This report by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy dates from 2007, yet it is still a powerful and important read.
It lists every foundation that gives substantial funding to school privatization. By privatization, the report refers specifically to vouchers and education tax credits. It does not include funding for charters, which have become the main vehicle for promoting school choice and privatization since this report was written.
At the top of the funders of vouchers and education tax credits: The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation (Wis), Sarah Scaife Foundation (PA), Annenberg Foundation (PA), Jacqueline Hume Foundation (CA), Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation (OK), Lilly Endowment (IND), Mathile Family Foundation (OH), the Roe Foundation (SC), the Carthage Foundation (PA), ExxonMobil Foundation (TX).
And it lists the organizations that receive the most funding to promote school privatization. At the top: the Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institution, the American Enterprise Institute, the Manhattan Institute, CATO Institute, Parents Advancing Choice in Education (PACE), Focus on the Family, Institute for Justice, National Center for Policy Analysis, and the Oklahoma Council for Public Affairs.
Another list contains the names of the foundations that give the most money to advocates for privatization, in this order: The Walton Family Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, John Templeton Foundation, Herrick Foundation, etc. There are many more on this list.
These lists would certainly have changed in the past 8 years, with new entries and substantially more funding for privatization.
It is interesting to watch the changes in the three reports on the same subject by the NCRP. The first and second see privatization as a distinct threat not only to our public schools, but to our democracy.
The third, published in 2015, is generally complimentary towards the Walton Family Foundation’s effort to increase equity by expanding privatization.
Let us hope that the NCRP soon returns to advocating for the common good rather than for a strategy that will increase segregation, enrich entrepreneurs, and eliminate unions.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
You can add the Joyce Foundation that has received 10 million from the Bloomberg Foundation to fund the privatization movement in the midwest. This foundation is closely tied to the Commercial Club of Chicago and the publishers of the Tribune. Their non peer reviewed “studies” were published almost word for word on the editorial pages of the Tribune to legitimize the closure of 50 schools. Joyce “surveys” of CPS parents somehow grossly overestimated the voices of white parents. The Joyce Foundation has reaped large dividends from funds that own distressed mortgages.
LikeLike
“You can add the Joyce Foundation that has received 10 million from the Bloomberg Foundation to fund the privatization movement in the midwest. ”
Now they pass money back and forth! Fabulous. Is there any possible way they can make these quasi-governmental entities LESS accountable and transparent?
LikeLike
Adding-Fordham 2013 tax document, at its site, showing thousands of dollars to Center for American Progress.
And, CAP’s position on school privatization?
LikeLike
Who funds NCRP? Have they been bought out/sponsored/partnered/co-opted whatever you want to call it?
LikeLike
“Let us hope that the NCRP soon returns to advocating for the common good rather than for a strategy that will increase segregation, enrich entrepreneurs, and eliminate unions.”
Sure sounds like someone bought them.
LikeLike
For Coloradoans: Join us on Thursday, Oct. 22 at the Denver Convention Center Hyatt Regency from 9:00-10:30 to protest The Foundation for Excellence in Education’s National Summit on Education Reform. Wear purple to represent Republican and Democrat united against corporate takeover of education.
LikeLike
If NCRP is similar to philanthropy news publications, there’s reason to ask questions and draw conclusions. Philanthropy Daily recently replaced its top manager with someone from charter schools. Non-Profit Quarterly received funding from the Arnold Foundation. An internet webpage identified Opportunity Network as the founder of a media outlet, named, Inside Philanthropy. The last time I reviewed Inside Philanthropy’s website, funders were not identified. A fourth big player in the field, is funded by 550 foundations.
An example of the influence funders have on reporting by or about non-profits, was covered by David Sirota, in either Pando or IBT. The subject was the Arnold Foundation and The Center for Public Integrity.
LikeLike
Bill and Linda Gates pretend to be advocates for public education when,in
fact, they are funding those who would destroy public schools.
The “reformers” are destroyers, so what else in new?
LikeLike
Gates worked at getting funding for charter schools through Capital Impact Partners. One of the schools linked to the funding was partnered with Netflix CEO, Reed Hastings. who can be seen in a YouTube video calling for the end of democratically elected school boards.
In Uganda and Kenya, Gates backs for-profit Bridge International Academies, which are promoted by the World Bank, to the exclusion of public schools.
LikeLike
The report credits some of the funders of the research but not all. There are not many surprises.
The study followed a limited paper trail on the connection of key people in foundations to political activity, overwealmingly Republican. No surprise.
The charter industry and general movement for privatization of all things public and gov’ment run is moving along with less dependence on foundation support. Expansions in the charter industry are being forwarded by investors who are pooling money and taking advantage of potential returns on investments of 10% or more through so-called impact investing.
Charter schools are positioned as a feature of community development programs, along with low-income housing, child-care and pre-school centers.
The net effects are to keep racially and income segregated communities in place, or to gentrify high value urban real estate and attract millelinials to charters.
LikeLike
Some individual chapters of United Way, particularly in urban areas, have played a role in charter school facilitation, and possibly impact investing.
LikeLike
The Mathile family is from Dayton. The fortune is linked to IAMS pet food, which was bought by a conglomerate sometime in the past decade. The Dayton Daily News published an article praising the Mathiles for their support for Catholic schools.
LikeLike
Well, now taxpayers are supporting Catholic schools in Ohio, so can we all stop pretending this is “charity”?
They’re government contractors, like any other. That’s the term we use for every other publicly-paid private contractor. I don’t know why ed reform gets an exception from plain, honest language.
LikeLike
I have a question for the politicians and lobbyists who continue to support this. When a private foundation pushes policy with promises of funding and the policy is discredited and turns out to be much more expensive than the Best and Brightest assured, does the public have any recourse when we’re stuck with the bill for these gimmicks?
“Nothing generates excitement in large public school systems like the announcement of a major grant-funded program that will pump millions of dollars into a district to support a new push to improve student achievement and college readiness. But in the backs of the minds of school superintendents and their chief financial officers is the problem of how to keep those initiatives going once the grant funding ends.
This gives rise to additional questions: What if the program’s costs are higher than originally projected? What if the funder doesn’t deliver all of the funding expected? What will all this mean for the school district’s budget and its financial reserves? All of these questions have no doubt weighed heavily on the minds of officials in the Hillsborough County Public Schools, which serves the Tampa Bay area.”
I recognize that public schools should probably NOT accept “free money” that is never, ever “free” since they’ve been burned 50 or 60 thousand times, so obviously there’s some responsibility there, but is there anyone in government who ever opposes Bill Gates? We’re supposed to have representatives looking after our interests. Do we need to hire advocates in addition to the people we’re already paying to do the job? How reckless is it to continue to let the wealthiest people in the country direct public spending? Does this make any sense to anyone who isn’t paid by them?
http://www.insidephilanthropy.com/k-12-education/2015/10/6/that-didnt-quite-go-as-planned-looking-back-at-a-huge-gates.html
LikeLike
With the usual ridiculous Obama Administration bias towards charter schools, they award one charter company as much money as huge city school systems:
http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-announces-first-ever-skills-success-grants-and-initiative-support-learning-mindsets-and-skills
When people elected the President, did they know he and his “team” had a clear preference for charter schools and away from public schools? I don’t recall that being mentioned in his campaigns.
LikeLike
And apparently, Politico, sees no reason to elucidate on the subject.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on As the Adjunctiverse Turns.
LikeLike