Rick Cohen of the Nonprofit Quarterly has a must-read report on a recent debate about the Walton Family Foundation. The report and the debate about it were sponsored by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.
This debate and the report on which it is based represent a sad turnaround in philosophy for the NCRP. In two previous reports, noted below, the organization warned about the dangers of privatization and specifically singled out the Walton Family Foundation for using its wealth to undermine the public sector. This new report tilts towards the beneficence of the Walton privatization agenda. Has NCRP lost its independence? Or its voice?
In this instance, the roots of the debate were in an NCRP report published in May 2015, part of NCRP’s “Philamplify” series, on the Walton Family Foundation, subtitled, “How Can This Market-Oriented Grantmaker Advance Community-Led Solutions for Greater Equity?” Compared to earlier NCRP reports on the Walton Family Foundation, notably NCRP’s 2005 report, “The Waltons and Wal-Mart: Self-Interested Philanthropy,” and its 2007 follow-up, “Strategic Grantmaking: Foundations and the School Privatization Movement, it was distinctly less critical of the ideology and agenda of the Arkansas philanthropic behemoth. Both earlier reports indicated that the foundation’s promotion of school choice, charter schools, and school vouchers in education reform had led to a pernicious, self-interested crusade to undermine public schools.
When it comes to market approaches, as Sherece West-Scantlebury, the president and CEO of the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation and chair of the NCRP board, noted at the beginning of the debate, NCRP is “agnostic.” In fact, for the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation itself, headquartered in Little Rock, Arkansas, West-Scantlebury described the Walton Family Foundation, headquartered in Bentonville 200 miles away, as a “great partner” for her foundation’s programs. Walton has a major programmatic emphasis in its “home region,” with grantmaking focused on Northwest Arkansas and Delta region of Arkansas and Mississippi totaling more than $40 million in 2014, while Winthrop Rockefeller is totally dedicated to Arkansas’s advancement, both with overlapping commitments to education programs in Arkansas, including the two foundations’ joint sponsorship in 2014 of the “ForwARd Partnership for Arkansas Education” initiative.
Cohen admits at the end of the piece that he is not a disinterested observer, because he wrote the earlier reports that were highly critical of the Walton Family Foundation’s support for school privatization. Given that the far-right Walton family (and its Walmart corporation) is opposed to unions, it is not surprising that it would support non-union charter schools and religious schools. It is hard to swallow the claim that support for privatization and union-busting is an agenda for equity, but the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation is able to do so.
You will find the account of the debate interesting. What galled me was that the lead advocate for school choice, Robert Pondiscio of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, invoked the late AFT leader Albert Shanker’s name as a proponent of charter schools. I don’t blame Pondiscio for saying this, as the myth of Shanker’s charter advocacy is widely cited in rightwing circles. But I frequently point out that while Shanker was among the very first to advocate for charter schools in 1988, he renounced his support for charter schools in 1993 in his weekly New York Times paid column. He said that charter schools were an instrument for privatization, no different from vouchers. He became soured on private management because of an experiment in Baltimore that involved a private group called Education Alternatives Inc. It fired unionized paraprofessionals who earned $10 an hour and replaced them with college graduates who worked for $7 an hour. Ironically, one of those college-graduates in the experiment was Michelle Rhee. In 1994, Shanker became more outspoke in his opposition to charters when he discovered that the first charter school in Michigan in 1994 was the Noah Webster Academy, enrolling some 700 students, mostly Christian home-schoolers who were taught a creationist curriculum on computers. The “school,” the computers and the curriculum were publicly funded. I would be very happy if charter cheerleaders stopped invoking Shanker’s name as one of their founding fathers.

I still think the long term damage of this won’t be “charter schools”, the long term damage is what happened to public schools while the entire governmental apparatus was devoted to expanding “choice”.
There’s two parts to this. Schools in a given area are systems. Although no one even mentions the effects on public schools, obviously a “choice” agenda at every level of government has an effect on students in EVERY school. In my state the public schools aren’t even considered in any of this, which is so ludicrous that to me it’s an indication of how completely captured lawmakers are. It doesn’t make any sense to pretend the public system isn’t impacted by decisions made re: choice, which means something irrational has to be operating- I think what’s operating is political/ideological capture.
The only other explanation is there’s some assumption operating that the effects on public schools will be 100% positive and that’s not rational either, so we’re back to “doesn’t make any sense”. Why would anyone assume introducing a new “sector” into an existing system would guarantee 100% positive effects on existing schools, or even neutral impact? That’s nuts. No one in their right mind would make that assumption.
LikeLike
Chiara,
It is an insane belief in competition. It is supposed to make everyone better. But look what competition does when Walmart comes to town. The local stores go out of business. Gone. No more Main Street.
