Archive | August, 2025

Oakland Public Education Fund Questioned

23 Aug

By Thomas Ultican 8/23/2025

Recently the Oakland Public Education Fund (OPEF) posted, “OUSD Board of Education Renews Long-standing Partnership with The Ed Fund.” OUSD is the Oakland Unified School District and “The Ed Fund” is the latest of many names used to identify OPEF. A quick look at OPEF’s tax forms (TIN: 43-2014630) reveals that they have assets of about $25 million and a yearly income of more than $15 million. The question becomes who is this wealthy group and do their purposes include something more than just good education?

OPEF, formed in 2003 and was originally called “Oakland Autonomous Small Schools Foundation Inc.” EdWeek reported that in 2000 and 2003 the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation provided two grants totaling more than $25 million some of which was designated for small school incubators. It seems likely some of this money was used as seed money to establish OPEF.

The founding executive director of OPEF was Jonathan Klein, a 1997 Yale graduate who became a Teach for America (TFA) fifth grade teacher in the Compton Unified School District. After coming to Oakland in addition to founding OPEF, he went on to become CEO of GO Public Schools, became Bay Area executive director of TFA and chief program officer at the T. Gary and Kathleen Rogers Foundation. In 2013, he was named Change Agent of the year by New Schools Venture Fund. In other words, he is an education profiteer closely associated with enemies of public schools.

According to the OPEF web-page, the organization relaunched as the Oakland Schools Foundation in 2012 and then relaunched again in 2014 as the Oakland Public Education Fund. Today they refer to themselves as the “The Ed Fund.” In 2016, they put in motion a corporate partnership with Salesforce which provided $2.5 million for middle school computer science and math. This raises concerns that “The Ed Fund” is inappropriately employing wealth to drive public school curriculum using other than democratic means.

Billionaires Finance OPEF

A change in the way data was reported appeared in the OPEF tax forms for 2024. Previously, their reporting on the contributor’s page simply stated “RESTRICTED.” The new report still hides the contributor’s names but provides the amounts given by seven individuals.

In addition to the contributors not listed above, the T. Gary and Kathleen Rogers Foundation have granted OPEF a total of $785,833 (IN: 65-1202020), the East Bay Community Foundation contributed $557,760 (IN: 94-6070996) and the Silicon Valley Community Fund provided a whopping $8,349,085 (IN: 20-5205488). The Silicon Valley Community Fund is a dark money site where extremely wealthy people can provide money without their name being attached. It is worth noting that the T. Gary and Kathleen Rogers Foundation has granted the East Bay Community Foundation $6,165,000 since its founding in 2003.

Since 2014, OPEF has averaged giving more than $5 million a year to the Oakland Unified School District for a total of $51,885,477. However, their other spending undermines public education and promotes privatization. Educate78 has received significant support from both the Hastings Fund and the City Fund, known enemies of the public school system. GO Public Schools has been a consistent advocate for expanding the charter school movement. TFA has foisted unqualified teachers with 5 weeks of training on classrooms throughout America. The New Teachers Center is a Bill Gates developed center in Santa Cruz.

Anyone working in a public school knows that charter schools directly compete with and undermine public schools.

Many of the foundations that OPEF is supporting are supporters of school privatization or they just make us ask why. For example, why has OPEF sent The San Francisco Foundation over $2.5 million? Why are they sending money to obviously anti-public schools groups like the T. Gary and Kathleen Rogers Foundation, the Charles and Helen Schwab Foundation or the David and Lucille Packard Foundation?

What is the true purpose of the Oakland Public Education Fund? Do the billionaires who are financing it want to control OUSD and promote privatization or is this true philanthropy. It is hard to know but rich people giving away money based on the goodness of the hearts seems like a rare event. 

The T. Gary and Kathleen Rogers Foundation

T. (Thomas) Gary Rogers was the first non-family member to become chairman of the board at Levi Strauss. Before Levi Strauss, he and business partner Rich Cronk purchased Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream. T. Gary was the CEO while he and Cronk were the principal shareholder for almost 30 years. They sold to Nestlé in 2002. T. Gary became chairman of the board of directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and was once Chairman of Safeway Inc. This boy from Stockton became a highly regarded and respected businessman.

