking about the lawyers at Stutz.

Google sabotaged my blog by making all the links and labels disappear from the right-hand column.

MORE GOOGLE SABOTAGE

Google sabotaged the above post by adding the following to the html code (actually, Google added about TWELVE times this much garbage, but this is enough to give the idea:

/WS/uy4bGScgnj8KAOg0fdueTrgFc4wcZr0rQBIunx44JbgZ5615fZS+XGsKj5iQwb254r1DRRsso2zvJUc9KAPVdOLPZxMoBUAZ4rWX7orC0VmfT4xkAlOwz+VbkYxEo5/GgBHRWBz696rJlBtiJZc9d2KtsAM56elVnjCSMPK3ZORQB5PryZ+JGtY2j/RLcjI9iKcVdNgXIDHOMdqXxIoHxP1Ac5bT7difTBYflUs67ZSADhcAHjn8KAKpVhCwztDcDIyQSetR7WKjBzjjdjHSr/kZEaZGcgk+/0qOeALaAuEDBePcmgDPmlfy97BWIw2D64H6VtqwMcb5YsMfMRjmsy4tiIWGFYbemDz/9ar+ngy2wBZMDkAf59qAL9oHcJ8xYqCvLdCK5m9sEttfllwD5/wAw2nncR/8AWrsbOIM4QBd3fsapa1ahNt0F5U9gOtAGfa+bCuRuIPtgGrk9gmqRAj91IFJ9MH2/KrNjCtxlXBwCO/XipJLRosOp+XbnnjmgDnmsLqxt/LmiLlSfmAPPp+NVCecjOBzuz3xXaQX5SEQugdc5O4dqlm0jRNTZfk8mXYc+VlQe340AcMk82WJ+VlPTsRx/jVk3bMhjViOeMHpVyXwTeKbiW11VmU8qssYYKPTI56ism88P+JYbVXt3s5eSBvBTj680AaEM5U4duoyevX3



Also, Google has made my post titles very faint, and taken away my ability to fix the problem using the advanced customization for my template.



Google has moved my labels on my home page to the very bottom of the page--below all the posts!  Who would know to look there for the labels?


Hey, Google. This isn't Europe. We have the First Amendment here. Update: All links and labels disappeared from the right column of the home page of this blog:


Where did they go?  To the very bottom of the page! I don't think Google really wants to harm this blog; it probably got one of the "take-down" requests that have become so common. But who could have sent the request? Perhaps it was someone in the office ofMichael Roddy, chief executive of the San Diego Superior Court. He has approved some strange antics at the Court involving this case.

UCLA chemistry professor avoids prison time in fatal lab fire case

Academic culture seems to be the problem here. University of California and other highbrow institutions think that only the brilliance of top minds matters, not the everyday concern for the basic needs of little people.

See all posts re UCLA Professor Patrick Harran and Sheri Sangji death.

UCLA chemistry professor avoids prison time in fatal lab fire case
Deal with prosecutors all but frees Patrick Harran from criminal liability in a 2008 laboratory fire that killed staff research assistant Sheharbano "Sheri" Sangji.
Kim Christensen
Los Angeles Times
June 20, 2014

UCLA chemistry professor Patrick Harran on Friday struck a deal with prosecutors that all but frees him from criminal liability in a 2008 laboratory fire that killed staff research assistant Sheharbano “Sheri” Sangji.
Harran, charged with four felony counts of willfully violating state occupational health and safety standards, had faced up to 4-1/2 years in prison if convicted.
Instead, under an agreement approved by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge George Lomeli, Harran, 44, was ordered to pay $10,000 to the Grossman Burn Center and to perform 800 hours of community service.
Harran admitted no wrongdoing in what is thought to be the first criminal case arising in an academic lab accident. The charges will be dropped if he successfully fulfills the terms of the agreement.
Sangji, 23, was not wearing a protective lab coat and suffered severe burns on Dec. 29, 2008, when a plastic syringe she was using to transfer t-butyl lithium from one sealed container to another came apart, spewing a chemical compound that ignites when exposed to air. She died 18 days later.

Thursday, June 19, 2014

Stutz v. Larkins defamation case: why did Court of Appeal allow Judge Judith Hayes' anti-free speech injunction?

The Court of Appeal issued a decision yesterday in the Stutz Artiano Shinoff and Holtz v. Maura Larkins defamation case. It upheld the anti-free speech injunction and default entered by Judge Judith Hayes against me in San Diego Superior Court.

Judge Hayes' 2009 injunction in this case was ruled unconstitutional.
So what was different this time?

The only area in which I prevailed in my appeal of was getting the $10,000 punitive damages award thrown out. The Court didn't have much choice about this.  The plaintiff had provided no evidence of my ability to pay.

So, obviously, since the Court of Appeal conclude that my appeal of the unwarranted imposition of punitive sanctions was worthy, there's no way the Court would have ordered me to pay Stutz' costs, right?

Wrong.

WHO PAYS COSTS?

The court has revealed its thinking very clearly in its odd decision to order me to pay Stutz' costs. For perspective, note that the Court of Appeal did NOT order Stutz to pay my costs when I completely prevailed in my request to have Judge Judith Hayes' outrageously unconstitutional December 11, 2009 injunction modification thrown out. Such an order would clearly have been in the interests of justice since one way in which powerful organizations escape legal responsibility is by bankrupting those who challenge them.

