Bruce Rauner is a fabulously wealthy equity investor who is running for Governor of Illinois.
He is also one of the most important financial backers of charter schools in Chicago. He even has a charter school named for him, part of the Noble network of charters.
In his gubernatorial campaign, he recently made headlines when he broke ranks with the other Republican candidates on the issue of the minimum wage. Democratic Governor Pat Quinn has called for an increase in the minimum wage to $10 an hour from its current $8.25 an hour. Four Republican candidates say it should be kept where it is. Rauner proposes to lower the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour to keep Illinois “competitive.”
According to this story, Rauner’s income in 2012 was $53 million.
“Despite his appearance as an average Joe who stays at cost effective motels and starts his day with Raisin Bran just like everybody else, Rauner need only shake his hammer for an hour to make what minimum wage earners make in a year. Rich Miller at Capitol Fax provides the breakdown:
To put this into a little perspective, somebody earning minimum wage in Illinois today (before any Rauner-enforced pay cut) would have to work 6,424,242 hours to match Rauner’s 2012 income of $53 million. That works out to 803,030 days, 160,606 40-hour weeks, or 3,088 years.
Rauner’s income averages out to $204K a day for a five-day work week, or $25,550 every hour of an eight-hour day. It would take a minimum wage employee 399 days to earn as much money as Rauner made in a single hour last year. And, again, that’s before any pay cut.”
To show what an average Joe he is, Rauner should try living on $7.25 an hour for one week, just one week.
I had a personal encounter with Bruce Rauner. Two years ago, I received the Kohl Education Award from Dolores Kohl, the woman who created it, a great philanthropist who cares deeply about the forgotten children and annually honors outstanding teachers. After the awards ceremony, Ms. Kohl held a small dinner at the exclusive Chicago Club. There were two tables, 8 people at each table. I sat across from Bruce and of course, we got into a lively discussion about charter schools, a subject on which he is passionate.
As might be expected, he celebrated their high test scores, and I responded that they get those scores by excluding students with serious disabilities and English language learners, as well as pushing out those whose scores are not good enough. Surprisingly, he didn’t disagree. His reaction: so what? “They are not my problem. Charters exist to save those few who can be saved, not to serve all kinds of kids.” My response: What should our society do about the kids your charters don’t want? His response: I don’t know and I don’t care. They are not my problem.
This was not a taped conversation. I am paraphrasing. But the gist and the meaning are accurate.
EduShyster wrote about Rauner’s charter school–part of the Noble network–here. The Noble network is known for fining parents if their children don’t follow the rules.
Oh, and one other interesting story about Bruce Rauner: The Chicago Sun-Times reported that he pulled strings with his friend Superintendent Arne Duncan to get his daughter admitted to Chicago’s very selective Walter Payton College Prep school after she was rejected; eighteen months later, Rauner donated $250,000 to the school’s private fund. Rauner also gave a handsome gift to the CPS foundation, run by “the school system’s top administrators”:
Rauner’s gift to the Payton Prep Initiative came two months after his foundation gave $500,000 to the Chicago Public Schools Foundation, run by the school system’s top administrators. His foundation previously had given money to that organization.
Rauner, a venture capitalist, called Chicago school officials in early 2008. Within days, his daughter was admitted to Payton for the 2008-09 academic year by the school’s principal, according to a source familiar with the matter.
“I sat across from Bruce and of course, we got into a lively discussion about charter schools, a subject on which he is passionate.”
Yeah, so passionate he even sent his own kid to one.
Oh, oops, silly me. He actually clouted his kid into the most exclusive selective enrollment public school in Chicago with a simple phone call to the Duncan family. The *Arne* Duncan family, that is. But hey, what else would a good father do for his kid? Otherwise she would have been stuck in that failing cesspool of a public school called New Trier in Winnetka, where she actually lived.
Peyton Prep is not a charter school. It’s a magnet. Which his daughter should not have been able to attend, since none of the Rauners are legal residents of Chicago.
Right. That’s what I said.
They have so many “homes” that it’s debatable where they live.
Or, one resides wherever it is most advantageous.
Remember when there was actually a place called Beyond the Dreams of Avarice?
In a related story —
☞ Manure Beyond the Dreams of Avarice
Thanks for posting this. On one hand, his view on “other children” is detestable. His candor on the subject is refreshing, however. I wish all the corporate reformers would bare their souls in this manner. Then we wouldn’t have to worry about them anymore.
