GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

Just shows that Brill and Tilson are liars. Period.

Hmmm. Who should we listen to? Whitney Tilson, a hedge fund manager whose connection to education is that he want to make money from it, or Diane Ravitch, the most respected education historian in America?

I love how the people who stand to make the most off public education, like Tilson, accuse those with impeccable records in education of being influenced by money. What a hypocrite he is.

My take on the Brill-Tilson-Ravitch imbroglio…..http://www.southbronxschool.com/2011/08/whitney-tilson-savagely-attacks-diane.html

And tonight on my Internet radio show, we will be discussing this very topic…..http://www.blogtalkradio.com/bronx-teacher/2011/08/18/the-mind-of-a-bronx-teacher

My take on the Brill-Tilson-Ravitch imbroglio…..http://www.southbronxschool.com/2011/08/whitney-tilson-savagely-attacks-diane.html

And tonight on my Internet radio show, we will be discussing this very topic…..http://www.blogtalkradio.com/bronx-teacher/2011/08/18/the-mind-of-a-bronx-teacher

Has Gotham Schools given 100% disclosure of its monies? Has E4E yet to disclose truthfully and fully who funds them? In fact, has E4E been truthful on its origins? Gas DFER been open about the source of its funding???

From Brill’s book: “Asked if she charged the unions whose cause was given such a life in her book, Ravitch said, ‘Don’t you charge for your speeches?’.  (Answer: Not if it’s a group whose issues I am covering, or might cover, in any way as a writer.)”

It would seem that Brill finds some fault in Ravitch’s ethics in this regard.  I would be curious to know what the standard is for writers and academics.

What I want to know is, how much these hedge fund manager types, who pretend to be educators, make from their private / charter schools funded with tax money?! 

 Right on point. The Harvard professor who was “lambasted” in Inside Job got that treatment because he was wrong. First you need to demonstrate that Ravitch was wrong in one of her paid speeches, then you can blame her for taking mind changing money.

I’m satisfied, Ken, that you didn’t use the word ethics. Ethics, as I’m sure you know, refer to professional rules while in the workplace. I was pleased to see you use the far more vague expression of ‘standards and expectations’ instead. That expression, like the constitutional expression ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ means, in point of fact, absolutely nothing..as, I’m pretty sure, Ken, you knew when you wrote it.
I, personally, am not phased one bit by the fact that she got paid here and there, nor that my union may have paid her from my dues. I, and a great many of my colleagues, would pay from our own pockets, on multiple occasions, for her to use her many talents to come to the rhetorical rescue of teachers and the principle of common sense in my profession. As these are very polarized times (Gotham Schools’ constant covering of that jackwagon Brill’s book over the past several days is evidence of that), the principle of ‘right’ being replaced with that of ‘right for me’ is something I can very comfortably live with.
And after Superman, and VAD in LA and NYC, and tenure and seniority attacks, and now personal attacks of the leading voice of dissent in American education, I’m not really prepared to be held to any other standard…or expectation.
And if she was paid, for saying something that she was saying anyway, I don’t see anything at all wrong with that. And if there is a rule against that,the rule would be wrong.

I’m far more interested to see the fallout when these ed reform animals attack a person because the ideas expressed by that person are too strong to counter. If they can, in Rovian fashion, destroy professor Ravitch’s credibility, then there truly is nothing to stop them from destroying my profession.

Btw, I think you misquoted the jackwagon’s book. I seem to remember reading on Russo’s blog those words coming from Tilson’s email about his book (the parenthesis being Tilson’s commentary about Brill’s book, not Brill’s words). I could be wrong, but you want to do a quick double check.

Here’s a link to the NYU faculty handbook, which includes a lengthy section on conflicts of interest:

http://www.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu/compliance/documents/FacHbk2008.pdf

The standards for journalists and academics are clearly different. There are certainly contexts where she should disclose the fact that she’s received speaking fees from unions, but I don’t think her book is one of them. Sherman Dorn has a thoughtful and logical post on the matter. 

There are biases and potential conflicts all over every side of the educational reform debate. The teachers unions throw around a ton of money, there’s all the Gates and Broad and Walton money . . . it’s unfortunate, because it makes it really hard to accept research at face value, but that’s life.

