In Search of … Obama, the Radical Lefty

Nerd alert: Growing up in the mid- to late-70’s, I was a fan of the TV series “In Search Of,” hosted by the original Spock, Leonard Nimoy.

If that series were still on TV today, and its producers were willing to consider political mysteries, they might be tempted to piece together an investigation into claimed sightings of “Obama, the Radical Lefty” – sightings that run the gamut from that single-source, subjective “most liberal Senator” ranking, to Matt Drudge’s more recent, ripped-out-of-context hyperventilating about wealth redistribution via the courts.

Upon review, these “Radical Lefty” sightings are as disputable as any doctored photograph of the Loch Ness monster or Bigfoot. The same can be said for the hoopla surrounding the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, on which Obama worked with Bill Ayers.

Not long ago, an occasional TMV commenter attempted to convince me that the McCain camp’s fixation on Bill Ayers was legitimate — not only because Ayers was a former hoodlum, but also because Ayers collaborated with Obama to pursue “radical left politicization of the school system” via the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC).

To prove her point, this commenter suggested I consider Stanley Kurtz’s evaluation of the CAC’s work and that I also review materials posted in this online compilation, in particular, the 1999 evaluation of the CAC by Alexander Russo, which was published as one in a series of case studies on several Annenberg Challenge recipients,

In turn, I read both Russo’s evaluation and Kurtz’s summary of his evaluation. I even went a step further and reviewed multiple pages from another evaluation by the Consortium on Chicago School Research, published in 2003 and posted (here and here) within the same compilation as Russo’s evaluation.

From my study of these documents, two notable observations emerged, neither of which (I assume) will make the aforementioned TMV commenter very happy: First, Kurtz repeatedly and blatantly ignores information that is not supportive of his premise, raising serious questions about the validity of his larger effort. Second, it can be reasonably argued that the views held by CAC/Ayers were “radical right” instead of “radical left.” Associated notes, references, and cites follow, below the fold. Warning: If you dig into these details, you might want to pull up a comfy chair and crack open a beer. This will not be a casual, 15-second blog read.

NOTES, REFERENCES, AND CITES

Kurtz: “CAC translated Mr. Ayers’s radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with ‘external partners,’ which actually got the money.”

What Kurtz suggests is a radical, potentially unproven approach had – per Russo’s evaluation, page 40 – “been floating around for a number of years and was already operating among many Chicago schools.” Also on page 40 of Russo’s evaluation, the potential benefits of this “external partner” or “third party” approach were acknowledged by none less than a director of the Pew Forum, hardly a “radical” group. Granted, Kurtz cites a few examples of “external partners” funded (and not) through CAC, leaving the impression that, if the approach itself wasn’t radical, the selected partners were. In doing so, Kurtz seems to ignore the totality of funded partners. Per Russo, p. 37: “… most of (the CAC) grants were awarded to school reform or higher education groups that were given funds to continue and extend previously-established partnerships” — once again suggesting that CAC was not running off on a wild tangent, but working to support a circle of partners already vetted through prior work with schools.

Kurtz: “CAC’s in-house evaluators comprehensively studied the effects of its grants on the test scores of Chicago public-school students. They found no evidence of educational improvement.”

Per Russo’s evaluation, page 33, student achievement at the time was on the rise across Chicago schools, including CAC schools. Russo’s concern was not that there was a lack of improvement at CAC schools, but that it was difficult to determine how much of this improvement was distinctly driven by CAC versus other reform initiatives. Years later, the authors of the Consortium evaluation acknowledged on pages 102-103 of their report that, in aggregate, results at the CAC schools were still largely indistinguishable from results at non-CAC schools. They further echoed Russo’s earlier evaluation, acknowledging that CAC “contributed in meaningful ways to the development of a number of individual schools,” in particular its so-called “Breakthrough Schools.”

Kurtz: “CAC’s own evaluators noted that project accountability was hampered by the board’s reluctance to break away from grant decisions made in 1995. So even after Mr. Ayers’s formal sway declined, the board largely adhered to the grant program he had put in place.”

And yet, on page 155 of the Consortium’s report, we learn that the aforementioned “Breakthrough Schools” were the result of a material change in direction in 1999, prompted by staff and board member doubts that the CAC’s prior “course of action — supporting a large number of schools that implemented a wide variety of local initiatives, some better than others — would result in much overall success.”