The Court apparently feels strongly that blogs like mine that criticize trial courts and attorneys should be silenced.  Even though I prevailed in part, the Court ordered me to bear costs!

It's odd--and interesting.  The Court appears to be sending a warning to all bloggers who might want to inform the public about the tactics of public entity lawyers--and the judges who go beyond the law to defend them. In fact, the Court of Appeal ruled in 2011 that Judge Judge Hayes had violated the Constitution.

Another odd thing about the decision is that it wasn't sent back to the Superior Court with the direction to issue a new judgment that did not include punitive damages.  Instead, the Court of Appeal modified the decision, and then affirmed its own modification.  I never heard of such a thing before.  It seems that the Court of Appeal didn't want to let Judge Hayes get her hands on the case again for even a brief time.  It seems that the Court of Appeal doesn't trust Judge Hayes.

I can't entirely blame the Court of Appeal for taking the side of the big law firm and the wayward judge.   I wasn't a good lawyer--because I'm not a lawyer at all.  If I had filed more and better oppositions, and earlier and better appeals, I believe the Court of Appeal might have found in my favor.

I should have had a lawyer, but I didn't have the money.  I needed not just any lawyer, but one who held a position of respect in the community of judges and lawyers.

 In this same case, the Court of Appeal threw out a different injunction of Judge Hayes as unconstitutional.  Professor Shaun Martin represented me in that appeal.  I wrote the Opening Brief, but I have the feeling that the Court might have ruled differently if Mr. Martin hadn't written the Reply and given the oral arguments.

Also, it probably didn't hurt that Stutz law firm has lots of political connections.  One partner held a fundraiser for one of the Superior Court judges running in the recent election.

I imagine I didn't earn any Brownie points from the Court by writing about the actions of Superior Court Judge Judith Hayes.

A STRANGE CASE

This case is strange in that there was no weighing of evidence to determine that I had committed defamation.  The judge simply threw out my opposition and all my evidence and granted a summary adjudication to Stutz law firm.

Then the judge proceeded to behave as if there had been an actual finding of defamation, rather than a decision based on a technicality.

The summary adjudication should have been followed by a jury trial for damages.  But my requests for that jury trial were ignored or denied and a default was contrived and damages of over $30,000 were granted based on two--yes, you read that correctly: TWO--internet searches for Stutz law firm.  Those two searches might have been done by Stutz law firm itself, but they translated into $30,000 in "nominal" damages.

THE FUTURE

I've erased about four hundred posts from this blog today, and I'll do more erasing as soon as I can.  Many of the posts I erased contained only a tangential reference to Stutz law firm.  When I have time, I'll find those posts and erase the names of Stutz and/or its lawyers, and republish the post.

It's kind of a good feeling to take these names off my blog.  I feel free, light, unburdened.   I think I'm going to enjoy not thinking about the lawyers at Stutz.


Saturday, June 14, 2014

The guesstimate that struck down California’s teacher tenure laws

Fuzzy Math

The guesstimate that struck down California’s teacher tenure laws.
By Jordan Weissmann
Slate
June 2014

This week Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Rolf Treu handed the education reform movement a stunning legal victory, when he struck down California’s teacher tenure laws for discriminating against poor and minority students. The statutes made it so onerous to fire bad teachers, he wrote, that they all but guaranteed needy kids would be stuck in classrooms with incompetent instructors—rendering the laws unconstitutional.
As evidence, Treu cited a statistic that sounded damning: According to a state witness, between 1 and 3 percent of California’s teachers could be considered “grossly ineffective.” Here was the passage:
There is also no dispute that there are a significant number of grossly ineffective teachers currently active in California classrooms. Dr. Berliner, an expert called by State Defendants, testified that 1 to 3% of teachers in California are grossly ineffective. Given that that the evidence showed roughly 275,000 active teachers in this state, the extrapolated number of grossly ineffective teachers ranges from 2,750 to 8,250. Considering the effect of grossly ineffective teachers on students … it therefore cannot be gainsaid that the number of grossly ineffective teachers has a direct, real, appreciable, and negative impact on a significant number of California students, now and well into the future for as long as said teachers hold their positions.
This seemed like a fairly important piece of the decision—if you’re going to argue in court that a state law is dooming children to second-rate educations, you ought to be able to quantify the problem. Politically, it also seemed liked a pretty awful indictment of the state government if officials knew for certain that so many useless teachers were lounging around California’s classrooms. But where did this number come from?
Nowhere, it turns out. It’s made up. Or a “guesstimate,” as David Berliner, the expert witness Treu quoted, explained to me when I called him on Wednesday. It’s not based on any specific data, or any rigorous research about California schools in particular. “I pulled that out of the air,” says Berliner, an emeritus professor of education at Arizona State University. “There’s no data on that. That’s just a ballpark estimate, based on my visiting lots and lots of classrooms.” He also never used the words “grossly ineffective.”