T. Gary and his wife founded the T. Gary and Kathleen Rogers Foundation in 2003. Looking through their tax filings, it seems there are two distinct periods. Period one is from the foundations start to the death of T. Gary Rogers on May 2, 2017.

In 2003, the Rogers family put $35 million in to start the foundation and the next year they put in another $13.25 million which put the total assets at $52 million. That included some return on investment.

The only giving cited, which started in 2006, was to an organization that became the East Bay Community Foundation. In 2010, they made their first two education related grants to Lighthouse Charter Schools for a total of $840,000. In 2011, in addition to giving to Lighthouse they started granting $50,000 a year to the Oakland Schools Foundation which was later renamed OPEF. By 2017, the Rogers Family Foundation had grown to $78 million in assets.  

Period two began after T. Gary died.

From the start, T. Gary’s son Brian has been significantly involved in leading the Foundation. In 2019, he dramatically increased the number of grants given and the money spent. He upped spending to support pro-science of reading organizations and individual charter organizations. He put money into organizations working to privatized public education and advance the charter industry.

The foundations 2022 Tax Form showed the total assets dropping to $55,367,184. However, this seems to be part of a plan. In 2020, Brian posted to the foundations web page:

“It is therefore with bittersweet emotions that we share with our grantees, partners, and fellow community organizations our planned spend down of the T. Gary and Kathleen Rogers Family Foundation. Within the next five years, we anticipate sunsetting our Oakland education grantmaking and operations.”

That $55 million left in 2022 still has the potential to reek a lot of havoc.

Conclusion

OPEF is a billionaire funded-organization that is exerting undo control on Oakland public schools. Some of their spending is laudable like their generous giving to OUSD. However, so much money in the control of a few not well-known individuals undermines the democratic process. I cannot help wondering if some of the odd decisions previous superintendent, Kyla Johnson-Trammell, made were coerced by the money this organization wielded.    

Tags: , , , ,

Behaviorism as Cognitive Science

10 Aug

By Thomas Ultican 8/10/2025

Greg Toppo writes for ‘The 74’ which suggests he is a professional propagandist working for billionaires. In his July 24th article, “‘Cognitive Science,’ All the Rage in British Schools, Fails to Register in U.S”, he did not even attempt to be objective as he lionized a form of ‘Cognitive Science’ that is a euphemism for behaviorism. It is a corrupt approach that philosophically undermines a field of research exploring undeniably important ideas.

There are many definitions of cognitive science; this one is from Yale University:

“Cognitive science is an interdisciplinary field devoted to exploring the nature of cognitive processes such as perception, reasoning, memory, attention, language, imagery, motor control, and problem-solving. The goal of cognitive science is to understand (1) the representations and processes in our minds that underwrite these capacities, (2) how they are acquired, and how they develop, and (3) how they are implemented in underlying hardware (biological or otherwise). Stated more simply, the goal of cognitive science is to understand how the mind works!”

A cognitive science subset, Cognitive load theory, was developed in mid-1980s by Australian education psychologist John Sweller. His theory pays attention to human cognitive architecture: characteristics and relations between long-term memory and short term memory, and how load on memory affects learning.

The basic premise of cognitive load theory is that short term memory or working memory is limited and can be overloaded. Therefore, Sweller postulates that explicit instruction is superior to discovery approaches for teaching new content and skills. He claims that to think critically we need to know a lot of stuff; therefore critical thinking can only be actualized through copious amounts of content knowledge. He and colleagues say it is not possible to teach critical thinking because it is not a transferable skill.

Selling Cognitive Load Theory

Toppo began his article by introducing his readers to Zack Groshell, a former Seattle-area fourth-grade teacher. His 2024 book, Just Tell Them, is a guide for delivering explicit instruction and adhering to the Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) premise of learning. Dewey, Vygotsky and Piaget would surely be saddened by this 21st century misunderstanding of student development.

The article also introduces Benjamin Riley, founder of Deans for Impact, a Texas-based group that has pushed to make cognitive science more central to U.S. teacher training programs. I find it instructive that his organization is financially supported by Besos, Gates, Dell, Schusterman, Zuckerberg and other billionaires.

Toppo cites the influence of E. D. Hirsch who wrote in his book, The Schools We Need, “Higher-level skills critically depend upon the automatic mastery of repeated lower-level activities.” He further called for tougher standards which prompted education writer, Alfie Kohn to note that Hirsch’s approach “reflects a particular model of learning—behaviorism.”

