91制片厂视频

When Harvard professor Thomas Kane co-wrote a paper in 2006 on teacher quality, he did not expect that it would carry an import far beyond the insular world of Washington policy wonks.

Mr. Kane later got a big surprise: a summons to meet with one of the richest men in the world to talk about the paper, which showed that teachers鈥� on-the-job performance varied widely and had little to do with their credentials. At that 2007 meeting in New York City鈥檚 posh Pierre Hotel, he got still another surprise: Almost every inch of Bill Gates鈥� copy was covered with handwritten notes.

鈥淏ill got really excited,鈥� Mr. Kane said. 鈥淗e was really interested in figuring out what these great teachers were doing, and in the idea that one of the most powerful things he could do would be to provide school districts with better ways of identifying their best teachers.鈥�

It would prove a decisive moment for the $38 billion private philanthropy that bears the Gates name. Six years later, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has spent nearly $700 million on its teacher-quality agenda, according to an 91制片厂视频 Week analysis.

The foundation is widely seen as the most influential independent actor in a period of nationwide鈥攁nd deeply contested鈥攅xperimentation with the fundamentals of the teaching profession. What its spending has wrought, however, and whether it will have the desired effect, remain the subject of heated debate.

鈥淚t concerns me when one foundation has so much money,鈥� said Helen F. Ladd, a professor of public policy and economics at Duke University, in Durham, N.C. 鈥淭eachers are obviously important, but school principals are equally important, and perhaps more important. To focus only on what individual teachers do in the classroom I think is a mistake.鈥�

The Gates largess covers the development of teacher-evaluation systems, district initiatives experimenting with new ways of training and paying teachers, and related research projects. It also has fueled advocacy groups that back the idea that boosting instructional quality is the key to erasing achievement gaps.

Many of the ideas the Seattle-based foundation has spurred, such as the use of test-score algorithms as part of teachers鈥� ratings, have become a mainstream part of K-12 education policy; some 40 states now factor student achievement into teachers鈥� evaluations, up from 15 in 2009, even as those policies have sparked a sharp rebuke from many teachers and their unions.

鈥淕ates is in an almost untenable situation, because for all the good work that it tries to do, that good work gets eclipsed by the mistrust among teachers that it itself has sown,鈥� said Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, which has received some $11 million from the foundation.

The hundreds of millions that Gates has spent on its teacher agenda, observers say, is the largest nongovernmental investment in K-12 teacher policy and a large sum even by the foundation鈥檚 standards: It鈥檚 a substantial chunk of the $2 billion the philanthropy has spent on U.S. education since 2008, a total that far outpaces giving by any other foundation.

Framed another way, though, it鈥檚 about one-tenth of 1 percent of the roughly $600 billion in public dollars spent on K-12 education each year.

鈥淲e could take the entire bolus, every dollar that鈥檚 in the foundation today, and spend it out in the state of California in two years and be out of business,鈥� the co-chairwoman, Melinda Gates, said in a sit-down interview last month in New York City.

Lessons Learned?

As the philanthropy鈥檚 interest in K-12 education has matured, so has the sophistication of its strategy. With its teacher-quality spending, it appears to have heeded the lessons that so frustrated philanthropies in the 1980s and 1990s, when many underwrote projects that died as soon as the spigot dried up.

Gates 鈥渉as profoundly shifted the direction of the policy debate and has fundamentally changed how states and the feds are talking about teacher quality and teacher evaluation,鈥� said Frederick M. Hess, the director of education initiatives at the American Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank based in Washington, which has received $3.7 million from the foundation since 2008 for education initiatives. (Mr. Hess also writes an opinion blog on edweek.org.)

By far the bulk of Gates鈥� teacher-quality spending has been on 鈥渄eep dive鈥� grants given to three districts and one consortium of charter school operators to try out new evaluation systems that include consideration of students鈥� test scores and policies linked to them.

But it has also ramped up efforts to support that work through advocacy, spending more than $50 million to back groups that have made the case, particularly among state legislators, for revamped teacher evaluations.

Finally, the foundation has financed news media outlets covering education, among them 91制片厂视频, the nonprofit organization that publishes 91制片厂视频 Week. That giving has generated criticism from some readers.

Project Sites

Many observers consider Gates鈥� Measures of Effective Teaching research to be the foundation鈥檚 most influential investment by far.

鈥淓veryone does programs and everyone does advocacy. What Gates did is put money into research,鈥� said Tim Daly, the president of TNTP, an influential advocate for teacher evaluation, which has received $20.5 million in Gates funding. 鈥淓ven if they never invest another nickel in education, they鈥檒l still go down as one of the most influential foundations of all time. It鈥檚 that important.鈥�

Mr. Kane was given a $45 million budget to investigate different ways of gauging information on teaching quality. The study included an experiment to test whether the measures held up when students were randomly assigned to teachers deemed most effective. The short answer: They did. But debate persists about how to interpret and use the data.

