Sections:

Article

Denny Taylor shares a scathing critique and expose about Marc Tucker's 'National Center on Education and the Economy' (NCEE) and reminds us of our links to the early days in the late 1990s to the Resistance against corporate 'school reform'

Denny Taylor's carefully researched book "Beginning to Read and the Spin Doctors of Science" was one of the seminal books debunking corporate "school reform" published during the 1990s (and then buried under an avalanche of corporate "reform" propaganda ranging from the works of Wendy Kopp to the latest "studies" propagandizing for the latest iteration of corporate "reform"). Taylor's book is still worth acquiring and reading 15 years after its publication -- along with the works of the other pioneers of the resistance: Susan Ohanian, David Berliner, Jerry Bracey, and Alfie Kohn. All of their books are still available, but sales have been minimal as a new generation of reformers is deceived about the rich and deep history of the Resistance that they have belatedly joined.As we've noted at substancenews before, the Resistance to high-stakes testing was moving along by the end of the last century, and it certainly didn't launch when a group of teachers at Garfield High School in Seattle did an opt out in 2013, although that group should have acknowledged it was welcoming itself into the club. Mass demonstrations against the reign of the test, which was launched in the 1990s by the ruling class, were in Chicago and other cities. One of the early books that joined Susan Ohanian, David Berliner, Alfie Kohn, and Jerry Bracy's work was Denny Taylor's unheralded book against the "spin doctors". We're now reminded by the latest critique of Marc Tucker's hypocrisy (with the usual solid footnotes) as Denny Taylor, 15 years after the publication of her book, once again joins the fray.

It's necessary in 2014 to clarify the history of the Resistance, especially since there have been a few deceptive practices and versions of history on "our side." Denny Taylor's carefully researched book "Beginning to Read and the Spin Doctors of Science" was one of the seminal books debunking corporate "school reform" published during the 1990s (and then buried under an avalanche of corporate "reform" propaganda ranging from the works of Wendy Kopp to the latest "studies" propagandizing for the latest iteration of corporate "reform"). Taylor's book is still worth acquiring and reading 15 years after its publication -- along with the works of the other pioneers of the resistance: Susan Ohanian, David Berliner, Jerry Bracey, and Alfie Kohn. All of their books are still available, but sales have been minimal as a new generation of reformers is deceived about the rich and deep history of the Resistance that they have belatedly joined.

While it is satisfying to have Diane Ravtich join the Resistance after spending much of her adult life touting corporate "reform," a just rendition of our history requires that Ravitch's two heretical books (The Death and Life of the Great American School System and Reign of Error) were late comers to the Resistance. As I mentioned to Diane during a visit to Chicago, Jerry Bracy, who often debated Ravitch when she was on the other side, would have loved to see all this. But Bracey died just before Diane Ravitch converted.

As so on September 29, 2014, Ravitch shared a contribution from one of the pioneers of our Resistance, Denny Taylor. Both Taylor's book and her careful debunking of the pretenses of Marc Tucker are worth the read, so without further ado, below:

Denny Taylor's carefully researched book "Beginning to Read and the Spin Doctors of Science" was one of the seminal books debunking corporate "school reform" published during the 1990s (and then buried under an avalanche of corporate "reform" propaganda ranging from the works of Wendy Kopp to the latest "studies" propagandizing for the latest iteration of corporate "reform"). Taylor's book is still worth acquiring and reading 15 years after its publication -- along with the works of the other pioneers of the resistance: Susan Ohanian, David Berliner, Jerry Bracey, and Alfie Kohn. All of their books are still available, but sales have been minimal as a new generation of reformers is deceived about the rich and deep history of the Resistance that they have belatedly joined.EXPOSE OF MARC TUCKER'S GROUP

By Denny Taylor.

