GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

Diane Ravitch, speaking at a GothamSchools event two years ago.

Is Diane Ravitch a “paid union spokesperson,” her famous change of heart inspired by fees from the teachers union?

The accusation, levied by the philanthropist and hedge-fund manager Whitney Tilson recently, draws from a new book about the education reform movement by Steven Brill. But the suggestion that she was bought is simply not accurate, Ravitch told GothamSchools.

Brill, in an interview, also insisted it’s not the conclusion that his new book, “Class Warfare,” aims to draw.

In a short passage about Ravitch, one of the leading critics of the reform movement, Brill writes that she frequently spoke to teachers unions but did not disclose her speaking fees from them. He estimates that her take from groups that have resisted the movement, including teachers unions, might have exceeded $200,000 in just over a year.

In an interview this week, Ravitch told GothamSchools that she received “less than a third” of the amount of money Brill calculated from teachers unions. (That is, she has received under $67,000.) She said that the majority of her speaking engagements are done for free. (more…)

We’ve all heard about how Schools Chancellor Joel Klein grew up in public housing in Brooklyn Queens*  but triumphed despite the odds, going on to Columbia University. This weekend, at a convention of 1,000 city high school students who are trying to make money by passing Advanced Placement exams, Klein added an anecdote I hadn’t heard before: He described what happened when he arrived at Columbia, and how that experience also drives his belief that students should never be asked to do less simply because they’re poor.

Whitney Tilson, the money manager and education entrepreneur who founded the AP incentives program, called REACH NY, captured Klein’s speech on video. Klein’s Columbia story starts around minute 6:25.

*I guess I could stand to hear Klein’s stories a few more times!

In his daily school-reform-report e-mail today, Whitney Tilson, the hedge fund manager by day, education entrepreneur by night, defends Deputy Chancellor Christopher Cerf, the subject of a 2007 investigation that just came to light last week. The investigation concluded that Cerf had stretched conflict-of-interest lines by soliciting a charitable donation from a Department of Education vendor while he as deputy chancellor. But Cerf later took back the solicitation, and no actions were taken against him.

Tilson describes the investigation into Cerf as a trying experience that turned Cerf’s life “upside down” — all for naught, because it ultimately found no evidence of wrongdoing. His take-away is that “truly no good deed goes unpunished” in the education world, which is characterized by “madness,” he says. The full e-mail is below the jump. (more…)

Newsweek reports:

“People don’t want to say anything publicly, because of the ‘No-Drama Obama’ stuff,” says one well-placed reformer with ties to the incoming administration. “But many of us were stunned that Linda Darling-Hammond is still as influential as she is. We see her as very symbolic of the ‘old school’ of reform.” Darling-Hammond responds, “The critiques of being ‘old school’ are particularly ironic since I have been fighting for a lot of reforms before they were recently on the national radar.”

And while Whitney Tilson on his blog yesterday asked people e-mailing him with worries to “CHILL THE [expletive] OUT,” he confessed to “sharing a bit of…nervousness” in his e-mail blast last night.

Not to keep beating the same drum, but where now-President-elect Barack Obama will land in the education wars is still a mystery.

Today’s Washington Post suggests he could bypass the peacemaker, middle-ground approach by choosing as his Secretary of Education one of the fiercest warriors in the education battle: Schools Chancellor Joel Klein. That would be a bombshell decision to side decisively with that nameless movement that includes Klein, Obama adviser Jon Schnur, and D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee. On the other hand, Obama has also been seeking advice from representatives on the other side of the education wars, including Stanford professor Linda Darling-Hammond, who was still stumping for him at Teachers College just days ago.

Highlighting the coming crossroads are two statements that came out late last night and early this morning, reacting to Obama’s election.

The money manager and philanthropist Whitney Tilson, who was an early Teach For America staffer and who serves on the board of Democrats for Education Reform, says Obama will have to fight power to transform education. I assume this means longtime power brokers such as the teachers union. Tilson’s e-mail:

The single most important decision President-elect Obama will make in this area is picking his Secretary of Education because — let’s be honest — with so many urgent priorities (the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, healthcare, etc.), Obama himself isn’t going to have the time or political capital to spend on education reform in the early part of his first term, so the Secretary of Education is going to have to do a lot of heavy lifting.

But he/she won’t be able to do it alone.  Reforming our schools will also depend on all of us continuing to be involved to keep PUSHING.  As Obama has said many times, “power does not concede easily”, so take a day to relax and then let’s get back to work!

On the other hand, teachers union president Randi Weingarten emphasizes that Obama will have to work together with the union:

At a time when the focus on strengthening public education has been all but eclipsed by other issues, Sen. Obama has shown both deep understanding of, and real interest in, the need to ensure every child receives a world-class education. The members and leaders of the American Federation of Teachers welcome President-elect Obama’s commitment to working together to strengthen public education. We look forward to partnering with him and with members of both parties to fulfill this promise.

Maybe the choice is not which side to take, but whether to take a side at all.