With states and districts already busily crafting their own evaluation systems in response to federal incentives, the study fueled interest in using value-added measures, which purport to isolate teachers鈥� contributions to students鈥� learning as measured by test scores, and student surveys as components of teacher evaluations.

Results Unclear

By contrast, results from the foundation鈥檚 district-level experiments鈥攖he Intensive Partnerships for Effective Teaching鈥攁re less clear, and interviews with site leaders paint different pictures of the results.

The 197,000-student Hillsborough County, Fla., district, which was awarded $100 million, has met all its milestones, according to the partnership鈥檚 assessment director, Anna Brown.

The biggest success in the view of the district鈥檚 teachers鈥� union president, Jean Clements, is a mentoring program for novices based on the same observation framework used for teacher evaluation.

But teacher evaluations, the two agree, have been a somewhat harder lift. Ms. Clements sees nuance in teachers鈥� reaction: Many see improvements because of the evaluation system, but that doesn鈥檛 mean they like its pressures.

鈥淚鈥檝e heard a lot of teachers and principals say, 鈥楾his is nerve-wracking, this is stressful, this is time-consuming,鈥� 鈥� she said, 鈥渂ut many teachers and principals do believe that they are seeing better teaching and learning.鈥�

That said, the $40 million Pittsburgh project has faced some delays and disappointments.

鈥淚 think we鈥檝e done amazingly well, but not as well as I would have liked, frankly, in implementing this expansive project,鈥� said Nina Esposito-Visgitis, who in 2011 became the president of the Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers.

Some pieces, such as a new career-ladder system that gives expert teachers more roles and a schoolwide reward program, have come to fruition. But budget problems led to the scrapping of a district-run program for preparing new teachers, a component outlined in the plan, and to disagreements over whether or not the new data gathered on teacher performance should be factored into layoffs in the 26,000-student district.

Other issues loom: The union and the district don鈥檛 agree on where to set the score benchmarks on the evaluations. 鈥淚鈥檓 worried, because I really want it to be fair,鈥� Ms. Esposito-Visgitis said. 鈥淚 think this is going to be a telling year.鈥�

If the Gates projects are built on a coherent theory of action鈥攖hat improved focus on teacher performance will pay dividends for students鈥攐nly a few studies seem to support that conclusion. The Gates projects could provide more proof, but so far, the foundation hasn鈥檛 released any independent audits.

A team from the Santa Monica, Calif.-based RAND Corp. is conducting a $15 million evaluation of the intensive-partnership sites, including implementation of the plans, their impact on academic achievement, and whether the plans can be replicated.

Even so, scholars note that the results will be messy. Florida alone has revised its testing program several times over the course of the Hillsborough grant, making outcomes data hard to analyze.

鈥淭hey鈥檙e not going to get an evaluation that says [the grants] worked or they didn鈥檛,鈥� said Dan Goldhaber, a research professor at the University of Washington鈥檚 Bothell campus. 鈥淚mplementation matters, and it鈥檚 not clear that it went well in a lot of places.鈥� (A research center to which Mr. Goldhaber has contributed has received $770,000 from the foundation.)

In one respect in particular, the Gates Foundation has taken a much different tack from that of several fellow philanthropies: engaging with the two national teachers鈥� unions, including giving them, their local affiliates, or union networks roughly $20 million in all.

Gates officials paint the unions as important partners: The Measures of Effective Teaching study and intensive partnerships could not have occurred without their cooperation. But the decision to woo the unions necessitated some trade-offs, according to sources who requested anonymity because of their ties to Gates.

Avoiding Rhee?

The foundation appears to have made a strategic decision not to subsidize teacher-quality projects associated with Michelle A. Rhee, the former District of Columbia superintendent, who is widely abhorred by teachers鈥� unions.

The Gates Foundation did not join other philanthropies in financing a performance-pay program tied to evaluations in the nation鈥檚 capital, nor has it donated to Ms. Rhee鈥檚 StudentsFirst advocacy group, records show.

Still, unions were outraged at the foundation鈥檚 promotional support for 鈥淲aiting for 鈥楽uperman,'鈥�" a documentary critics said oversimplified debates about charter school performance and teachers鈥� unions. And Gates鈥� funding of groups to elevate teachers鈥� voices in policy discussions independently of the unions has stoked criticism.