YIKES! Race to the Bottom for wages… Many Children Left Behind for schools… great candidate!
The choice for governor in Illinois is miserable, Rauner or current Governor Quinn. I was shocked when I heard Quinn had chosen Paul Vallas as his running mate. Vallas, past CEO (not Superintendent of Schools) in Chicago, in Philadelphia, in New Orleans, and Bridgeport, Connecticut, was chosen because “of his expertise in finances and education”. Mr. Vallas’ integrity is highly questionable.
In Chicago he planned to institute a program of rote learning in preschool through third grade even though there was research showing that tby their mid-twenties students in the program had three times the number of felony arrests as the students in different curriulum programs, and the arrests were assault with a deadly weapon.
How do I know this little known fact? Because a colleague and I sent him this information through the professional organization. His response was silence. Instead he had the head of one of his departments send us a letter stating that it was a choice principals had. However, I heard from prinicpals I knew that they were being pressured into initiating it. Mr. Vallas has no integrity.
And the other Republicans who are running for governor? We have heard little about them.
It’s a problem, all right.
There’s a certain crazy logic to just hiring the wealthy person directly (Rauner) rather than re-hiring the politician (Quinn) who is taking orders from the wealthy person.
Cut out the middleman.
Political leaders run a real risk of becoming completely irrelevant. I don’t know if they realize this, but it’s true.
There isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between Rauner’s education plans and Rahm Emanuel’s education reality.
I guess Quinn can hinge an entire campaign on talking about raising the minimum wage, or that seems to be the plan. I just don’t think it’s enough, personally. As for Vallas, he could be hired by either Quinn or Rauner.
“There isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between Rauner’s education plans and Rahm Emanuel’s education reality. ”
If I remember correctly, Rahm made a similar comment to Karen Lewis about “those kids” that charters didn’t want.
The whole notion of “saving the ones that can be saved” is just racist paternalism.
Yes, he has created quite a stir in Illinois. I live in Northwest Indiana and we get the Chicago news. He has been running a LOT of campaign ads for some time. He HAS to have money to run all of them
It is sad to think that so many of these kinds of people with all kinds of money think that because they have money they have acquired wisdom. Being overburdened with humility is not one of the great traits of these kinds of people. Thankfully not all people with accumulated monetary wealth fall into this category but enough do to make things “interesting”, interesting as in the Chinese curse: may you live in interesting times.
Here’s a column by a veteran progressive African American educator. He has a few things to say that may interest some readers of this blog:
http://www.insightnews.com/commentary/11765-ethnic-mix-in-schools-not-as-important-as-student-success
A black guy calling for the return of separate but equal. I should take this seriously…why?
No, he’s describing what he and many other African Americans have experience over the last 60 years. You may not take him seriously, but a lot of progressive legislators (like the late US Senator Paul Wellstone, D-Minnesota, with whom he worked, have listened to him, and people similar to him.
I’ll respond to it, Joe:
“I’m not suggesting that the faculty and administration of schools that serve Black students must be Black. I am saying these folks need to care about their students more than they care about their union. I am saying that the faculty needs to look upon parents as partners and all students as bundles of potential. Too many schools run from the benefit of the adults involved. There needs to be choices, since all students do not flourish in the same environments. Charters, like Higher Ground Academy and Harvest Prep and others are more than just viable alternatives. They are doing a great job. They deserve more financial support. They must flourish or no one will “remember” how to reach our students.”
Why is okay and admirable for him to advocate on behalf of the charter schools he lists but not okay for a public school supporter or advocate to do the same thing?
Why is okay and admirable for him to lump any public school supporter under “unions” and assume self-interest?
I’m not in a union nor am I a professional advocate and I support public schools.
It’s “unions versus charter school supporters”, is the way he set this up. That’s not accurate and it’s not fair. It’s political framing. What about public school parents? Are they all self-interested and suspect too? The only people who escape this “suspected of self interest” charge are charter school promoters? Why? Are they just inherently more pure and child-centered than those venal union members?
Do public schools not “deserve” support? Why not?
First, state legislatures in 42 states regard charters as part of their public education program. All of public education is not controlled by local school boards. In your own state of Ohio, for example, part of public education allows high school students to take courses on college campuses. State (tax) funds help pay costs for students to take courses on college campuses.
Next, its perfectly fine for you and other district advocates to promote those schools. As an advocate of strong public schools, district or charter, I comment frequently. In a free country, we all have that right.