LikeLike
Time for me to break out one of my favorite cranky quotes:
“The reason that everything in the real world does not fall apart at once is that the flow of entropy faces obstructions or constraints. The more complex the system, the more constraints. A given system will automatically select the paths or drains that get the system to a final state — exhaust its potential — at the fastest possible rate given the constraints. Simple ordered flows drain entropy at a faster rate than complexly disordered flows. Hence, the creation of ever more efficient ordered flows in American society, the removal of constraints, has accelerated the winding down of American potential, which is exactly why a Wal-Mart economy will bring us to grief more rapidly than a national agglomeration of diverse independent small-town economies. Efficiency is the straightest path to hell.”
— James Kunstler
LikeLike
My view:
Schools and teachers once worked TOGETHER to build a strong educational system.
Choice, competition disrupts that concept entirely, turns it on its head.
We had, have a choice, to build on the quality education we have made or to follow a false “god”, that competition is ALWAYS better. For me, I learned a tremendous amount from working together. I think we all did then.
Under the present conditions, who can believe in the strictures in which we are forced to work?
Democratic principles of bottom up rather than autocracy is something in which we were taught to believe and in my opinion worked well but in which we seemed to have lost sight.
The results are the chaotic situation with charters et al which permeates the present atmosphere.
TRAGIC!!!!
LikeLike
Competition creating superior service, or in this case superior schools/scholars, is a straw argument, meant to put some teeth into their thieving of public taxpayer dollars. That is all it is. Don’t look behind the curtain. Nothing to see there; move along.
LikeLike
The charter industry hopes to earn profits and deplete public support for public schools, especially in “economically depressed” communities where property is cheap.
Charter schools are being marketed as moneymakers. The charter school industry is recognizing that expansion cannot be sustained only by money from private foundations and tax subsidies for students, although the latter are useful in reducing the cost of charters, and perpetuating the doublespeak of the charter industry—that private schools are public schools. Not so.
The Wall Street Journal (Oct 14, 2015) proclaims “Investors Take a Shine to Charters.” In the last school year, 500 charters were opened. It turns out that investors are not interested in schools and education but in real estate deals.
The shine for investors is the prospect of more than a 10% return on investment for “new school development” through a combination of grants, tax credits, and loans for facilities with leases for about ten years, rents paid on a per-pupil basis to the owner of the lease, with an option for the charter operator to buy the building.
Northstar Commercial Partners, based in Denver, is a private equity firm with a fund target of $100 million to purchase vacant low-cost property—retail, office, and industrial— for charter schools. Northstar makes money by structuring “opportunistic” investments in distressed property then “repositions” its value.
The talent at Northstar works with charter school clients on site selection, planning, due diligence on contracts, local and state government approvals (called entitlements), purchase options, and so on. The aim is to “maximize the benefit of facilities’ dollars”(typically capped at 12% of charter school revenue).
Utah-based HighMark School Development and EPR Properties offers a real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) where fund managers are counting on ”volume increases” in charter school acquisition, renovation, and construction (spending $118 million in 2014).
he charter industry hopes to earn profits and deplete public support for public schools, especially in “economically depressed” communities where property is cheap.
Charter schools are being marketed as moneymakers. The charter school industry is recognizing that expansion cannot be sustained only by money from private foundations and tax subsidies for students, although the latter are useful in reducing the cost of operating charters and using the doublespeak of the charter industry—that private schools are public schools. Not so.
The Wall Street Journal (Oct 14, 2015) proclaims “Investors Take a Shine to Charters.” In the last school year, 500 charters were opened. It turns out that investors are not interested in schools and education but in real estate deals.
The shine for investors is the prospect of more than a 10% return on investment for “new school development” through a combination of grants, tax credits, and loans for facilities with leases for about ten years, rents paid on a per-pupil basis to the owner of the lease, with an option for the charter operator to buy the building.
Northstar Commercial Partners, based in Denver, is a private equity firm with a fund target of $100 million to purchase vacant low-cost property—retail, office, and industrial— for charter schools. Northstar makes money by structuring “opportunistic” investments in distressed property then “repositions” its value.
The talent at Northstar works with charter school clients on site selection, planning, due diligence on contracts, local and state government approvals (called entitlements), purchase options, and so on. The aim is to “maximize the benefit of facilities’ dollars”(typically capped at 12% of charter school revenue).
Utah-based HighMark School Development and EPR Properties offers a real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) where fund managers are counting on ”volume increases” in charter school acquisition, renovation, and construction (spending $118 million in 2014).