Top union officials have faced internal rebukes for taking foundation cash. Ms. Weingarten especially, who hosted Mr. Gates at the AFT鈥檚 2010 convention, has publicly sought to distinguish her union鈥檚 relationship from other Gates-financed teacher groups, noting that the foundation鈥檚 support amounts to just 1 percent of the AFT鈥檚 annual budget.

Nevertheless, she conceded, 鈥淎t one point or another, maybe the pressure will be so great we won鈥檛 be able to do it anymore.鈥�

Motives Questioned

The sharpest critiques have come from education historian-cum-advocate Diane Ravitch, who had Mr. Gates and his foundation squarely in mind when she formulated the phrase 鈥渂illionaire boys鈥� club鈥� in a 2011 book. She accuses philanthropies and other 鈥渞eformers鈥� of overstating school failure to pave the way for an ill-conceived market takeover of education.

鈥淭hen, the Gates foundation decided that the 鈥榩roblem鈥� was teacher quality and not having metrics in place to drive improvements in teacher quality. They made this decision based on lousy research,鈥� she wrote last week on her popular blog.

Many grantees dispute charges of heavy-handedness, however.

鈥淚 wish that our state and the federal government were as trusting of us and as flexible as the Gates Foundation has always been,鈥� said Ms. Clements of Hillsborough County. 鈥淭hey did not script what we had to include in our grant proposal.鈥�

Gates officials suggested, for instance, that the teacher-evaluation system incorporate student surveys. But Hillsborough demurred and has not faced penalties, Ms. Clements said.

Some observers鈥� concerns center on Gates鈥� intense focus on teacher quality more than the actual projects.

鈥淚t鈥檚 setting a direction for a policy, even if they don鈥檛 dictate it,鈥� said Ken Libby, a graduate student at the University of Colorado Boulder who has studied Gates鈥� tax filings as part of his doctoral research. 鈥淲hen you have lots of people pointing in the same direction, other things can get ignored.鈥�

The amount of funding has obliquely made it harder to advance thoughtful criticisms of Gates鈥� work, some say. No one wants to scuttle a chance at a grant, said Mr. Hess of the AEI.

鈥淔rankly, I鈥檓 sure there are some people in organizations across the board, right and left, who bite their tongues at times, who go off the record because they don鈥檛 think it鈥檚 a good use of their political capital to pick these fights,鈥� he said.

Even so, the scope of Gates giving does not guarantee that the changes it has promoted will be long lasting or successful. That鈥檚 a point underscored by Jay P.Greene, a professor of education reform at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville who has studied education philanthropy and is generally critical of the Gates Foundation.

鈥淲ho exactly advocates for teacher-pay reform or new evaluation systems? Who are the constituencies who want those from the bottom up?鈥� Mr. Greene said. 鈥淕ates is doing a 鈥榬everse Al Shanker,鈥� saying some nice things to teachers to distract them from things they will dislike,鈥� he said, referring to the late AFT president. 鈥淭he difference is that Shanker had to charm a few people easily charmed by flattery. Millions of teachers are not so easily fooled.鈥�

Some of the foundation鈥檚 projects to build such constituencies supportive of its work haven鈥檛 succeeded. A $3.5 million grant to establish Communities for Teaching Excellence, a group designed to build community support in the intensive-partnership districts, shut its doors just a year into operation.

Professional Development

Teachers continue to view the Gates efforts with suspicion, said Ms. Weingarten. 鈥淚t鈥檚 hard to convince people that the foundation wants anything other than a ranking system of schools, students, and teachers,鈥� she said.

Vicki L. Phillips, the director of college-ready grants for the Gates Foundation, doesn鈥檛 dispute the critique.

鈥淲e left a lot of people thinking we were only about evaluation, or the dismissal part of evaluation, and nothing could be further from the truth,鈥� she said. 鈥淲e can get caught up with what鈥檚 happening in the moment and forget to talk about the rest.鈥�

A look at the foundation鈥檚 most recent grants suggests it鈥檚 taken the message to heart. It has increased spending on professional development and tools, including $15 million to three districts to investigate better ways of providing teachers with on-the-job support.

Six years after his initial meeting with Mr. Gates, Mr. Kane of Harvard believes the foundation鈥檚 spending has on the whole benefited K-12 education.

鈥淚t鈥檚 not like we鈥檝e figured out what the ideal system looks like yet, but at least now we鈥檙e talking about it, and lots of places are trying to do a better job,鈥� he said. 鈥淚鈥檓 really proud of the role we played in that.鈥�

Yet, for all the Gates Foundation鈥檚 focus on judging success based on higher student test scores, it remains to be seen whether its expensive teacher-quality campaign will deliver by such measures.

鈥淪ix or seven years from now, has student learning improved because of their investments?鈥� Mr. Kane said. 鈥淚 sure hope the answer is yes.鈥