Kurtz: “The CAC’s agenda flowed from Mr. Ayers’s educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism … (CAC) board member Arnold Weber was concerned that parents ‘organized’ by community groups might be viewed by school principals ‘as a political threat.’”

What Kurtz fails to mention is how much the CAC/Ayers “educational philosophy” reflected the educational philosophies of CAC’s national counterparts, namely the national Annenberg Challenge and the Annenberg Institute for School Reform.

The national Challenge — which supported the Institute for School Reform as well as the CAC — was funded by former U.S. Ambassador Walter H. Annenberg, identified as friendly with multiple Republican presidents, and on whom one of those presidents (Reagan) bestowed “the nation’s highest civilian honor in 1986, The Presidential Medal of Freedom, citing him for a ‘brilliant career in publishing, for his pioneering use of television for educational purposes, and for his devotion to the development of higher education.’”

It is perhaps unreasonable to expect the late Mr. Annenberg to have been familiar with the details of all of his funded initiatives. But it is quite reasonable to assume he was at least familiar with the guiding principles of the major organizations he established while he was still alive. (Mr. Annenberg passed away in 2002. The Institute for School Reform and Annenberg Challenge were established nine years earlier, in 1993.) It’s also reasonable to assume Annenberg’s widow and McCain supporter, Leonore Annenberg, along with their daughter, Wallis Annenberg — both of whom today hold top leadership roles at the Annenberg Foundation — would be conscientious about making sure Foundation beneficiaries continue to reflect Mr. Annenberg’s values.

Keeping those points in mind, consider these contemporary words from the Annenberg Institute’s executive director:

… we work to build local capacity and develop supporting tools to enable community organizations to provide pressure and support for educational improvement. Community organizing and engagement has been a hallmark of the Institute’s agenda since the 1990s, when the Institute supported the eighteen Annenberg Challenge sites.

Note the similarities between that language and Kurtz’s depiction of Ayers’ influence on the CAC. The Annenberg Institute spotlights “community organizing” and “pressure” and “engagement.” Kurtz ties Ayers to Arnold Weber’s concerns “that parents ‘organized’ by community groups might be viewed by school principals ‘as a political threat.’”

What’s more, these resonating views are labeled (by the Institute’s executive director) as “a hallmark of the Institute’s agenda since the 1990s, when the Institute supported the eighteen Annenberg Challenge sites” — one of which, of course, was Chicago.

Another philosophical link — between CAC/Ayers and the national Annenberg group — is identified in Russo’s assessment. Kurtz claims that Ayers’ philosophy “downplayed achievement tests.” From page 47 of Russo’s report:

‘Accountability systems neither encourage nor help schools to adopt reflective methods for continuous improvement,’ stated the national Challenge’s 1999 midterm report. Statements like these reflect a deep-seated ambivalence about the intensifying nationwide focus on student achievement.

These various echoes between the national Annenberg groups and CAC/Ayers should not be surprising. After all, the CAC’s grant application was lead-authored by Ayers and subsequently approved by Annenberg staff, who presumably based their approval (at least, in part) on how much the local applicants’ values (Ayers’ values) reflected the national group’s values.

These CAC/Ayers/Annenberg values also echo values expressed by Congressman, fringe-Republican, and former presidential candidate Ron Paul. More than once, Paul has advocated — in speeches and proposed legislation — “placing control of education back in the hands of citizens and local communities.” Reliant on that philosophy are a number of proposals, from vouchers to home schooling. And what such proposals share in common are the ideas of “decentralization” and “bottom-up change.”

Per Russo’s evaluation, p. 44, CAC was “designed around” similar ideas, as was a predecessor reform movement in Chicago (Russo, p. 35) which had “led to the turnaround of many schools that had lagged behind.” Russo also noted, p. 47, that in the “literature” of the national Annenberg Challenge “there has long been a strong anticentralization, antidistrict policy sentiment.” Russo further acknowledged, p. 47, that the CAC may have gone a step further than the national challenge in its push for “school reform through local action.” But given the resonance of that objective with Ron Paul’s and similar proposals, would the CAC/Ayers’ approach be more accurately described as radical-left or radical-right?

It’s not my goal to answer the preceding question, but — as explained to a reader in the comments section of this post — to demonstrate that there are synergies between left and right on the subject of school reform; that “radical” is clearly in the eye of the beholder; and that taking Kurtz’s analysis at face value requires willfill ignorance of the larger record.