HighMark’s “partners” are enlisted to offer a full-service operation to charter operators seeking facilities, from legal help to construction of schools, with many contracts nationwide but now concentrated in Colorado, Utah, and North Carolina.
In September 2015, Turner Impact Capital (Los Angeles-based) and (Andre) Agassi Ventures announced the launch of Turner-Agassi Charter Schools Facilities Fund II (Turner-Agassi II), with plans to invest up to $1 billion in the development of as many as 130 schools in “high-need areas” nationwide by 2020.
The first Turner-Agassi Charter School Facilities Fund (Turner-Agassi I), launched in 2011, provided 50 schools for so-called “best-in-class” charter school operators, including KIPP, Rocketship, Academica, Franklin Academy, and Lighthouse Academies.
Investors in Turner-Agassi II include the University of Michigan, the Texas General Land Office, Citi Community Capital—among others seeking profits..
Turner-Agassi II will serve charter school operators by taking the lead on school site selection and acquisition, as well as design and construction. Facilities will be leased at affordable rates to charter school operators, who can purchase the schools once they reach full occupancy.
Turner-Agassi II will help operators obtain permanent financing using New Market Tax Credits (see below,) tax-exempt bond offerings, traditional bank financing, or funding from the U.S. Treasury’s Community Development Financial Institutions Fund. In addition, Merrill Lynch will offer a “feeder fund” for Turner-Agassi II, especially for high net worth investors.
Another tool for financing is the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), a non-profit founded in 1979 by the Ford Foundation. It has grown to support projects worth $1.1. billion in grants, loans, and investments in a strategy called “Developing Sustainable Communities.” Sounds great, but here is the problem: Public schools are not seen as part of fabric of a sustainable community.
In 2002, the Walton Family Foundation gave LISC money to set up the Educational Facilities Financing Center (EFFC). This fund, a national program of LISC, has financed nearly 200 charter schools in low-income neighborhoods. EFFC receives funds from the Walton Family Foundation, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Goldman Sachs, Prudential Social Investments and our own US Department of Education via LISC’s—affiliate, the New Markers Support Corporation. This “support” entity is set up to receive federal New Market Tax Credits for charter schools (in 2015, $ 9.8 million).
That is only part of the way USDE sends money to LISC. Another is through the Charter School Credit Enhancement Program which “helps charter schools overcome one of the biggest challenges they face—their inability to secure and finance adequate facilities—by providing credit enhancements that leverage private sector capital to buy, construct, renovate, or lease academic facilities. To date (2014-15), LISC has received five grants totaling $41.5 million through the Credit Enhancement Program, which it has used to leverage more than $533 million in private sector investments in 168 charter schools.” http://www.lisc.org/section/ourwork/national/education
Here are some things to think about. Charter schools, known for selective admissions and frequent expulsions of students so they re-enter real public schools, are becoming opportunities for financial profits to investors, at a rate of return about 10%.
The money is being invested in low income, segregated, and “distressed” communities where charter schools are actually promoted as instruments for sustaining those segregated and low-income communities under the cover of ”community development.”
In the meantime, public schools in these same communities, open to all and with public oversight, are being banished from many discussions of their actual and potential contribution to sustainable communities. Moreover, many of the investors in municipal bonds issued for the support of public schools are being drawn to brokered deals for charter schools that promise a high return on investment.
It is time to stop perpetuating the myth that charter schools are public schools. They are not. They are being financed by tax dollars. The charter industry values those dollars only because they can leverage other money with a potential return to private investors of 10% or more.
LikeLike
In an America that was true to its ideals, Congress would call Gates to testify about the information listed by Laura Chapman, about Bridge International Academies, Capital Impact Partners, the Microsoft deal with Pearson to develop Common Core curriculum, the ethics waivers of former Gates Foundation employees, who worked for Arne Duncan in the U.S. Dept. of Ed. and, the Reed Hastings comments about the elimination of democratically elected school boards.
LikeLike
Maybe someone can explain this to me, too. We’re told over and over that we need federal testing mandates because states and schools will not voluntarily focus on equity.
Yet the entire charter school argument goes the other way- that charter operators will voluntarily “do the right thing” with little or no regulation.
So what is this contradiction based on? Are charter school operators just inherently better people than state officials? They have purer motives? What?
LikeLike
Sorry to be off task but I know how much you love Malala.
This appeared on one site:
By the same token, a few days after alleged shooting of Malala, when we were being told we HAD to “LOVE MALALA!” or else, I and a few others were writing about the ridiculousness of the story and I even went so far as to suggest it was all about pushing an agenda of global for-profit charter school systems which would serve the interests of the masters of the universe in many, many ways. Turns out, with her fake little scar and her fake Peace Prize, Malala is busy spending her days running around promoting global for-profit charter school systems that will teach poor kids around the world of the wonders of Westernized neoliberal, free market ideology. She now lives in London of course.