The phrase appears to have been Treu’s shorthand to describe teachers whose students consistently perform poorly on standardized tests. But Berliner is a well-known critic of using student test scores—or “value-added models,” in the parlance of education experts—to measure teaching skills. In part, that’s because research suggests that teachers don’t really control much of how their pupils perform on exams; according to the American Statistical Association, they influence anywhere between 1 percent and 14 percent of the variation in students’ scores. As result, teachers often don’t deliver the same results year after year.
Still, if you look at enough data, there are always a few teachers who consistently underperform on test results. “There’s an occasional teacher who shows up really good a few years in a row,” Berliner said. “There are a few who show up really bad.” And that’s where the now-infamous statistic comes in. During a deposition, Berliner told me, the plaintiffs’ lawyers asked how many teachers deliver low test scores year after year. He didn’t have a hard number, so he said 1 percent to 3 percent, which he thought sounded suitably small. That led to the following exchange with a plaintiffs’ lawyer during cross-examination. (Berliner emailed me part of the transcript.)
Lawyer: Dr. Berliner, over four years value-added models should be able to identify the very good teachers, right?
Berliner: They should.
Lawyer: And over four years value-added models should be able to identify the very bad teachers, right?
Berliner: They should.
Lawyer: That is because there is a small percentage of teachers who consistently have strong negative effects on student outcomes no matter what classroom and school compositions they deal with, right?
Berliner: That appears to be the case.
Lawyer: And it would be reasonable to estimate that 1 to 3 percent of teachers fall in that category, right?
Berliner: Correct.
Berliner seems to have let something important get lost in translation on the stand. Because, as he said to me, he doesn’t necessarily believe that low test scores qualify somebody as a bad teacher. They might do other things well in the classroom that don’t show up on an exam, like teach social skills, or inspire their students to love reading or math. And while he has observed teachers he didn’t particularly like, or thought could use more training, he’s never encountered one he would consider “grossly ineffective.”
“In hundreds of classrooms, I have never seen a ‘grossly ineffective’ teacher,” he told me. “I don’t know anybody who knows what that means.”


I asked Stuart Biegel, a law professor and education expert at UCLA, whether he thought that the odd origins of the 1–3 percent figure might undermine Treu’s decision on appeal. Biegel, who represented the winning plaintiffs in one of the key cases Treu cited, said it might. But he thought that the decision’s “poor legal reasoning” and “shaky policy analysis” would be bigger problems. “If 97 to 99 percent of California teachers are effective, you don’t take away basic, hard-won rights from everybody. You focus on strengthening the process for addressing the teachers who are not effective, through strong professional development programs, and, if necessary, a procedure that makes it easier to let go of ineffective teachers,” he wrote to me in an email.
To me, the tale of this particular statistic is a good example of why the education reform battle doesn’t really belong in the courts, at least not yet. We haven’t come to an accord on what makes a “good” or “bad” teacher, or how many of either are out there—even if one judge is convinced we have.

Friday, June 13, 2014

Greg Sandoval resigns as VP for Moreno Valley College after conviction regarding Southwestern Community college



Greg Sandoval, the Moreno Valley College vice president of student services, has resigned after his conviction in San Diego County for his role in a massive public corruption scandal.
The Riverside Community College District did not publicly announce Sandoval’s resignation from his $151,811 a year job when it happened April 22
Sandoval, 60, pleaded guilty April 4 to one felony count of conspiracy to commit a crime and one misdemeanor count of failing to report gifts received as required by state law. He faces up to three years’ imprisonment when he is sentenced June 20.

The district attorney filed
29 felony charges against Sandoval in a case stemming from his time as a member of the board of trustees in the Sweetwater Union High School District in Chula Vista from 1994 to 2010. He was one of 15 defendants in a case involving gifts from contractors and votes that awarded those contractors multimillion-dollar projects.

He was charged with conspiracy, receiving bribes, conflict of interest, using a public position for financial gain, filing a false instrument, perjury on the forms public officials use to report gifts, and receiving gifts with a total value in excess of allowed limits…

http://blog.pe.com/education/2014/05/23/moreno-valley-college-vp-resigns-after-corruption-conviction/#

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Tenure for teachers defeated in Vergara v. California; New mandate for CTA: start protecting good teachers

A California judge has found teacher tenure laws to be unconstitutional.

Let's hope that the California Teachers Association will now stop blocking efforts of reformers to effectively evaluate teachers.  Up until now, CTA has protected ineffective and mediocre teachers, but it looks like CTA is going to have to redirect its energies.

The current system of principal evaluations is a joke, but not a funny one. It is based more on politics than on observation and documentation. It has benefited teachers who are good at school politics even though they might be complete disasters in the classroom.  CTA has supported the current evaluation system because CTA is a master of school politics.

Oddly, we don't often hear demands from good teachers for an effective, objective evaluation system. It seems that good teachers are similar to bad teachers in one respect: they are equally loath to give up the very human institution of school politics. And of course, administrators also like the politics. They're not anxious to have impartial observers come in and evaluate teachers, either.

I am hoping that things will change now, at least for the teachers union. The only reasonable course of action for CTA to pursue now is to start protecting good teachers by helping to design an accurate, unbiased teacher evaluation system (since it looks like CTA will no longer be able to protect bad teachers).

we should institute effective evaluations before we get rid of tenure.  But I suspect that the decision handed down by a Los Angeles judge today (see story below) was probably neede I have said recently thatd
See also: Vergara v. California: the Case That Could Blow Up Teacher Tenure (But who cares? Without a good teacher evaluation system, it won't make much difference.)


to jump start reform.  CTA has made it pretty clear that it was not interested in allowing any real reform of any kind.
Calif. court rules teacher tenure creates unequal conditions
By Lyndsey Layton
Washington Post
June 10, 2014

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A judge struck down tenure and other job protections for California's public school teachers as unconstitutional Tuesday, saying such laws harm students — especially poor and minority ones — by saddling them with bad teachers who are almost impossible to fire.