As Kohn stated, in the debate between behaviorism and “constuctivism”, Hirch comes down squarely on the side of behaviorism. Kohn went on to observe that, “E. D. Hirsch’s Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, might be called the ‘bunch o’ facts’ approach to education.” (Page 11)

Like other behaviorists, E. D. Hirsch is calling for education material to be atomized and drilled.

Most of Toppo’s article is concentrated on education in the United Kingdom which might explain why he brought up the very unpopular education leader under former Prime Minister David Cameron, Michael Gove. Gove attempted to reform English education through privatization and testing. Gove’s associate Nick Gibbs said he first encountered Hirsch’s book in 2006 and that it formed the basis for all of their education reforms.

In 2013, more than 150 leading educator wrote and signed a piece for the Times of London calling Gove’s reforms dangerous. They stated in part:

“Sir, We, the undersigned academics and children’s authors, are gravely concerned at the impact that current developments in state education in England are likely to have on our children and their futures.”

“These damaging developments must stop. If they go ahead there will be devastating consequences for children’s mental health, for future opportunities and, most importantly, for the quality of childhood itself.”

At about the same time, England’s national teachers union held a unanimous vote of no confidence in Gove. General Secretary of the teachers union, Christine Blower, said teachers were not the “enemies of promise” that Gove said they were. “We just have the temerity to assert that the secretary of state is wrong.”

Meaningless Data Quoted

Besides citing people like Gove and Hirsch to sell this new behaviorist approach to education, Toppo writes, “From 2011 to 2021, English students’ average scores in the PIRLS International Benchmarks of Reading Achievement, a key global comparison, rose six points, placing them fourth worldwide, while U.S. students’ dropped eight points, ranking the U.S. just below England.”

This was weak sauce.

Top 8 scoring Nations in the 2021 PIRLS

For several years, education in England has been trying to get rid of the Gove stench, and they appear to be on track. The six point gain in a decade on a more than 500 point scale is not much to brag about. In 2011, the US score was 556 England’s was 552 in 2021 the US score was 548 England’s was 556. Even if I believed in standardized testing, which I don’t, I still do not see any real difference. Remember, we were just starting to come out of the COVID nightmare in 2021.

In 2022, the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), did its every three year assessment of 15 year olds one year late because of COVID. Of the 80 countries compared, the USA’s reading score of 504 was number 9 and the UK’s score of 494 was number 13. There is not a lot to brag about here either.

The testing data Toppo cites does not prove or even suggest that this new behaviorism is any kind of silver bullet.

Researchers and Educators Have Concerns

The lead sentence in the latest issue of UK’s Schools Week states, “Teachers need to be sceptical about applying popular but “untested” cognitive science theories to education, a panel of experts has warned.”

Noam Chomsky is the scientist-philosopher who more than any other contributor seriously undermined B.F. Skinner’s theories of behaviorism. A 2006 interview with Chomsky states, “Chomsky’s (1959) review of Verbal Behavior (Skinner, 1957) has been hailed as the most influential document in the history of psychology.”

Importantly, behaviorism undermines the important works of William James and John Dewey. Chomsky’s 1959 review of Skinner’s book went a long way toward reviving Dewey’s theories and shutting down behaviorist ideology.

In 2022, Australian researcher Peter Ellerton published, “On critical thinking and content knowledge: a critique of the assumptions of cognitive load theory [CLT].”  After presenting evidence from several papers, Ellerton asserts:

“The absolute claim of CLT that “critical thinking is unteachable” is clearly refuted by these studies. As is the claim that it is not transferable. The softer claim that it is best done through a context of engagement with deep content knowledge is also challenged by these findings. Claiming critical thinking is not directly susceptible to pedagogical influence beyond content development stands in contrast to a significant body of research and pedagogical practice that does not seem to be engaged with or addressed by CLT.“

Why is CLT Promoted?

The application of CLT makes teaching children at digital screens more doable. Delivering on-line education is much easier if it is broken down into small chunks so the learner can work through menus of skills and assessments. It is bad education but the billionaires promoting it care more about profits than America. Besides, their children will attend pricey private schools that don’t employ behaviorism.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,