LikeLike
Joseph, do you have evidence for this?
LikeLike
Joseph, I found the website that gave you your insights about Malala. The blogger is also a 9/11 Truther. I didn’t read on to find out whether he blamed the CIA or the Israelis.
Don’t waste my time with conspiracy theories.
LikeLike
This is the result of believing blogging sites. Sure it is spell checked and looks good on the computer screen, but will it stand a true fact check? A blogger can write anything he/she wants. No one can take him/her to task. Most bloggers have an axe to grind.
LikeLike
….as do most responders, Raj. Don’t we all?
LikeLike
Sorry to have galled you, Diane. If I’m not mistaken (and I might be, I’m not an expert debater) I invoked Shanker’s vision of charters as engines of instructional innovation, not as an instrument of competition.
As I said at the debate (and I know I hit this point emphatically) I was an odd choice for the “debate” since I don’t think I’m anyone’s idea of an apologist for market-driven reform. I support choice as an intrinsic good, not because I believe it to be a magic bullet. I tend to believe the most powerful levers to be pulled in improving educational outcomes are instructional (teachers, curriculum, etc) not structural, although I don’t see those ideas as opposed to each other, or the exclusive province of any flavor of school.
At any rate, while I certainly support charters, I’d be happier (and I have said so, often) if as a class, they were closer to Shanker’s original vision of charter schools as laboratories of curriculum, PD and pedagogy. If that was in any way unclear at the debate, thanks for the opportunity to clarify it here.
Best,
Robert
LikeLike
Thanks, Ribert. Unfortunately, it didn’t work out that way. The incessant drilling and commands at no-excuses charters are not innovative. They remind me of what I have read of 19th century schools or reform schools for bad kids. And the growth of the predatory for-profits is alarming. I don’t see u just innovation there, none that’s shared or should be shared with public schools.
LikeLike
Doesn’t sound like any charters I know, but, as they say, “your mileage may vary.” Be well. rp
LikeLike
dianeravitch: while I appreciate Mr. Pondiscio’s polite tone, I don’t think that avoiding and deflecting qualifies as an answer to the points you have raised.
Just one recent example of what he won’t, or can’t, bring himself to address—
This blog, “Emily Talmage: Teach Like a Champion…Or Like a Robot”—
Link: https://dianeravitch.net/2015/10/12/emily-talmage-teach-like-a-championor-like-a-robot/
I am reminded of another very recent posting on this blog, 10-10-2015, “A Conversation about Denver, Petrilli, Me, Kaplan” in which another prominent “thought leader” of self-styled “education reform” can’t or won’t (or both) address issues at hand.
Now, what do you call leading proponents of “no excuses” when they self-servingly excuse themselves from employing even a smidgeon of “grit” and “rigor” in engaging in actual dialogue? You know, when they are always insisting on demonstrations of same from public school students and parents and public school staffs and their associated communities?
Mr. Petrilli has an apt term for them: “non-strivers.”
Mr. Pondiscio, Mr. Petrilli: pot, meet kettle. You have a lot in common: you’re both “non-strivers.”
😎
LikeLike
Dianne, Have you read this article by Kevin Huffman “The Paradox of Saying Schools Can’t Fix Poverty — Then Demanding More Money for Schools”?https://www.the74million.org/article/huffman-the-paradox-of-saying-schools-cant-overcome-poverty-and-then-demanding-more-money-for-schools
Please comment, I found the absence of any analysis and the polarizing rhetoric shocking and disturbing. I wonder when I read something such as this article how someone with an education could write an article that lacks facts, analysis, coherence or insight. This is poorly written propaganda published by a (non-profit)?
LikeLike
Yes, Diane. Please turn this piece into a post. I would like to read the critiques of some of your very talented posters. Huffman isn’t saying anything we all haven’t heard, but it resonates with too many people who need another perspective.
LikeLike
Thanks for this link… The issue is really twofold: not only is more money needed, the money that is provided needs to be allocated equitably. Indeed, TN is one of 45 states where poverty stricken districts have sued to change the funding formula. Enter “tennessee education funding lawsuit” and you’ll get a raft of articles on this.
LikeLike
The uploading of a creationist curriculum onto a computer is an apt metaphor for the privatization movement, which uploads the 1920 factory school onto a diverse and highly individualistic culture. Public education is the one place where billionaire libertarian investors want to impose one size for all… and the “size” we are forcing our children to fit into in charter schools is one that values conformity and compliance over individuality and independence.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on karenw95.
LikeLike