In a landmark decision that could influence the gathering debate over tenure across the country, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Rolf Treu cited the historic case of Brown v. Board of Education in ruling that students have a fundamental right to equal education.

Siding with the nine students who brought the lawsuit, he ruled that California's laws on hiring and firing in schools have resulted in "a significant number of grossly ineffective teachers currently active in California classrooms."

He agreed, too, that a disproportionate number of these teachers are in schools that have mostly minority and low-income students.

The judge stayed the ruling pending appeals. The case involves 6 million students from kindergarten through 12th grade.

The California Attorney General's office said it is considering its legal options, while the California Teachers Association, the state's biggest teachers union with 325,000 members, vowed an appeal.

"Circumventing the legislative process to strip teachers of their professional rights hurts our students and our schools," the union said.

Teachers have long argued that tenure prevents administrators from firing teachers on a whim. They contend also that the system preserves academic freedom and helps attract talented teachers to a profession that doesn't pay well.

Other states have been paying close attention to how the case plays out in the nation's most populous state.

"It's powerful," said Theodore Boutrous Jr., the students' attorney. "It's a landmark decision that can change the face of education in California and nationally."
He added: "This is going to be a huge template for what's wrong with education."

In striking down several laws regarding tenure, seniority and other protections, the judge said the evidence at the trial showed the harm inflicted on students by incompetent teachers.

"The evidence is compelling," he said. "Indeed, it shocks the conscience."

The judge cited an expert's finding that a single year with a grossly ineffective teacher costs a classroom full of students $1.4 million in lifetime earnings.

The lawsuit contended that incompetent teachers are so heavily protected by tenure laws that they are almost impossible to fire. The plaintiffs also charged that schools in poor neighborhoods are used as dumping grounds for the bad teachers.

Los Angeles School Superintendent John Deasy testified that it can take over two years on average — and sometimes as long as 10 — to fire an incompetent tenured teacher. The cost of doing so, he said, can run from $250,000 to $450,000.

In his ruling, the judge, a Republican appointee to the bench, said the procedure under the law for firing teachers is "so complex, time-consuming and expensive as to make an effective, efficient yet fair dismissal of a grossly ineffective teacher illusory."

The judge also took issue with laws that say the last-hired teacher must be the first fired when layoffs occur — even if the new teacher is gifted and the veteran is inept.

The judge declined to tell the Legislature exactly how to change the system, but expressed confidence it will do so in a way that passes constitutional muster and provides "each child in this state with a basically equal opportunity to achieve a quality education."

The case was brought by a group of students who said they were stuck with teachers who let classrooms get out of control, came to school unprepared and in some cases told them they'd never make anything of themselves.

"Being a kid, sometimes it's easy to feel like your voice is not heard. Today, I am glad I did not stay quiet," said one of the students, Julia Macias. "I'm glad that with the support of my parents I was able to stand up for my right to a great education."

The lawsuit was backed by wealthy Silicon Valley entrepreneur David Welch's nonprofit group Students Matter, which assembled a high-profile legal team including Boutrous, who successfully fought to overturn California's gay-marriage ban.

Dennis Van Roekel, president of the National Education Association, the nation's biggest teachers union, bitterly criticized the lawsuit as "yet another attempt by millionaires and corporate special interests to undermine the teaching profession" and privatize public education.

U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan hailed the judge's ruling as a chance for schools everywhere to open a conversation on equal opportunity in education.

"The students who brought this lawsuit are, unfortunately, just nine out of millions of young people in America who are disadvantaged by laws, practices and systems that fail to identify and support our best teachers and match them with our neediest students," he said. "Today's court decision is a mandate to fix these problems."

The trial represented the latest battle in a nationwide movement to abolish or toughen the standards for granting teachers permanent employment protection and seniority-based preferences during layoffs.

Dozens of states have moved in recent years to get rid of such protections or raise the standards for obtaining them.

Comments on Voice of San Diego

Allen Hemphill

I have long believed that good teachers hate being part of a system where poor teachers are tolerated.

Maura Larkins

@Allen Hemphill And yet, oddly, we don't often hear demands from good teachers for an effective, objective evaluation system. The current system is based more on politics than on observation and documentation. It seems that good teachers are similar to bad teachers in one respect: they are equally loath to give up the very human institution of school politics. And of course, administrators also like the politics. They're not anxious to have impartial observers come in and evaluate teachers, either. I am hoping that things will change now, at least for the teachers union. Perhaps the Vergara decision will motivate CTA to start protecting good teachers since it looks like CTA will no longer be able to protect bad teachers.

Allen Hemphill

No chance. The union attitude is that bad teachers pay dues also.

Maura Larkins

I think the union may decide to rethink its intransigence on the issue of objective evaluations. The Vergara decision is a big deal.

