I noticed that in the past two or three years, a number of extremely rich people are bundling funds and pouring them into local school board races.
Often the people making the campaign contributions do not live in the state or local community.
I wrote about this strange and new phenomenon in my book Reign of Error.
It is a deliberate and coordinated campaign to seize control of education at the local level.
This turns out to be remarkably easy, as the people who run for school board usually are able to put up or raise $10,000-40,000 at best.
But the strangers can easily assemble (or “bundle”) many times that amount to elect their hand-picked candidate, who–if elected–will become a voice for privatization, charter schools, Teach for America, test-based evaluation of teachers, and every other policy that is guaranteed to demoralize teachers and hand public dollars over to nonpublic schools and entrepreneurs. This is a very small investment for corporate reformers in a very large prize.
We saw it in the state board elections in Louisiana, where millions flowed into the state to give Governor Bobby Jindal a compliant board. We saw it in Los Angeles, where Mayor Bloomberg sent a cool $1 million, and Michelle Rhee tossed in a quarter million dollars (thankfully, they lost).
We saw it in the Washington State charter campaign, where Bill Gates, the Bezos family (amazon.com), and the Walton (Walmart) family easily outspent the parent groups school boards, and civil rights groups to enact charter legislation, which had been turned down three times previously.
Now the target of big money is Sue Peters, a parent activist who is running for school board. She has antagonized the corporate reformers because she stands up for children, not for privatization. A PAC was created to defeat her.
This comment answers the question: Who is funding the campaign against Sue Peters?
| Here are the main contributors to Sue Peters opponent’s PAC: Matt Griffin, Christopher Larson and Nick Hanauer.Matt Griffin is a real estate developer that is probably the person coordinating the giving. Twenty people essentially control Seattle’s elections:
Nick Hanauer desperately tried to get legislators to pass charter legislation in 2011. When legislators failed to pass charter legislation, Hanauer sent out a famous letter and called the legislators “stooges”. The following year, charter schools were put on the ballot and Hanauer contributed $1M to pass this initiative. |
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Another example of money more important than people. The Supreme Court has stated that money is speech, is protected by the Constitution, ergo the people with the most money have the most protected speech: my view. With such a philosophy how can our democratic form of government continue to exist? Worrisome for me at least. And as our public school system is the agent to form the minds, thinking of the next generations, with such a philosophy what are the chances for free thinking in the future? My view: our country’s founders would be appalled.
This sounds vaguely, Gordon Wilder, as if you are in favor of limiting free speech. Is this so?
The cost of that “free” speech can be quite limiting, indeed!
“Limiting FREE SPEECH”?
No, absolutely not. I know of very few people anywhere who want to limit “free speech”.
Why would we?
What the overwhelming majority of people everywhere want is a limit on PAID “speech!” (Although “advertising” is the much more accurate term.)
This ersatz version of so-called free speech they claim to defend is anything but “free”; it has to be purchased at prevailing market rates and can be bought in almost unlimited quantity. But only by vastly wealthy people and corporate special interests.
All Americans are entitled to free speech. I hope I’ve clarified the difference between a right, which belongs to every citizen, regardless, and a purchased consumer item, which belongs only to those who can afford to buy it.
Ka-ching!
How misguided your are, PSP. Speech amplified by newspapers, even in colonial times, had to be paid for. All speech, if disseminated at all, is paid for by someone, even this blog. Your position of speech suggest to me another question: Would you limit by law the amount of money an individual could amass?
Really interesting that Nick Hanauer is on the wrong side on this, as he is one of the few outspoken liberals on economic issues among wealthy investors. Someone needs to get to him and explain the facts of the privatization war that’s going on, as you have explained Diane.
Thanks for this, Diane. I live in Seattle and write my own public education blog (and am absolutely supporting Sue Peters for School Board). I have tried to reach to Nick Hanauer to talk/interview him. Nothing doing. It’s hard to find common ground with people who don’t want to share ideas and believe they know all the answers.
That said, I believe Sue is gaining momentum in her campaign. While her opponent has the dollars that appears to NOT be enough for some of her opponent’s supporters. One filed a public disclosure request to Seattle Schools to see e-mails between Sue and her child’s teacher and principal. Can you imagine? Reading opponent’s e-mails that concern her child’s education. And, this opposition supporter wrote an e-mail TELLING others about the e-mails and that Sue was “highly combative.”
I told people about this tactic at my blog and boy, did it make people mad. Who goes after someone’s children during a political campaign? What did Sue’s opponent do? Stays silent. Someone does this kind of thing to push her campaign and Sue’s opponent just stays silent.
Voters aren’t ignoring this race.
Can you please clarify who Christopher Larson is? Local or outsider? We have a local Larson here who is deep into privatizing.
Elections are a sad commentary. When the cause of victory is effected by how much money is spent on a campaign, what then is the purpose of elections if the outcome is already determined? (High-stakes testing–sounds familiar?) Elections have lost its democratic value in this country, hence a replication of third-world ideology. Because elections (politics in general) have been corrupted by people with money, power, self-importance, many aspects of how we view and act upon decisions that affect our country’s values and beliefs are diminished as result of it. A perpetuation of an imbalance in equity grows even wider. Education reform is only one of many entities being exploited by special interest groups. Public beware of those who foam at the mouth.
Utah dealt with a few tears back on a voucher measure. It was defeated inspite of outside money pushung the agenda