I have read with interest the dialogue between Marc Tucker, Diane Ravitch, Anthony Cody, and Yong Zhao on the establishment of an American test-based public education accountability system. Forty years of research on the impact of political structures on social systems,[1], [2] in particular public education,[3] leads me to categorize Marc Tucker’s rhetoric as nothing more than political cant to protect the lucrative profits of poverty “non-profit” industry that is bent to the will of the powerful rich donor groups that are dominating education policy in the US and UK.

It is the PR discourse of big money that shapes the lives of teachers and children in public schools, and confounds the lives of families with young children struggling with the grimness of developmentally inappropriate instruction in public schools – instruction that rejects all that we have learned as a society about child development, how children learn language, become literate, and engage in math and science projects to both discover and solve problems. Knowledge gained from the sciences and the lived knowledge of human experience, the very essence of our human story, no longer counts.

Tucker’s view of education is economic. Children in, workers out, could be the mantra of National Center on Education and the Economy. The NCEE website toots the familiar horn of the rich non-profit educational organization stating that: “Since 1988, NCEE has been researching the world’s best performing education systems to unlock their secrets.”

Denny Taylor.Nonsense, of course.

What NCEE has actually been doing is making money.

In 2012 the total assets of NCEE were $93,708,833, with total liabilities of $1,572,013, and net assets of $92,136,820.[4] This highly lucrative “non-profit” fiefdom receives substantial funding from a long list of “donors” including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Broad, Walton, and Walmart Foundations. NCEE has also received substantial funding from the US Federal Government.

The 2010 Federal tax return for the tax year ending June 30th 2011 shows that NCEE began the year with $20,533,440 in publicly traded securities and ended the year with $80,682,268 in publicly traded securities.[5] These are critical numbers, given the “non-profit” status of NCEE, that are of direct significance to any interpretation of Tucker’s posturing on the issues raised by Cody and Ravitch. “Following the money” also provides essential information for teachers and for parents whose children are directly impacted by the NCEE lobby. Here’s a quote from the “non-profit’s” 2010 federal tax return:

"NCEE was the majority shareholder of America’s Choice, Inc. (ACI), which was established in November 2004 as a taxable for-profit subsidiary of NCEE. NCEE reorganized its internal America’s Choice program as a separate subsidiary to attract the capital investment and management talent to expand the implementation of the America’s Choice comprehensive school design program and related offerings for struggling schools." [6]

In addition to his lucrative salary Tucker was awarded stock options in ACI. In the 2010 Federal tax return for NCEE it further states:

"While any growth in the value of ACI would benefit these optionees, it was anticipated that such growth would also benefit NCEE’s charitable mission."

NCEE then sold off ACI to Pearson. Here’s what is written on the next page of the 2010 federal tax return:

"The work of NCEE going forward will be funded in large part by the $65.9 million in proceeds that NCEE received as a result of the sale of ACI to Pearson."

The same 2010 Federal tax return for the tax year ending June 30th 2011 shows that Tucker received a total of $2,549,077 in compensation from NCEE and ACI – $2,055,465 from the sale of ACI to Pearson and $493,612 in compensation and benefits from NCEE.[7] These figures, which are part of the public record, do not include any compensation Tucker might have received from for-profit companies with which he is affiliated.

To kick the hornet’s nest would take an investigation into the relationships between NCEE and the National Institute of School Leadership (NISL). Tucker is the Chairman of the Board of NISL, which is described as a “program” of NCEE. The IRS’s online checklist of tax exempt organizations, it states that NISL’s non-profit status was revoked by the IRS in 2010, the year NCEE sold ACI to Pearson, for failure to file the required tax returns for three consecutive years.[8]

In his 2012 doctoral dissertation on NISL, John Perella writes:

"NISL, like America’s Choice –- another subsidiary of NCEE designed to engage educators in school reform –- is a for-profit company. Both NCEE and NISL list 2000 Pennsylvania Ave NW suits 5300 as their mailing address. In an initial phone call to NCEE to better understand their relationship, I was informed that although NISL is for-profit, its holding company (NCEE) is non-profit. I also inquired to the Washington D.C. Attorney General’s Office and Better Business Bureau about NISL’s for-profit incorporated status. A representative from the D.C. Attorney General’s Office told me that there was no record of NISL and that I would need to find out what their “true corporate name” was in order to get business information on them."[9]

The gross lack of transparency about the relationships between NCEE and NISL is included here to indicate the complexity of the interconnections between these money making ventures that are not easily available for scrutiny by the public, especially teachers and parents. In a similar way to banking, big money executives who profit from public education have an ethical responsibility to be transparent.