The union is probably going to have to accept that the worst teachers should not longer play exactly the same role as the best teachers. Ineffective and mediocre teachers should have less responsibility and less pay.

Also, your average principal, who, in most cases used to be a mediocre teacher, should have less responsibility than the most effective teachers for making decisions about instruction. Principals have plenty of other responsibilities. Few of them are equipped to serve as true instructional leaders.

The Vergara decision will do very little good unless the current model of school leadership is changed. In my experience, the best principals were the ones who did the least harm. The bad ones can do enormous harm. I hope Vergara will not simply give more arbitrary power to principals. This situation cries out for objective teacher evaluations.

An IQ test for computers: does it tell us how smart the computer is, or how dumb humans are?

 A Russian computer fooled 33% of people who engaged in an online chat into thinking it was a thirteen-year-old boy who didn't speak English very well.  But really, how hard is it for a computer to fool the least-intelligent third of humans that it is one of them?

 

Computer program fools humans, allegedly passes Turing test

A team in Russia claims its chatbot managed to dupe more than 30 percent of human interrogators into believing it's human. Are they to be believed?
It wasn't Siri, nor a souped-up Scarlett Johansson.
However, it seems that artificial intelligence may have gone even further toward a time when it will fool us that it's just like us. Emphasis on the "may have."
A Russia-based team claims to be the first to create a program that passed the Turing test. Named after Alan Turing -- who died on June 7, 1954 -- the challenge is to persuade a minimum of 30 percent of humans that the computer program is a real person.
As the Independent reported, in tests conducted at the Royal Society in London, the Eugene Goostman program managed to persuade 33 percent of people that it was a 13-year-old boy from Odessa, Ukraine.
The event was organized by the University of Reading. The university insisted that this is the first time the Turing test has been passed with flying deception.
Professor Ken Warwick, a visiting professor at Reading, said in a press release: "Some will claim that the Test has already been passed. The words Turing Test have been applied to similar competitions around the world. However this event involved the most simultaneous comparison tests than ever before, was independently verified and, crucially, the conversations were unrestricted. A true Turing Test does not set the questions or topics prior to the conversations. We are therefore proud to declare that Alan Turing's Test was passed for the first time on Saturday."
There's a certain convenience in pretending you're a 13-year-old boy, of course. You can fool people more easily because, unlike IBM's Watson, you don't have to pretend you know everything. Rather you have to have a very well-designed "dialog controller."
The man behind the boy, Vladimir Veslov, explained: "This year we improved the 'dialog controller,' which makes the conversation far more human-like when compared to programs that just answer questions. Going forward we plan to make Eugene smarter and continue working on improving what we refer to as 'conversation logic'."

...Those who are gullible to such things, though, are often those who think nothing right now of sending an online date whom they have never met huge sums of money.
The woman who was duped into wiring $500,000 to someone she'd met on a Christian dating site is but one example.
It's true, though, that as AI progresses, we'll be forced to think at least twice when meeting "people" online...





That Computer Actually Got an F on the Turing Test


Alan M Turing and colleagues working on the Ferranti Mark I Computer in 1951. Photo: SSPL/Getty Images
Alan M Turing and colleagues working on the Ferranti Mark I Computer in 1951. Photo: SSPL/Getty Images
Over the weekend, a group of programmers claimed they built a program that passed the famous Turing Test, in which a computer tries to trick judges into believing that it is a human. According to news reports, this is a historic accomplishment. But is it really? And what does it mean for artificial intelligence?
The Turing Test has long been held as a landmark in machine learning. Its creator, British computer scientist Alan Turing, thought it would represent a point when computers would have brains nearly as capable as our own. But the value of the Turing Test in modern day computer science is questionable. And the actual accomplishments of the test-winning chatbot are not all that impressive.
The Turing Test 2014 competition was organized to mark the 60th anniversary of Turing’s death and included several celebrity judges, including actor Robert Llewellyn of the British sci-fi sitcom Red Dwarf. The winner was a program named Eugene Goostman, which managed to convince 10 out of 30 judges that it was a real boy. Goostman is the work of computer engineering team led by Russian Vladimir Veselov and Ukrainian Eugene Demchenko.
The program had a few built-in advantages, such as the fact that he was claimed to be a 13-year-old non-native English speaker from Ukraine. It also only tricked the judges about 30 percent of the time (an F minus, or so). For many artificial intelligence experts, this is less than exciting...

Sunday, June 08, 2014

How Bill Gates pulled off the swift Common Core revolution

Maura Larkins' comment:

I don't understand why anyone would think that Gates is motivated by self-interest when he tries to improve education. Why don't people accuse him of self-interest when he spends huge amounts on limiting disease in Africa?

Why are teachers upset about being asked to teach kids basic concepts?

Obviously, not all classrooms will be able to cover all the concepts. Why are teachers so anxious about that fact? It's a goal, for heaven's sake. Anyone who thinks that every kids will learn all the concepts hasn't been paying attention. The important thing is that kids learn as many basic concepts as they can.

Teachers should be responsible for kids making significant strides. But teachers don't need to get hysterical over the fact that they won't be able to teach all the standards to all the kids.

If your students are learning hardly any concepts, then, yes, it's time to worry.

In my experience, the teachers that get upset about standards are the ones who don't know how to teach. They just say out loud to their students whatever is in their textbook.

