In an article in Salon, Gary Sasso asks why the billionaires are so intent on funding privately-managed alternatives to public schools. Sasso is the Dean of the College of Education at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. After all, if they want to improve education, the vast majority of students in this nation attend public schools. Why aren’t they helping public schools? The reality is that charter schools drain funding from public schools, and they usually don’t get better results (if one considers only test scores). Many of them have a stern disciplinary regime that may raise test scores but does not improve education or the spirit of learning.
Sasso says that the huge disparities in income today and the erosion of the middle class explain more about educational outcomes than anything that happens in schools. Why are the 1% focused solely on the schools?
Sasso speculates:
Charter schools will never be the answer to improving education for all. It is simply not scaleable. And yet titans of industry such as Bill Gates, Eli Broad and the Walton family, and billionaires such as John Paulson who earlier this year gave $8.5 million to New York’s Success Academy charter school system, are pouring their millions into support for charter schools—millions that will not, incidentally, be invested in improving the schools that the vast majority of U.S. students attend: traditional public schools.
Can it be a coincidence that those who have benefited most from the last 50 years of steadily increasing income inequality—the top 10 percent–support an education solution that hinges on denigrating public school teachers, dismantling unions and denying that income inequality is the underlying condition at the root of the problem?
The most generous explanation for this phenomenon says that the wealthiest among us are motivated to support charter schools purely out of ideology. They are operating under deeply held beliefs that a school system run by the government smothers innovation and that teachers unions inhibit a free market system that, if allowed to operate, would result in better teachers and child outcomes. In addition, these philanthropists believe that public education has become so hidebound that meaningful change within the system is no longer possible, and that fresh ideas and programs not beholden to a system that resists change will provide programs and ideas that are more effective.
Another explanation that has been posited is that good, old-fashioned greed is at the root. After all, the wealthy did not achieve their wealth through an indifference to achieving a return on their investments—and our public school system is a $621 billion per year endeavor. For example, a recent investigation by the Arizona Republic found that the state’s charter schools purchased a variety of goods and services from the companies of its own board members or administrators. In fact, the paper found at least 17 such contracts or arrangements totaling more than $70 million over five years.
In addition, there are specific tax loopholes that make it especially attractive to donate to charter schools. Banks and equity and hedge funds that invest in charter schools in underserved areas can take advantage of a tax credit. They are permitted to combine this tax credit with other tax breaks while they also collect interest on any money they lend out. According to analysts, the credit allows them to double the money they invested in seven years.
However, applying the principle of Occam’s Razor (the simplest explanation is usually the best), the super-rich may support charter schools to weaken unions. That strategy increases inequality of wealth and income, especially for the poorest kids whom the charter promoters claim to be “saving.”
Sasso suggests that the best path forward for the 1% would be to focus on rebuilding the middle class, which is currently being squashed.
Rebuilding the middle class—not expanding charter schools—is the most effective path to increasing access to quality education and to giving more students the opportunity to achieve their dreams.

Well, Duh …
(1) To leverage more Billion$ for themselves.
(2) To dopiate the masses in the Church of the Invisible Hand (namely, their hands).
(3) To convert yet another social institution into a corporate business.
(4) To run that business on the Defense Industry Model.
(5) All in order to GOTO (1).
LikeLike
“8.5 million to Success Academy” – What happens when the gold spigot is shut off?
LikeLike
Money will come from public sources and you will have the new “public school” without unions
LikeLike
The same billionaire will profit from Puerto Rico’s fiscal crisis because hedge fund managers bought up their bonds
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Kmareka.com and commented:
An answer to a question that has occurred to me many times.
LikeLike
Certainly ideology and greed (including anti-unionism) are part of the explanation. But in addition, the billionaire supporters of charter schools are not concerned with systemic change or equity. Saving the few is part of their self-interest and world view. They are looking to provide a path to success for those who they consider the “strivers.” This a paltry goal as national education policy: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arthur-camins/escape-from-poverty-for-a_b_5344285.html
http://www.arthurcamins.com
LikeLike
Take a look at a billionaire like MIke Bloomberg. This guy is so evil and his hatred for the working people and unions is through the roof. This midget of a man is your typical billionaire who got lucky in life with one great idea. So now what happens is that these people like Bloomberg start to believe that they are know it all people and that the rest of the population are just plain losers. So, we get in a situation where billionaires who are just regular people, like Bloomberg, suddenly think they are these eccentric humans and that they know what is best for the rest of the population. I find it amazing though that these people with all this money have nothing better to do with their lives but insist that they get involved in the lives of working people and look to destroy the livlihoods of working people.