The real attention grabber here is that officers of NCEE and America’s Choice received lucrative remuneration to ameliorate the conditions in struggling schools at the expense of poor kids whose schools are still underfunded and often lack even the most basic materials and supplies that schools in affluent communities have in abundance.

In 2012 Tucker received $819,109 in total compensation from NCEE[10], but there is no credible scientific evidence that NCEE made any measurable difference in the education of children in public schools –- a point we will come back to with a quote from Tucker to that effect.

I am sure many teachers and parents would have a problem with “non-profit” educational organizations paying its top executive over $819,000 per annum to ameliorate the circumstances in which poor children are schooled, while poor children in the South Bronx, attending some of the poorest schools in the nation, live with their families on $16,000 per annum in crime ridden, roach and rat infested, high-rise apartment buildings, without basic services and no working elevator.

This example of the dire circumstances in which many of America’s children live is not a fabrication. It is a description of the actual life experience of a high-school student in the South Bronx who has worked hard, and despite all the difficulties she has had to overcome she is at university studying to become a teacher. “Not a doctor or a lawyer?” I ask. “No,” she says, “I want to go back and teach in the South Bronx and be a teacher like the teachers who inspired me.”

For Tucker it’s all about the money, which is not so for most teachers. Like Cody, they do not teach kids to get lucrative jobs, but to be curious and imaginative, to pose problems as well as find ways to solve them. Tucker demonstrates that he knows little about the social genius of human learning in his train-children-for-the-workforce view of education, which he expounds in his 1992 “Dear Hillary Letter”, which was entered into the Congressional Record on September 25th 1998. In the letter Tucker presents his plan:

“… to remold the entire American system” into 'a seamless web that literally extends from cradle to grave and is the same system for everyone,' coordinated by “a system of labor market boards at the local, state and federal levels” where curriculum and “job matching” will be handled by counselors “accessing the integrated computer-based program”.

This is the view of public education that Noam Chomsky[11] tears to shreds, teachers and parents rebel against, and Cody[12] dares to question. Perhaps Tucker wouldn’t have bothered to respond to Cody’s blog if Ravitch[13] hadn’t shone the spotlight on his counter narrative. But when Ravitch added credence to Cody’s commentary in which he challenged the dominant, economic, big money view of public education that Tucker champions, the very powerful resistance movement of teachers and parents who reject this political view took note. And so Tucker had no alternative other than to respond to Cody’s blog.

Here’s the gist: Cody hit a nerve when he challenged the economic arguments that Tucker has long championed; Ravitch supported his contention; Tucker hit back; and Zhao [14] countered with brilliant precision, based on his comparative analysis of US – Chinese public education and high stakes testing that is informed by his own life experience.

It will be interesting to see if Tucker, who should know when he is outsmarted, decides to take his argument with Cody and Ravitch further. Let’s assume that is the case and provide some more scientific evidence for him to parry.

Given the high finance of NCEE, it is the last paragraph in Tucker’s response that I find the most provocative. The two big issues that the teachers, children, and children’s parents face in the era of big money are inequality and the centralization of educational decision-making. Tucker ends his response to Cody and Ravitch by dismissing the one and supporting the other. He states:

"Yes, I too would very much like to see a fairer distribution of income, less poverty and more support for young children and their families. And there is no doubt that our students would perform at higher levels if our society were able to make real progress on these goals. But that shouldn’t stop us from working hard now to redesign our education system to meet today’s needs."

The question that I would ask Tucker is: If you know our students would perform at higher levels if our society were more able to make real progress, and if there was a fairer distribution of income and more support for young children and their families, then why are you not working to achieve a more equitable society?