The teachers unions do not want the most effective teachers to be favored in any way because that would interfere with union politics. Smarter teachers are more likely to question how things are done and don't stay "on message" as reliably as struggling teachers.

The fact is that smarter teachers adapt better to new ideas. Common core is easy for them because they are accustomed to teaching concepts rather than vocalizing the textbook page by page.

The teachers union appeals to the least common denominator among teachers: the mediocre teacher. That's where the bulk of their big bucks comes from.

“The guys who search for oil, they spend a lot of money researching new tools,” Gates said. “Medicine — they spend a lot of money finding new tools. Software is a very R and D-oriented industry. The funding, in general, of what works in education . . . is tiny. It’s the lowest in this field than any field of human endeavor.


Link--click HERE to see full interview: Bill Gates on the Common Core



How Bill Gates pulled off the swift Common Core revolution


Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates is taking heat from education groups, which say the Gates Foundation’s philanthropic support comes with strings attached. Here, he responds to his critics in an interview with The Washington Post’s Lyndsey Layton.
Written by Lyndsey Layton
Washington Post
June 7, 2014

The pair of education advocates had a big idea, a new approach to transform every public-school classroom in America. By early 2008, many of the nation’s top politicians and education leaders had lined up in support.

But that wasn’t enough. The duo needed money — tens of millions of dollars, at least — and they needed a champion who could overcome the politics that had thwarted every previous attempt to institute national standards.

So they turned to the richest man in the world.

On a summer day in 2008, Gene Wilhoit, director of a national group of state school chiefs, and David Coleman, an emerging evangelist for the standards movement, spent hours in Bill Gates’s sleek headquarters near Seattle, trying to persuade him and his wife, Melinda, to turn their idea into reality.

Coleman and Wilhoit told the Gateses that academic standards varied so wildly between states that high school diplomas had lost all meaning, that as many as 40 percent of college freshmen needed remedial classes and that U.S. students were falling behind their foreign competitors.

The pair also argued that a fragmented education system stifled innovation because textbook publishers and software developers were catering to a large number of small markets instead of exploring breakthrough products. That seemed to resonate with the man who led the creation of the world’s dominant computer operating system.

“Can you do this?” Wilhoit recalled being asked. “Is there any proof that states are serious about this, because they haven’t been in the past?”

See all SDER posts re Common Core.

Wilhoit responded that he and Coleman could make no guarantees but that “we were going to give it the best shot we could.”

After the meeting, weeks passed with no word. Then Wilhoit got a call: Gates was in.

What followed was one of the swiftest and most remarkable shifts in education policy in U.S. history.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation didn’t just bankroll the development of what became known as the Common Core State Standards. With more than $200 million, the foundation also built political support across the country, persuading state governments to make systemic and costly changes.

Bill Gates was de facto organizer, providing the money and structure for states to work together on common standards in a way that avoided the usual collision between states’ rights and national interests that had undercut every previous effort, dating from the Eisenhower administration.

The Gates Foundation spread money across the political spectrum, to entities including the big teachers unions, the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, and business organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — groups that have clashed in the past but became vocal backers of the standards.

Money flowed to policy groups on the right and left, funding research by scholars of varying political persuasions who promoted the idea of common standards. Liberals at the Center for American Progress and conservatives affiliated with the American Legislative Exchange Council who routinely disagree on nearly every issue accepted Gates money and found common ground on the Common Core.

One 2009 study, conducted by the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute with a $959,116 Gates grant, described the proposed standards as being “very, very strong” and “clearly superior” to many existing state standards.

Gates money went to state and local groups, as well, to help influence policymakers and civic leaders. And the idea found a major booster in President Obama, whose new administration was populated by former Gates Foundation staffers and associates. The administration designed a special contest using economic stimulus funds to reward states that accepted the standards.

The result was astounding: Within just two years of the 2008 Seattle meeting, 45 states and the District of Columbia had fully adopted the Common Core State Standards.

The math standards require students to learn multiple ways to solve problems and explain how they got their answers, while the English standards emphasize nonfiction and expect students to use evidence to back up oral and written arguments. The standards are not a curriculum but skills that students should acquire at each grade. How they are taught and materials used are decisions left to states and school districts.

The standards have become so pervasive that they also quickly spread through private Catholic schools. About 100 of 176 Catholic dioceses have adopted the standards because it is increasingly difficult to buy classroom materials and send teachers to professional development programs that are not influenced by the Common Core, Catholic educators said.

And yet, because of the way education policy is generally decided, the Common Core was instituted in many states without a single vote taken by an elected lawmaker. Kentucky even adopted the standards before the final draft had been made public.

States were responding to a “common belief system supported by widespread investments,” according to one former Gates employee who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid antagonizing the foundation.

The movement grew so quickly and with so little public notice that opposition was initially almost nonexistent. That started to change last summer, when local tea party groups began protesting what they viewed as the latest intrusion by an overreaching federal government — even though the impetus had come from the states. In some circles, Common Core became known derisively as “Obamacore.”