LikeLike
Ours is not to question “why?” Ours is but to thwart — or die
LikeLike
It’s useful to know why they are doing what they are doing so that we can thwart more effectively.
I add that a knee jerk reaction to anything billionaries propose should be an opposition. Whatever they do is antidemocratic, and it doesn’t matter whether we happen to agree with what they want to do or not.
Here is what a very recent study by a Northwestern-Princeton duo says
“In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover … even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.”
We are not talking about what we have already suspected, or Zinn has been claiming since the 60’s. No, we are talking about a 2014 quantitative study based on stats analyzing 1700+ US policy issues in the the last 25 years.
Here’s Jon Stewart with the two authors
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/kj9zai/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-martin-gilens—benjamin-page
Here’s a New Yorker piece about it
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy
And finally, here’s the article itself
Click to access gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy
LikeLike
Our country made the error of reducing the tax rates on the wealthy. Income inequality is so skewed that billionaires want to control the country, destroy democracy and suck the life’s blood out of out public entities. Had we collected more from those at the top we would not be facing a debt crisis; we would have had enough money to repair our aging infrastructure, and provide social programs for vulnerable citizens. Now the wealthy are actively trying to destroy a cornerstone of democracy, public education. Charters are “vampire schools” sucking the funding from the host until the host can no longer bear it. Some of the urban schools are starting to collapse under the weight of laws that support their demise. If democracy continues to crumble at this alarming rate, our Founding Fathers wouldn’t recognize what we have become.
LikeLike
I think, too, the Wall Street bailout transferred a massive amount of power to the 1%. This at the expense of public governance and the rest of America. In what should have been a correction for excess and greed, was instead an artificial amplification of these destructive behaviors. Main Street should have benefitted and Wall Street taught a lesson. It may be too late to return to a system by and for the people. The Friedrichs case will be a litmus test on whether our government still functions as a free country and the mistakes of the past like the bailout and Citizens United can begin to be corrected.
LikeLike
Imagine what collective good could have resulted from the Dot Com bubble. Instead, the benefit went to a few that now want to remake America according to their own agenda.
LikeLike
All Americans should watch the movie, the Big Short.
LikeLike
Linda,
You say “All Americans should watch the movie, the Big Short.”
You are wrong. It shows just one side of the story (the bad side). It does not show the heroic efforts by Bush and Obama administrations (the good side) which made it possible for the world to recover from the mess initiated by Bill Clinton’s idea that all Americans should be home owners and his efforts to ease the credit policy. Bush administration started the strong armed policy to recover from this problem. Obama when he took office in the middle of this crisis kept the same Bush people and completed the recovery from the greatest disaster of this century.
Without the bailout and strong arm tactics on Wall Street and Banks by the government every one would be in sad shape now. We were on the brink of disaster the world had never seen before.
Read the book before you make unsupportable statements. One sided arguments are the bread and butter (staple) of this blog, and when someone points out the other side everyone here will get off the subject and start their diatribe (attack) the commenter.
I recommend that all Americans should read the book (The Big Short by Michael Lewis) first and then see the movie to determine how media always sensationalizes. If you have already seen the movie, read the book now.
LikeLike
Raj, have you so quickly forgotten George W. Bush and his “Ownership Society”?
By trying to pin the 2008 financial crisis on Bill Clinton, who does have much to answer for aside from that, you reveal your true ideological colors.
LikeLike
Raj, the issue is far more complex than blaming Bill Clinton.
The point of Bill Cliinton’s policies was not that ALL Americans could be homeowners. It was that more Americans who were good credit risks should be able to get loans to purchase a home. In the past, if you were African-American and wanted to purchase a home in a largely African-American neighborhood that the bank deemed as “too poor”, you could not get a loan, period. Certain neighborhoods were just deemed too risky to loan money to buy a home. Certain Americans who didn’t have huge assets but made good and stable salaries were denied loans because it was “too risky”.
But if you really want to criticize the Clinton administration, criticize them for not realizing how slimy and sleazy some people are who have absolutely no ethical sense. Capitalism gone wild. If you can be sleazy and take advantage, then it doesn’t matter if it is ethically wrong, as long as you can legally justify it you should definitely do it and do it fast. Because if you don’t, someone else will. Who knew that banking was run like that? I guess we all should have known that the people in charge don’t have principles. While many bankers had ethics, it was the ones who DON’T have ethics who got rewarded and the ones who did who got fired or left behind in dead-end positions.