As to your disagreements with Fred Easter – you might want to post comments on the website to share your views.
Joe Nathan, charter schools are not public schools. They receive public money, like Boeing and Princeton. They contract with the government to provide a service. They are rife with fraud, corruption, and malfeasance because of lack of oversight. They are not public schools.
Diane is right and there has long been a model for this in education across the country, which I believe many corporate “reformers” have sought to emulate. Since there is no compulsory education for children from birth to age 5, schools for these ages are primarily private. Charter schools are like those private schools, which receive public funds, including subsidies for PreK and child care. They are government subcontractors and they maintain their status as private enterprises.
It is good to see Dr. Ravitch equate Princeton to private schools, and Pell grants to be the equivalent of charter school funding. I don’t see how folks can take a position in favor of one but against the other.
This is about tax funded K12 public schools which are free for all American children to attend, not need based grants to help adults attend college since the US has no free colleges. Your ongoing promotions of charter schools are irritating and have gotten infantile, teachingeconomist. Try growing up and getting a life.
Actually my comments about schools are in support of choice schools. Charter schools are the choice school most commonly argued against here.
It has never been clear to my why giving grants is fine for young children (head start) and older students (all post secondary education), but not primary or secondary students. Why is the age of the average student important in this decision? Does it matter that many who attend college are minors when they start? Does it matter that many who attend high school are adults before they finish? Does it matter that a large number (perhaps the majority) of high school students in my state are not required by law to attend school?
It should be obvious to a college professor, but I will repeat the glaring difference that I already stated: We have only K-12 public schools in this country that are tax payer funded and free for anyone to attend, so grants are provided for students beyond those grades, both younger and older than K-12, since we don’t have tax payer funded schools that are free for students those ages to attend, and those funds are based on financial need.
I certainly see that there are differences, but I am unsure why those differences are important for public policy. If there were more expense free institutions like, say, the service academies, would that mean that Pell Grants to attend partially subsidized institutions like mine or even private institutions like Harvard become bad public policy?
Clearly private organizations are capable of producing good educations for K-12 students. Ten percent of students attend private schools, and when examples of outstanding schools are raised here, it is typically private schools that are mentioned first (I think I am the only one to have brought up Thomas Jefferson High in Fairfax, Virginia, for example).
You understand very well. Instead of constantly arguing for policies that promote the diversion of public K12 funds to private profiteers, which is clearly undermining and dismantling K-12 public education across this country, grow up and get a life.
Also, unlike private K12 education, in most locations, private schools for children from birth – 5 must be licensed and they are highly regulated by states and cities. Those programs must meet additional government requirements when they accept public funds, too, such as subsidies for child care, PreK and the federal meal program for at-risk children from low income families.
The federal government has caught on to this and its plans for higher education include increased regulations for schools whose students receive federal financial aid, including private colleges. In private pre-primary education, schools that don’t want those increased government regulations won’t accept low income children who receive government aid. One should assume that, when the new higher ed regulations kick in, some private colleges will be opting out as well. Thus, there will probably be fewer private options for students in need of financial aid, which includes federal loans, and that will impact those from middle income families as well. Such schools may provide some scholarships, but without the government funding stream, they will no doubt become even more elite than they are today.
This is yet another example of how “reformers” either don’t consider the long-term implications of the policies they promote, or they just don’t care about the impacts on low and middle income families.
It is certainly possible that other colleges will join Grove City and Hillsdale in not accepting any federal funding. I would be surprised if many would because of the number of students they would lose.
The Ivy Leagues use funds from their multi-billion dollar endowments to contribute to student financial aid packages. Consequently, even though the sticker price of those schools is very high, their students actually graduate with less debt than students who’ve attended schools that are not as costly:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/10/ivy-league-student-debt_n_3897459.html
Accepting major increases in federal regulations in return for limited federal funds might not be a very worthwhile trade off for them.
There is no real need for an endowment to lower the price you charge individual students, you just charge them less. Universities call it financial aid, but it is known to economists as first degree price discrimination.
But your general point is correct that wealthy schools might prefer to charge students less rather than accept federal financial aid and any strings that are attached. That, however, will not reduce the relatively poor student’s access to higher education. It is the institution that refuses federal financial aid and does not lower the price of attending the school that will reduce access, and as a result, have fewer students and less tuition revenue.
I don’t know why Ivy Leagues would want to reduce their charges if they can continue to get that money out of high income families and put their own financial aid packages together from their endowments for other “desirable” students.
