WASHINGTON (AP) — Billionaire businessman Eli Broad, one of the country's most active philanthropists, founded the Broad Superintendents Academy in 2002 with an extraordinarily optimistic goal: Find leaders from both inside and outside education, train them, and have them occupying the superintendencies in a third of the 75 largest school districts — all in just two years.
Now hosting its 10th class, the Los Angeles-based program hasn't quite reached that goal, but it's close. The nation's three biggest districts have Broad-trained executives in top leadership positions: Shael Polakow-Suransky, the chief academic officer in New York City; John E. Deasy, the superintendent of Los Angeles Unified; and Jean-Claude Brizard, who became the chief executive officer of the Chicago schools last month. In all, 21 of the nation's 75 largest districts now have superintendents or other highly placed central-office executives who have undergone Broad training.
But as the program has risen in prominence and prestige — 758 people, the largest pool ever, applied for the program this year, and eight were accepted — it has also drawn impassioned criticism from people who see it as a destructive force in schools and districts.
They say Broad-trained superintendents use corporate-management techniques to consolidate power, weaken teachers' job protections, cut parents out of decision-making, and introduce unproven reform measures.
One of those critics is Sharon Higgins, who started a website called The Broad Report in 2009 after her school district in Oakland, Calif., had three Broad-trained superintendents in quick succession, each appointed by the state.
She said she grew alarmed when she started seeing principals and teachers whom she called "high-quality, dedicated people" forced out. She contends in her blog that Broad superintendents are trained to aim for "maximum disruption" when they come to a district, without regard for parent and teacher concerns.
"It's like saying, let me come to your house and completely rearrange your furniture, because I think your house is a mess," Ms. Higgins said, adding that other parents around the country have reached out to her to complain about their own Broad-trained school leaders.
Likewise, James Horn, an associate professor of education policy at Cambridge College in Massachusetts, keeps up a drumbeat of criticism in the blog Schools Matter. In one post, he referred to the academy as "Eli Broad's corporate training school ... for future superintendents who are trained how to use their power to hand over their systems to the Business Roundtable."
In an interview, Mr. Horn said that school officials trained by the program graduate with a hostility to teachers. His critique goes beyond the Broad superintendents program to include many of the foundations that have emerged as major players in efforts to reshape education over the past decade.
Mr. Horn points not only to the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation, of Los Angeles, but also to the Seattle-based Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation, of Bentonville, Ark., as examples of what he sees as a worrisome trend of "venture philanthropy" in education. Venture philanthropists typically emphasize the imperative of getting measurable results for their investment and maintain close ties to the organizations they fund.
"What venture philanthropy is doing seems to me to be wielding influence not to help public institutions, but to destroy public institutions, or take control of them," Mr. Horn said. "This is a dangerous place, where corporations and government get mixed up."
The Broad Foundation has helped support Education Week's coverage of school leadership and the 25th anniversary of A Nation at Risk, but it is not a current funder. Editorial Projects in Education, the newspaper's publisher, received a Gates Foundation grant for organizational capacity-building that expired May 31, and it was a recipient of earlier Gates funding.
It’s all about the hype. The spin. The pundits. The experts. The talking heads. The facts. The data. The insight. The intangibles. The inside scoop. The interpretations. The trends. The analysis. The speculation. The predictions. The records. The historical contexts. The powers that be. The informed conclusions. Really? 