In more equal societies children fare much better on all social and academic indicators than children in more unequal societies. The United States has the unenviable distinction of being the most unequal society among nations with rich market economies. The richest nation in the developed world is also the poorest, a negative outlier in the gap between rich and poor with a rapidly increasing spread.[15]

Poverty is the shame of the nation and it can be fixed, but Tucker dismisses this possibility with a “Yes, I too would very much like to see a fairer distribution of income and less poverty and more support for young children and their families.”

This is the moral cop out of the private big money that controls public education. More than twenty percent of children in the US live in poverty, and they should not be, cannot be, dismissed by highly paid policy makers or political report writers who pontificate that the purpose of education is “to meet today’s needs” – which is nothing more than code for “meet the needs of big money”,[16] and not the needs of America’s children.

To meet today’s needs of US global corporations and the government’s national security (military)[17]requirements, centralization of control of public education is considered essential. Tucker now includes central control in NCEE power point presentations. He advocates “aggressive international benchmarking” to satisfy policy makers; uses gendered language, “sexy programs to attract a handful of elite teachers”, that negatively positions teachers; supports the use of “social entrepreneurs to produce disruptive change”; and recommends that policy makers “create new Race to the Top for states that want to implement the agenda” “of high quality, low waste, skill in the worker”.[18]

Since Tucker’s “Dear Hillary Letter”, there have been many big money groups, including ALEC and the Gates Foundation, working to ensure the centralization of the US public education system and similar goals, which has been achieved through the well-orchestrated, big money efforts to influence federal and state legislatures.

Local control has been eviscerated through the enactment of laws and policies that have ensconced the Common Core in the new business driven public education system, which is centrally controlled through mandatory, highly lucrative, commercial accountability systems, that drain the coffers of local communities and diverts funds from essential programs and services that are no longer available for children in public schools.

The new report on the American accountability system is just another example of big money writing private policy and sugar coating it to make it palatable. Zhao took the plan apart piece by piece, and Tucker might indeed counter Zhao’s arguments, but there is another problem, a little known fact, that cannot be explained away, not by the educational non-profits serving the needs of the big money backers who make public policy, or by the federal government that benefits.

The basic research on which the economic system of public education was founded has no scientific legitimacy. This is not unsupported opinion; it is fact.

At the beginning of the 1990’s, a well-orchestrated effort in state-corporate cooperation was initiated to disenfranchise the growing influence of teachers at the local level across the US, who were creating and using developmentally appropriate teaching-learning materials and activities in public schools that limited the influence of corporate curriculum producers. [19]

School districts were spending money on real books instead of artificial, commercially produced programs, and there was concern about the growing rejection of commercial text-book producers, including McGraw-Hill, in the five big adoption states – Texas, California, Michigan, Florida, and New York.

Billions in revenues and profits were at stake. Profits dropped. Not a whole lot, but even a slight dip could be counted in the hundreds of millions. Worse, the growing teacher-led democratic movement was taking hold, causing concern about displacement of the powerful elites in government and big business. From studying the teacher movements of that time, I can write that teachers really believed that through the ways in which they were teaching children in school, society could become more equitable.[20]

The business community of the corporate world needed a strategy that did not seem political. Big money and political power had to be protected. It was in this context that the “Reading Wars” were invented through a massive PR propaganda campaign and the well-orchestrated efforts of the media. What is long forgotten or perhaps never known is that, with the support of the Texas Business Round Table, the “Houston Reading Studies” became a key component of the strategy.

George W. Bush was Governor of Texas at the time of the Houston Reading Studies and public education was central to his political campaign, so the outcome of the studies could not be left to chance. This is not uniformed political speculation. I spent more than a year documenting the Houston Reading Studies at the time that they were taking place. This research was ethnographic with: (1) information directly received about the study from teachers who were required to participate; and (2) copies of original documentation from the study during the analysis stage of the research. The data that I analyzed was the focus of the book: Beginning to Read and the Spin Doctors of Science. [21]

The sources were not revealed. But I can write that they were teachers of great intellectual stature and courage who have passed the baton to today’s teachers, who can be more open in their dissent because of the sheer number of teachers who are resisting the centralization of public education that is deleterious to children and US society.