It may take some time to play out, but I think the federal government’s draconian higher ed regulations are giving good reasons to more than just the lunatic fringes for rejecting government intrusion via financial aid. And when schools are not accountable for meeting government non-discrimination requirements, that puts those they deem “undesirable,” such as students from under-represented groups, at further risk of exclusion.
Reducing the charge is the “financial aid” for other desirable students. It is called an institutional scholarship. No need to do it for wealthy families. The biggest problem for a price discriminator is to identify who is willing and able to pay the high price and who is not. The universities and colleges have the family tax return, and information about the education levels and job(s) of the parent(s) and that is a help. They don’t always get it right, and their mistakes sometimes end up in my classes.
“Too many schools run from the benefit of the adults involved.”
Like P.S. 106 in Far Rockaway, Queens? Run by a principal from Bloomberg’s reformist “Leadership Academy”?
This trope is old and lame. Give me some research that demonstrates its truth about most of our public schools. No, not just about the charter schools ($$$ for CEO’s, venture capitalists and rephormy celebs such as PitBull and Eva Moskowitz) you insist are public because they take taxpayers’ dollars.
Again, you might want to comment on the website of the person who wrote the column. He has worked with public schools around the US since the 1960’s. This includes serving as an admissions officer for Carleton, running an alternative school as part of the Minneapolis Public Schools, and doing other things. He’s the one who wrote the column so you might want to comment on the website where the column appears.
Insight News is one of the two African American owned and operated newspapers in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area.
Clearly there are many policies that are designed for the convenience of the adults involved instead of the best interests of the children. The simplest example is the starting time for high schools. There is a large volume of research showing that a teenager would be far better off starting school later in the morning. It would not be in the interests of the adults to do this, however, so school starts at 7 or 8 in my district (and perhaps yours).
Actually, we were always told that it would affect athletic practice schedules adversely, not to mention other extracurricular activities to start school later. High school started at shortly after 8 with an early bird class in some subjects. We didn’t get out until 3:20(?) or thereabouts, so starting later could really have squeezed schedules. As a teacher and a mother, I know what teenagers were like early in the morning. One of my children’s early bird teacher used to make coffee for the kids; the class was close to comatose at 7:30 in the morning.
Stop assuming that it’s more convenient for adults to start early than it is for adolescents. Many of us never outgrew that and would prefer a later schedule, too.
I think the adults most in favor of the current schedule are probably the parents of the students, not necessarily the teachers.
The explanation 2old2teach provided fits with my experience and is the most plausible, since secondary schools have traditionally had extracurricular after-school activities that run late, including sports –and that’s about students, not parents or teachers.
When I attended my large, overcrowded 3600 student high school, they gave that explanation as well. Due to the overcrowding, before an addition was built, the school staggered student schedules and those like me who weren’t involved in after-school activities got to start later. Unfortunately, many of us late starters also got stuck with the early 10:30 am “lunch” period, too. When parents complained, it was explained that the students starting earlier were staying later for extracurriculars like sports and were more in need of lunch at mid-day.
Diane’s conversation reminds me of a talk I gave last semester to a group of retired individuals who were attending a weekly Friday Forum at a university. My talk was about global competitiveness and education so I was showing Linda Darling Hammond’s work and other citations similar to one of Diane’s chapter in Reign of Error.
Afterwards, one gentleman asked me, “Why do we include disabled children and poor children? Don’t you believe in Darwin’s survival of the fittest?” So I quoted Ghandi (though others have said this) “A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.” The gentleman said that was silly and not the way our country became great. I explained there were many examples of our country protecting minority rights and taking care of those who were less fortunate. He continued to argue until I stated a little jokingly, “You better hope I am right, because one of the weakest groups in a society is the elderly, and all of us if we live long enough get to be a part of this group.” Considering he was about 25 years older than me, he gets to join before I do. He did not respond.
Another discussion I have had before is with people who do not believe that disabilities is a real issue that should be addressed by schools or society. They are often shocked that 25% of the population has disabilities. But then they look relieved when they see that the majority are elderly. Then I clue them in that if they live long enough then 100% have disabilities of one sort or another. Most people do not realize that you either die or have a disability. That the vast majority of people who live past 80 are dealing with mobility issues, vision or hearing problems or at least limitation to their fine motor skills. And when we get over 90 or 100 then it is almost everyone.
