The Los Angeles Times Breaks Up With the Gates Foundation; Here’s Why It Did Gates Wrong
I am still trying to comprehend the attack on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation by the Los Angeles Times editorial board last week. The Times twisted a sincerely honest letter from the foundation regarding the challenges of education philanthropy into a smear campaign against Gates’ work. However, it is evident that the editorial board did not bother to converse with any educators or read their own previous education coverage when criticizing one of the most important advocates for innovation in the classroom in America.
If the writers at the Times would like to speak with someone who has faced the challenges of improving schools, they are welcome to contact me at . I worked at the New York City Department of Education from 2007-2012, and during that time, I closely collaborated with the Gates Foundation and other individuals in the effort to advance groundbreaking work and enhance resources for students in a school system that had been stagnant for many years. (I will discuss this further in a moment)
However, as an individual who has worked alongside school leaders and educators, and as a regular reader of the Times’ education coverage, what stood out to me about last week’s narrow-minded editorial was how the board excluded two essential entities from their critique: the LA Times newsroom and the editorial board itself. The Times editors and editorialists were pioneers in the movement to evaluate teacher performance and support the Common Core – the very initiatives that the board is now criticizing as significant failures, representing a foundation that assumed it had all the answers.
Not too long ago, there were few media outlets that advocated for these initiatives as passionately as the Times did. The paper even developed its own model for assessing the value teachers added to Los Angeles schools and famously published the results, including the names of the teachers – a practice that Bill Gates openly criticized. The Times also championed the Common Core standards from their inception up until the current school year. When resistance from states began to grow two years ago, the Times responded, stating, "What is often forgotten amidst the political disputes is the crucial question: whether the Common Core standards actually represent a significant improvement…and overall, they do, with a few minor caveats."
Regarding the controversy surrounding test scores in certain parts of the country, the Times acknowledged last September that although student performance on California’s more challenging state tests may be lower, it is more vital to determine whether the results demonstrate that students are mastering the standards.
"The true measure of success will only become apparent after several years, once we can evaluate the new tests and curriculum," stated the Times.
Now, the paper asserts that the "public backlash" indicates that Gates’ support for the Common Core was a defining failure.
To be fair, the Times does acknowledge that further funding for the standards would be welcomed if they are "implemented well" this time.
This highlights a central flaw in the Times’ analysis. Foundations support individuals or organizations that appear to be well-prepared to implement a program or conduct a study that shows promise. However, no one can guarantee that the implementation will go according to plan.
Part of the reason for this uncertainty is that there are other entities operating in the same space. The Times overlooks the fact that the foundation’s grantees were working in the midst of various complicating and sometimes contradictory influences when discussing any of the policies associated with Gates.
Blaming Gates for the alleged "failure" of the Common Core without mentioning those who actually enacted it, the rapidly changing social and political landscape, and the evolving opposition from teachers’ unions is something that should be confined to a tweet; it diminishes the credibility of a major newspaper.
Even if the Times had provided more context about Gates’ funding, they would still be guilty of judging success based on their own expectations of what Gates should have accomplished, rather than recognizing what he actually achieved. Thankfully, research is not evaluated or funded in this way, as others have pointed out.
Here is a glimpse of what the foundation has accomplished in the three areas where the Times claims it failed:
Success story of small schools in New York: As the editorial acknowledges, Gates’ support for small high schools did not yield national success. However, there is one significant exception. Numerous studies show that the small school movement in New York City has proven to be the only effective large-scale strategy for improving high schools in the country. (For more details on this research, refer to the video below)
A more nuanced discussion about effective teachers: Funding for teacher evaluation did not result in a universally adopted system – a criteria that the Times apparently had in mind. To the detriment of students, teachers, and the prestige of the teaching profession, evaluating teaching effectiveness has been one of the most complex and misunderstood areas of American professional life.
Embracing Higher Standards: The topic of standards and evaluation has also arisen from various separate sources. With the implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act, the primary education law of the nation, accountability was shifted to the states, but they have undergone transformations since the introduction of the Common Core. The importance of rigorous standards is no longer a mere topic of discussion at superintendent conferences. Regardless of the terminology used, high standards are vital for the future of education in the country.
The Gates foundation, due to its massive scale, is not exempt from making mistakes. It is crucial to have a discussion about these mistakes, and the foundation has taken the initiative to do so. Additionally, there are significant conversations to be had about the role of philanthropy in education as a whole, as we rely on foundations to take risks that others may be unable or unwilling to take. To their credit, the philanthropic organizations I have collaborated with are enthusiastic about engaging in these conversations.
However, an honest conversation must begin with fairness and factual information. Especially in a newspaper where such facts have been consistently reported by my colleagues, who work just down the hall.
How the Closure of New York City’s Lowest-Performing Schools Benefited Future Students:
Receive stories like these directly in your email inbox. Subscribe to Newsletter.