Many current parents and teachers would have been children when McGraw Hill funded the Houston Reading Studies that were conducted under the auspices of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). It is highly likely that some of today’s parents were taught to read based on the fudged outcomes of those studies, just as their children are now. The Common Core and the testing regimes in place today are the lasting legacy of these discredited studies.

The Houston Reading Studies were designed from the outset to ”prove” that children taught to read by McGraw Hill’s Open Court/Direct Instruction were significantly more successful than children who learned to read through a Whole Language approach. The evidence is compelling that the studies were not only invalid, but that the outcomes deliberately “orchestrated”.

The studies violated the conditions for scientific research commonly held in both the social and physical sciences, and across both quantitative and qualitative research paradigms. Ultimately, what many reading researchers knew then, and what has been borne out by subsequent events, is that the Houston Reading Studies were nothing more than an attention getting sideshow to distract the public from the real agenda of the Federal Government and Corporate America, which was to take away local control of US public school from cities and towns, from neighborhoods and communities, and most importantly, from teachers and parents.

The studies served their purpose. Then Texas Governor George W. Bush was elected the “education president”, and Harold McGraw, a longtime friend of the Bush family, saw a significant increase in revenues and profits for McGraw Hill’s Open Court. It was, however, a sad day for the nation’s children. The lasting impact on their lives has been and continues to be devastating.

The effects were systemic. In the late 1970’s and 1980’s the gap between rich and poor was closing; similarly the gap between different ethnic groups in school achievement was perceptibly a little less. Much of the educational research at that time focused on developing greater understanding of the social contexts in which young children learn to read and write and in narrowing the disparities in educational opportunities for rich and poor, back and white, and being sensitive to the needs of other “minority” groups.[22],[23]

Teachers were focused on closing the gap, but the response was that you could have too much democracy. In 1998 the Republican controlled US Congress used the Houston Reading Studies as a basis for the Reading Excellence Act, which was the precursor to the 2002 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. It was a critical blow to teachers whose pedagogical practices were developmentally appropriate, and who were part of the late 20th century civil rights movement for children. The NCLB Act that put an end to the movement and left the survivors staggering.

“In January 2002, President George W. Bush signed the No Child Let Behind Act (NCLB; PL 107-110) instituting a major federal encroachment on public education in the United States,” Robert Calfee[24] writes, in an article with the subtitle, “How the Federal Government Used Science to Take Over Public Schools”.

“The focus is on literacy,” Calfee, a Reading Hall of Fame scholar, writes, “but the implications are far reaching, and go to the core of the intersections of science and politics, of knowledge and power, and of the balance between federal and local control, as these affect the education of young children.”

In recent years the discourse of power in public education has built many arguments that are harmful to the health and well-being of children, as well as damaging to their academic development, that can be traced back to the falsified “scientific evidence” of the Houston Reading Studies.

A media blitz of distortions and lies lauding the use of direct instruction and commercial reading programs followed that denigrated teachers and the socially sensitive, developmentally appropriate pedagogical practices that they struggled to maintain in in their classroom even when they were under attack.

For the most part the verbiage was political PR pulp, which was spoon-fed by the corporate media to the public at the breakfast and dinner table. The original research that was fudged is now long forgotten, and the “findings” became the unquestionable truth of the George W. Bush presidential campaign and his later presidency, with other views by teachers denigrated as some sort of mass social dementia. Their knowledge of child development and how children learn language, about language, and through language was denied and the teacher-initiated movement to make schools more equitable was crushed.

Today, few people know this dystopian story of how the research or the findings, which supported the use of high-end, big budget, commercial reading programs in public schools. However, the research is systematically documented and analyzed in data driven research that is available in some of the resources referenced below.