Since then, anti-Common Core sentiment has intensified, to the extent that it has become a litmus test in the Republican Party ahead of the GOP’s 2016 presidential nomination process. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush, whose nonprofit Foundation for Excellence in Education has received about $5.2 million from the Gates Foundation since 2010, is one of the Common Core’s most vocal supporters. Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who, like Bush, is a potential Republican presidential candidate, led a repeal of the standards in his state. In the past week, Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R), a former advocate of the standards, signed a law pulling her state out, days after South Carolina’s Republican governor, Nikki Haley, did the same.

Some liberals are angry, too, with a few teacher groups questioning Gates’s influence and motives. Critics say Microsoft stands to benefit from the Common Core’s embrace of technology and data — a charge Gates vehemently rejects.

[Maura Larkins' comment: the teachers union, of which I am a member, does not want the most effective teachers to be favored in any way because that would interfere with union politics. Smarter teachers are more likely to question how things are done and don't stay "on message" as reliably as struggling teachers. The fact is that smarter teachers adapt better to new ideas. Common core is easy for them because they are accustomed to teaching concepts rather than vocalizing the textbook page by page.

The teachers union appeals to the least common denominator among teachers: the mediocre teacher.]

A group calling itself the “Badass Teachers Association,” citing opposition to what it considers market-based education reform, plans a June 26 protest outside the Gates Foundation’s headquarters in Seattle.

In an interview, Gates said his role is to fund the research and development of new tools, such as the Common Core, and offer them to decision-makers who are trying to improve education for millions of Americans. It’s up to the government to decide which tools to use, but someone has to invest in their creation, he said.

“The country as a whole has a huge problem that low-income kids get less good education than suburban kids get,” Gates said. “And that is a huge challenge. . . . Education can get better. Some people may not believe that. Education can change. We can do better.”

“There’s a lot of work that’s gone into making these [standards] good,” Gates continued. “I wish there was a lot of competition, in terms of [other] people who put tens of millions of dollars into how reading and writing could be improved, how math could be improved.”

Referring to opinion polls, he noted that most teachers like the Common Core standards and that those who are most familiar with them are the most positive.

...Common Core’s first win

The first victory for Common Core advocates came on a snowy evening in Kentucky in February 2010, when the state’s top education officials voted unanimously to accept the standards.

“There was no dissent,” said Terry Holliday, Kentucky’s education commissioner. “We had punch and cookies to celebrate.”

It was not by chance that Kentucky went first.

The state enjoyed a direct connection to the Common Core backers — Wilhoit, who had made the personal appeal to Bill and Melinda Gates during that pivotal 2008 meeting, is a former Kentucky education commissioner.

Kentucky was also in the market for new standards. Alarmed that as many as 80 percent of community college students were taking remedial classes, lawmakers had recently passed a bill that required Kentucky to write new, better K-12 standards and tests.

“All of our consultants and our college professors had reviewed the Common Core standards, and they really liked them,” Holliday said. “And there was no cost. We didn’t have any money to do this work, and here we were, able to tap into this national work and get the benefits of the best minds in the country.”

“Without the Gates money,” Holliday added, “we wouldn’t have been able to do this.”

Over time, at least $15 million in Gates money was directed both to the state — to train teachers in Common Core practices and purchase classroom materials — and to on-the-ground advocacy and business groups to help build public support.

Armed with $476,553 from Gates, the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce’s foundation produced a seven-minute video about the value and impact of the Common Core, a tool kit to guide employers in how to talk about its benefits with their employees, a list of key facts that could be stuffed into paycheck envelopes, and other promotional materials written by consultants.

The tool kit provided a sample e-mail that could be sent to workers describing “some exciting new developments underway in our schools” that “hold great promise for creating a more highly skilled workforce and for giving our students, community and state a better foundation on which to build a strong economic future.”

The chamber also recruited a prominent Louisville stockbroker to head a coalition of 75 company executives across the state who lent their names to ads placed in business publications that supported the Common Core.

“The notion that the business community was behind this, those seeds were planted across the state, and that reaped a nice harvest in terms of public opinion,” said David Adkisson, president and chief executive of the Kentucky chamber.

The foundation run by the National Education Association received $501,580 in 2013 to help put the Common Core in place in Kentucky.

Gates-backed groups built such strong support for the Common Core that critics, few and far between, were overwhelmed.

“They have so much money to throw around, they can impact the Kentucky Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Education, they can impact both the AFT and the NEA,” said Brent McKim, president of the teachers union in Jefferson County, Ky., whose early complaint that the standards were too numerous to be taught well earned him a rebuke by Holliday.




[Maura Larkins' comment: It takes about two minutes for a highly effective teacher to teach a single, simple concept. The rest of the time is spent on re-teaching, using different tactics for different kids, reinforcement, and exploration and wider applications of the concept for the more advanced students.]


The foundation’s backing was crucial in other states, as well. Starting in 2009, it had begun ramping up its grant-giving to local nonprofit organizations and other Common Core advocates.

The foundation, for instance, gave more than $5 million to the University of North Carolina-affiliated Hunt Institute, led by the state’s former four-term Democratic governor, Jim Hunt, to advocate for the Common Core in statehouses around the country.

The grant was the institute’s largest source of income in 2009, more than 10 times the size of its next largest donation.


Bill Gates

Link--click HERE to see full interview: Bill Gates on the Common Core

Bill Gates sat down with The Post’s Lyndsey Layton in March to defend the Gates Foundation’s pervasive presence in education and its support of the Common Core. Here is the full, sometimes tense, interview.

