Michael Schellenberger

Rank 39 of 47
|
Score -94
Marilyn Muller
@1in5advocacy
·
328d
@Hawthorne_Ghost @rweingarten @pauldrossi My in-depth research indicates that in 1927, Dr. Arthur Gates, a prominent educator at Teachers College, Columbia University, advocated for sharply reducing, if not entirely eliminating, phonetic instruction in early education. His stance, published in The Journal of Educational…
3/18/2025, 12:43:08 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
323d
US Education Department Contractor Overcharged Taxpayers While Spending Millions On Executive Salaries

As student math and reading scores declined, the American Institute of Research charged 50% in indirect costs and paid its CEO over $2 million

by @galexybrane and…
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
323d
There's no proof of major waste, fraud, or abuse in govt spending, say the media. But there is. And now Public has obtained invoices revealing that a major contractor overcharged the Ed. Dept, paid its CEO $2M/year, and promoted debunked research as student performance declined.

The statement by @galexybrane, represented by an emoji, is a response to a discussion about alleged financial mismanagement by a US Education Department contractor. The conversation involves claims of overcharging and high executive salaries amidst declining student performance. This topic is part of public discourse as it addresses government spending, accountability, and education quality.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but highlights concerns about potential misuse of taxpayer money, aligning with the principle of doing no harm by advocating for accountability. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement indirectly promotes understanding by drawing attention to the issue, though it lacks detailed analysis or empathy. [+1]
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement does not engage in personal attacks and maintains a neutral tone, aligning with constructive dialogue. [+1]