All of this I brought to my reading of Tucker’s response to Cody and Ravitch, and it is with old eyes that I see the cleverness of the discourse, the authoritative name dropping, the now politically correct criticism of NCLB, while at the same time maintaining the school-work labor system that NCLB was used to inculcate into US society, all with the express purpose of protecting the highly lucrative education policies of social control that privilege the rich and perpetuate inequality.

To make his arguments stick, Tucker would have to respond not only to Chomsky’s “masters of mankind” arguments, but also to Dwight D. Eisenhower’s analysis of the misuse of political power.

Both in his writings and much-videoed presentations, Chomsky provides a systematic analysis of the political structures that result in the distorted educational policies that currently frame the US public education system. While Eisenhower, on the day he left office as the President of the United States, warned of the military–industrial–congressional complex. Here is Eisenhower’s essential message for all big-money “non-profit” educational groups, including the one Tucker heads:

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. …

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs — balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage — balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration. …

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.

Eisenhower’s speech makes it patently evident that the inclusion here of the financial status of Tucker and NCEE is not gratuitous. When big money shapes national policy, especially the policies that govern the education of America’s children, the nation is out of balance. With the ignominious consent of the US Congress, local school systems have been overwhelmed by the use of big money and the political clout of oligarchs, corporations and the media – Gates, Pearson, and Murdoch – to counter local initiatives to regain lost ground by producing so many state-corporate policies and mandates on so many platforms that local school systems – administrators and teachers – spend all their time responding to the insanity of the requirements that are expected of them.[25]

Again, to ensure that this is not seen as unsupported opinion or that NCEE is an aberrant anomaly, one of the platforms on which big money is falsifying facts is the National Council on Teacher Quality, which has an Advisory Board that includes Pearson International, The Hoover Institution, the American Enterprise Institute, and Murdoch’s News Corporation. The assessment of the syllabi of reading courses in US schools of education by private groups with a commercial agenda is not only political, it is predatory. The assault on faculty and students in colleges of education by NCTQ is also an aggressive act against teachers and children in K-12 public schools that impacts the academic development of the nation’s children, and also their health and well-being.

When an ideological elite joins with the economic and political forces that control what human beings do, it is important that we confront our illusions and expose the myths about what is happening in K-12 public education. The very existence of NCTQ is a clear indication that we live at a time when the pressures on educators and children in K-12 public schools are reaching a tipping point.

climate5It is the nightmare scenario that so many of us dread, when the escalation of the causes and conditions that have such a negative effect on the lives of teachers, children and their families become self-perpetuating, and reach a point beyond which there is no return from total disequilibrium. When this happens, at our peril, this nation will no longer have the smallest hope of becoming democratic. Self-aggrandizing private groups with corporate power will overwhelm the system and our struggle for democracy will flounder.

But there is more than democracy at stake. Once again, to quote Eisenhower:

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society’s future, we — you and I, and our government — must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

What Tucker or many of his contemporaries don’t seem to get is that there is no time left for big money to mess around. The problem is that the redesign of our public education system based on “meeting today’s economic needs” is getting in the way of the transformation of schools which is urgently required to meet the real needs of our children tomorrow. The assessment system that he is pushing on teachers and children is designed to prepare children to work for the corporations that are using up Earth’s resources, contaminating the planet, causing the climate system to adversely change, and making Earth an unsafe place for our kids to be.

It is Saturday night and the People’s Climate March is going to take place tomorrow. The mantra of the March is “to change everything, we need everyone”. In public education we need big money to change everything. Tucker must alter course, save face before it is too late, and help get his contemporaries – the men with money, power, and privilege – to acknowledge that under their leadership the public education system has floundered, and that if, we are going to prepare today for tomorrow, we need to support the courageous teachers who were and are making a difference for children and society before big money got in the way. [26], [27]

Denny Taylor is Professor Emerita of Litaracy Studies. She is a lifelong activist and scholar, and considers art, literature, and science inseparable. Her research crosses disciplines and paradigms and spans both the social and physical sciences. Photos taken at the climate change protest, New York City, Sep. 20, 2014, by Benjamin Taylor. Used with permission, all rights reserved. [1] Taylor, D. (2014). Nineteen Clues: Great Transformations Can Be Achieved Through Collective Action, New York, NY: Garn Press.