With the Gates money, the Hunt Institute coordinated more than a dozen organizations — many of them also Gates grantees — including the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, National Council of La Raza, the Council of Chief State School Officers, National Governors Association, Achieve and the two national teachers unions.

The Hunt Institute held weekly conference calls between the players that were directed by Stefanie Sanford, who was in charge of policy and advocacy at the Gates Foundation. They talked about which states needed shoring up, the best person to respond to questions or criticisms and who needed to travel to which state capital to testify, according to those familiar with the conversations.

The Hunt Institute spent $437,000 to hire GMMB, a strategic communications firm owned by Jim Margolis, a top Democratic strategist and veteran of both of Obama’s presidential campaigns. GMMB conducted polling around standards, developed fact sheets, identified language that would be effective in winning support and prepared talking points, among other efforts...

Later in the process, Gates and other foundations would pay for mock legislative hearings for classroom teachers, training educators on how to respond to questions from lawmakers.

The speed of adoption by the states was staggering by normal standards. A process that typically can take five years was collapsed into a matter of months.

“You had dozens of states adopting before the standards even existed, with little or no discussion, coverage or controversy,” said Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute, which has received $4 million from the Gates Foundation since 2007 to study education policy, including the Common Core. “People weren’t paying attention. We were in the middle of an economic meltdown and the health-care fight, and states saw a chance to have a crack at a couple of million bucks if they made some promises.”

The decision by the Gates Foundation to simultaneously pay for the standards and their promotion is a departure from the way philanthropies typically operate, said Sarah Reckhow, an expert in philanthropy and education policy at Michigan State University.

“Usually, there’s a pilot test — something is tried on a small scale, outside researchers see if it works, and then it’s promoted on a broader scale,” Reckhow said. “That didn’t happen with the Common Core. Instead, they aligned the research with the advocacy. . . . At the end of the day, it’s going to be the states and local districts that pay for this.”

Working hand in hand

While the Gates Foundation created the burst of momentum behind the Common Core, the Obama administration picked up the cause and helped push states to act quickly.

There was so much cross-pollination between the foundation and the administration, it is difficult to determine the degree to which one may have influenced the other.

Several top players in Obama’s Education Department who shaped the administration’s policies came either straight from the Gates Foundation in 2009 or from organizations that received heavy funding from the foundation...

They created Race to the Top, a $4.3 billion contest for education grants. Under the contest rules, states that adopted high standards stood the best chance of winning. It was a clever way around federal laws that prohibit Washington from interfering in what takes place in classrooms. It was also a tantalizing incentive for cash-strapped states.

...[M]ost states eyeing Race to the Top money opted for the easiest route and signed onto the Common Core...

On the defensive

Now six years into his quest, Gates finds himself in an uncomfortable place — countering critics on the left and right who question whether the Common Core will have any impact or negative effects, whether it represents government intrusion, and whether the new policy will benefit technology firms such as Microsoft.

Gates is disdainful of the rhetoric from opponents. He sees himself as a technocrat trying to foster solutions to a profound social problem — gaping inequalities in U.S. public education — by investing in promising new ideas.

Education lacks research and development, compared with other areas such as medicine and computer science. As a result, there is a paucity of information about methods of instruction that work.

“The guys who search for oil, they spend a lot of money researching new tools,” Gates said. “Medicine — they spend a lot of money finding new tools. Software is a very R and D-oriented industry. The funding, in general, of what works in education . . . is tiny. It’s the lowest in this field than any field of human endeavor. Yet you could argue it should be the highest.”

Gates is devoting some of his fortune to correct that. Since 1999, the Gates Foundation has spent approximately $3.4 billion on an array of measures to try to improve K-12 public education, with mixed results.

It spent about $650 million on a program to replace large urban high schools with smaller schools, on the theory that students at risk of dropping out would be more likely to stay in schools where they forged closer bonds with teachers and other students. That led to a modest increase in graduation rates, an outcome that underwhelmed Gates and prompted the foundation to pull the plug.

Gates has said that one of the benefits of common standards would be to open the classroom to digital learning, making it easier for software developers — including Microsoft — to develop new products for the country’s 15,000 school districts.

In February, Microsoft announced that it was joining Pearson, the world’s largest educational publisher, to load Pearson’s Common Core classroom materials on Microsoft’s tablet, the Surface. That product allows Microsoft to compete for school district spending with Apple, whose iPad is the dominant tablet in classrooms.

Gates dismissed any suggestion that he is motivated by self-interest.

[Maura Larkins' comment: I don't understand why anyone would think that Gates is motivated by self-interest. He has enough money to give his own kids exactly the education he wants them to have. He's got billions. He isn't interested in making money off charter schools. Why don't people accuse him of self-interest when he spends huge amounts on limiting disease in Africa?}

“I believe in the Common Core because of its substance and what it will do to improve education,” he said. “And that’s the only reason I believe in the Common Core.”


Bill and Melinda Gates, Obama and Arne Duncan are parents of school-age children, although none of those children attend schools that use the Common Core standards. The Gates and Obama children attend private schools, while Duncan’s children go to public school in Virginia, one of four states that never adopted the Common Core.

Still, Gates said he wants his children to know a “superset” of the Common Core standards — everything in the standards and beyond...