So charming Bruce Rauner thinks his money and good fortune means he is better than everyone and is not concerned with those less fortunate. I am sure his money will keep him company when he has to join one of the less fortunate groups . . . unless he dies first.
Child and parent abuse. Ka-ching!!!
“Joe Nathan
January 16, 2014 at 2:46 pm
First, state legislatures in 42 states regard charters as part of their public education program. All of public education is not controlled by local school boards. In your own state of Ohio, for example, part of public education allows high school students to take courses on college campuses. State (tax) funds help pay costs for students to take courses on college campuses.Next, its perfectly fine for you and other district advocates to promote those schools. As an advocate of strong public schools, district or charter, I comment frequently. In a free country, we all have that right.”
But I expect more than that, Joe. I expect the people I hire to run school systems to advocate on behalf of kids in existing public schools, no matter if they’re “reformers” or not, and no matter if a public school system is their personal ideological choice or not.
I expect ed reformers who are state actors to “improve public schools” because that’s what they sold to the public. They didn’t get hired promising to set up an alternate school system. They were hired to “improve public schools”. Have they done that? Are existing public schools stronger in these cities, districts and states they’re running? If not, why not?
If this had been sold as “we’re going to set up a great new system of charter schools to replace that old system!” I could accept it. But that isn’t what the public was sold.
Do ed reformers in government have a duty to serve kids in existing public schools, to support and strengthen those schools, or are we planning on continuing this sole focus on charters and vouchers? Because that’s not fair, and it doesn’t even make any sense, considering 90% of kids attend public schools.
Rauner’s admission is very similar to when Rahm Emanuel wrote off 25% of Chicago Public School students and told Karen Lewis they “are never going to be anything, never going to amount to anything and he was never going to throw money at them.” http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Rahm-Emanuel-Concerned-About-Three-Fourths-of-School-Children-140617923.html
Rauner’s despicable stance on minimum wage can be expected, too, considering his Noble charter schools take in SIX FIGURES IN STUDENT FINES EACH YEAR for behavioral infractions FROM PARENTS IN POVERTY.
Chi-Town Res: re Mayor Emanuel, the gist of what you said was reported on a posting on this blog of 8/1/13. It concerned Karen Lewis, the current head of the Chicago Teachers Union.
“Karen told me that in her first meeting with Rahm Emanuel, he said that 25% of the kids in the Chicago public schools were uneducable. She rightly took offense, and it has been warfare between them ever since.”
Link: https://dianeravitch.net/2013/08/01/my-friend-karen-lewis/
I also urge viewers of this thread to click on the link you provide. The money quote:
[start quote]
The two leaders met privately last year ahead of Emanuel’s inauguration. They went for dinner and to attend a dance — both are fans of the art form — and to develop a working relationship.
“We were both seeing who the other person was,” she said.
Lewis said she got her answer about Emanuel’s character rather quickly.
“In that conversation, he did say to me that 25 percent of the students in this city are never going to be anything, never going to amount to anything and he was never going to throw money at them.”
She said the comment took her aback, and she looked at him askance.
“Even if you feel that way, you can’t say that to me,” she said. “And he sort of poo-pooed it and we moved on.”
[end quote]
Naturally, Mayor Emanuel denies that he said what he said, and Karen Lewis refuses to let him forget that he said it. Read the full article for more context.
Link: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Rahm-Emanuel-Concerned-About-Three-Fourths-of-School-Children-140617923.html
If only the mayor would lay aside, albeit for just for a moment, his die-hard adherence to Marxist principles:
“The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”
¿Again? Groucho, of course.
Who else?
😎
Hey, he not only buys school leaders he buys politicians too. It still amazes me that this is the type of person we have to chose from for a governor’s position. I really don’t understand why anyone would vote for this fool.
And remember that Rauner is a Republican and he bought a Democrat. Sounds like Comcast VP David Cohen: . https://dianeravitch.net/2014/01/14/why-philadelphia-cant-afford-to-pay-for-public-education/comment-page-1/
There’s a lot of this gong around in a country where there is really just one political party and it represents the plutocrats.
Here’s how Rauner’s financier crony is spending precious taxpayer education dollars: an up to millions dollar annual lease to a connected church.
http://www.suntimes.com/24960566-761/landlords-for-2-proposed-chicago-charter-schools-have-ties-to-emanuel.html
Nobody in Illinois history has given more to help educate disadvantaged kids than Rauner. And where has his wife devoted her life? What a horrendous slander.
Rauner Supporter,
Please identify the slander.