The last resort of the coward…calumny! 

On Ravitch, the issue is not appearing with groups that agree with her, it is presenting oneself as an academic and/or journalist while getting paid by an organization that is a significant part of what you write about, speak about and study.  Again, I’d be curious to know what the standards are for academics and journalists with respect to conflict issues like this.  

In part, 501c3′s withhold the names of their funders because many funders want to maintain anonymity.  Of course, a 501c3 might also prefer to avoid the controversy of having certain types of funders. 

Ken, you’re just making up new “standards” off the top of your head as a BS way to impugn Ravitch. Sorry — you don’t get away with that.

I also call BS on any claim that teachers’ unions have a parallel advocacy/propaganda operation to the ed reformers. You or I can easily name 5-10 organizations in the ed reform world that claim to be research orgs but really exist purely to propagandize. All of them are bursting with plum jobs. (I saw a list of job opportunities at Students First — wow.) There simply is nothing like that in the world of teachers’ unions. 

John G,

I checked the book again and the quote is correct.  

Hey CarolineSF,

Here is an analysis of recent AFT advocacy support:
http://bit.ly/nm91F7 

As the post points out, the biggest recipient was the “Economic Policy Institute” at $365,000 for the 2009-10 fiscal year.  Check out their education page (ironically with a Diane Ravitch interview): http://www.epi.org/issue/education.

Note that the author of this post is Mike Antonucci, a union critic.  

I’ve seen money, conflicts, misrepresentations, false neutrality, etc., on all sides of these issues.  It’s hard to know who to trust.

Meanwhile, back to my original question, somewhat restated here:

Brill writes:
“”Asked if she charged the unions whose cause was given such a life in her book, Ravitch said, ‘Don’t you charge for your speeches?’.  (Answer: Not if it’s a group whose issues I am covering, or might cover, in any way as a writer.)”

I wonder if this is just Brill’s approach or some common standard for authors and/or academics.

I’ll leave you with the last word.

Ken, Ravitch’s opinions (and how they changed) are the entire basis of her book. She presented herself, accurately, as an expert and then wrote about her opinions. Your line “presenting oneself as an academic and/or a journalist” falsely implies that she ever presented herself as impartial.

All those reformy folks like Eric Hanushek, Terry Moe and John Chubb* (Hoover Institution at Stanford), Paul Peterson (U of Washington) and many, many, many more also present themselves as academics — not inaccurately — but they have opinions and get paid by a partisan faction to voice those opinions.

Really, this either the most confused or the most willfully misleading line of attack. 

*John Chubb even got involved in a reformy for-profit operation, Edison Schools, for pay, though he was and is viewed as an academic. Where was all your oh-so-sincere concern about ethics then?

Another question Ken. Since Sydney Morris of E4E fame is appearing next Thursday at the GS sponsored symposium, would that not be the perfect forum, or perhaps before hand, for Sydney to disclose E4E’s funding. Don’t we, the public, teachers, politicians have the right to know?

Bronx Teacher,

Personally, I like the idea of groups like E4E listing their supporters and listing “Anonymous” for those that want to remain anonymous.  I do think that people should be able to give anonymously to organizations.  If others want to discount the reliability of organizations that have significant anonymous funding, that is their prerogative.  Finally, on a related matter, I question whether contributions to any of these organizations should be tax deductible.

From all that I have gathered, this general question is unresolved and in flux. Journalists, academics, public intellectuals, and others handle speaking engagement in a variety of ways. Some employers require disclosure of speaking income and sources; some do not. Some charge fees to the tune of $30,000 a pop; some speak for free. Some individuals volunteer this information; some do not. It makes sense to consider the issue; it is wrong to make Diane Ravitch the center of it.

Wasnt Ravitch recently invited to speak by TFA and KIPP? And although transparency is always good, I would question how powerful she was independent of her opinion. Its not like unions were looking for a rock star style public figure, looked around and chose Ravitch. She has become well-known because she is knowledgable, articulate, has seen both sides, and speaks to an issue that virtually everyone has an opinion on and stake in; and ironically, probably largely as a result of ‘reformers’ bringing the issue into the political and public arena.