[2] Taylor, D. (2014, forthcoming). Keys To The Future: A Teacher’s Guide To Making Earth A Child Safe Zone. New York, NY: Garn Press.

[3] Taylor, D. (2014). Save Our Children, Save Our School, Pearson Broke the Golden Rule. New York, NY: Garn Press.

[4] National Center on Education and the Economy, IRS Form 990, 2011 Tax Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax: Part X – Balance Sheet, for the tax year July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012.

[5] National Center on Education and the Economy, IRS Form 990, 2010 Tax Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax: Part X – Balance Sheet, for the tax year July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011.

[6] Ibid. Schedule J, Part III – Compensation Information, for the tax year July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Internal Revenue Service “Exempt Organizations Select Check – Automatic Revocation of Exemption Information” for National Institute for School Leadership Inc., EIN 30-020614.

[9] Perella, J. M. (2012). A Critical Study of the National Institute for School Leadership in the Commonwealth Of Massachusetts. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts Boston.

[10] National Center on Education and the Economy, IRS Form 990, 2011 Tax Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax: Schedule , Part III – Compensation Information, for the tax year July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012.

[11] Chomsky, N. (2014). Masters of Mankind: Essays and Lectures, 1969-2013. Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books.

[12] Cody, A. (2014, forthcoming). The Educator And The Oligarch. New York, NY: Garn Press.

[13] Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America’s Public Schools. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

[14] Zhao, Y. (2014). Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Dragon: Why China Has the Best (and Worst) Education System in the World. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

[15] Wilkinson, R. and Pickett, K.E. (2011). The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

[16] Chomsky, N. (1999). Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

[17] Council on Foreign Relations (March, 2102). Task Force Report No. 68: U.S. Education Reform and National Security.

[18] Tucker, M. (May, 2011). NCEE Welcome and Overview: Redesigning the American education system based on the strategies used by top-performing nations. Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: A National Symposium. Washington, DC.

[19] Taylor, D. (1993). Teaching Without Testing, in From the Child’s Point of View. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

[20] Taylor, D. (1993). Early Literacy Development and the Early Development of Young Children, in From The Child’s Point Of View. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

[21] Taylor, D. (1998). Beginning to Read and the Spin Doctors of Science. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

[22] Taylor, D. (1983). Family Literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

[23] Taylor, D. (198?) Growing Up Literate: Learning from Inner City Families. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann,

[24] Calfee, R. (2014). Knowledge, Evidence, and Faith: How the Federal Government Used Science to Take Over Public Schools, in Whose Knowledge Counts in Government Literacy Policies? Why Expertise Matters. New York, NY: Routledge. [25] Taylor, D. (2014). Save Our Children, Save Our School, Pearson Broke the Golden Rule. New York, NY: Garn Press.

[26] Taylor, D. (2014). Nineteen Clues: Great Transformations Can Be Achieved Through Collective Action, New York, NY: Garn Press.

[27] Taylor, D. (2014, forthcoming). Keys To The Future: A Teacher’s Guide To Making Earth A Child Safe Zone. New York, NY: Garn Press.



Comments:

Add your own comment (all fields are necessary)

Substance readers:

You must give your first name and last name under "Name" when you post a comment at substancenews.net. We are not operating a blog and do not allow anonymous or pseudonymous comments. Our readers deserve to know who is commenting, just as they deserve to know the source of our news reports and analysis.

Please respect this, and also provide us with an accurate e-mail address.

Thank you,

The Editors of Substance

Your Name

Your Email

What's your comment about?

Your Comment

Please answer this to prove you're not a robot:

3 + 2 =