The Clinton administration NEVER forced a single bank to make the kinds of outrageous risky loans on overpriced properties to people who didn’t provide any income information. But as soon as bankers realized that there weren’t any regulations stopping them, and they could bundle these high risk loans to look like they weren’t high risk, they grabbed the opportunity.
Look at what happened when people bundled loans to sell that were high risk and then bet AGAINST those loans because they knew that the buyers were misled about HOW high-risk they were! Buyer beware! If you can fool a person and get his money, you should definitely do it. That is the American way! Are those financiers in jail? Nope, happily enjoying their billions.
LikeLike
Raj,
I’ve read the right-wing revisionist history of 2008’s financial Armageddon. I recommend the movie, the Big Short. It makes clear, men were guilty of fraud. No public policy from a U.S. President nor Congress, made greedy executives, direct their subordinates to break laws, with the full knowledge that they were committing crimes.
Stop blathering about heroic efforts by individuals. Particularly egregious, are current attempts, by the financial sector, to portray Roger Ferguson’s role, as important to recovery. Because Ferguson is “Wall Street’s fantasy ” to head the Federal Reserve, is no reason to view his and others’ 2008 efforts as more than, plugging a dam, that IMO, they contributed to weakening.
Wall Street’s capture of the SEC, is perfectly illustrated in the Big Short’s fictional SEC employee. (BTW, Ferguson’s wife, a former SEC commissioner, moved through the revolving door into industry employment). Reportedly, the current SEC Chair has had to recuse herself from more than 50 decisions b/c of her former employment and her husband’s current employment. Progressives have asked the President to fire her and to use executive order, to prevent the current financial sector practice, of rewarding their executives for seeking stints in governmental regulatory jobs.
The heroes of the 2008 crisis were America’s workers. The resources they owned, by right, were used to save the nation. Labor generates the country’s wealth and their productivity enables U.S. prosperity. The 99% sacrifice for the nation’s international security, not the wealthy. THE RICHEST 0.2% CONTINUE TO EXPLOIT workers for financial gain (and, their children/soldiers for their physical security), just as the Big Short narrator chronicled. The unfair burden that the wealthy’s greed, from 2008 to present, places on teachers was specifically (and, correctly) identified in the final frame of the movie.
LikeLike
“Sasso suggests that the best path forward for the 1% would be to focus on rebuilding the middle class, which is currently being squashed.”
Well, yes, but that’s only relevant if you assume that motivation #1 (actually improving public schools) is the correct motivation. But clearly it is not their motivation as no matter what test scores, graduation rates, drop out rates or any other metric tells us, the billionaires plow onward with their privatization goals. Which tells you that their motivation is some combination of numbers 2 and/or 3. And why would people who are in it for their own greed or to destroy unions want to build up the middle class? Let’s not waste time indulging foolish hopes.
LikeLike
“The “best path forward for the 1% would be to focus on rebuilding the middle class”?
Best path for whom? The billionaires who got rich at the expense of the middle class?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
That’s not just a “foolish hope.” That’s downright delusional.
LikeLike
At the Truthout website, a commenter posted a video by Neely Fuller, “What White Supremacists Are Doing Now”, in response to an article by Linsey McGoey, author of “No Such Thing as a Free Gift: Bill Gates…”. The video link can be found with the Jan. 7, 2016, McGoey post, “Beware of Philanthro-Capitalists Bearing Gifts”.
Fuller describes the strategy of “showcasing” Black individuals. The plan’s intent is to foist on the minority community, a sham, that opportunities for the American dream are in great supply.
IMO, minority professors, whose statements match the plutocratic narrative and then, who experience mercurial academic advancements, at places like Harvard, make Fuller’s point. Mercedes Schneider quotes one of them at her blog, “…I don’t want a lot of standardized testing for my kids (in suburban Boston schools). It will crowd out things they need like Shakespeare…. Kids at the bottom in failing schools should be tested every day…”
Bernie understands the sham and he will work for the people.
LikeLike
Linda, that’s the weirdest quote about who deserves Shakespeare. Here is the Schneider article for those interested
LikeLike
The so-called “free market ” charter concept has not produced one scintilla of program innovation or creative pedagogy. Zero scalable ideas have been generated by the thousands of charter schools now in place. The best they have offered is military style, boot camp inspired, test prep. Learning environments that no suburban parent would tolerate for their own children for even one day. Any billionaire who thinks their money will produce educational innovation that can improve public schools is either remarkably ignorant or is in complete denial.
LikeLike
You are so right! Unfortunately, there has been little attempt to evaluate what has happened. The government keeps tossing more money into charters without any regard to the impact on the majority of students.
LikeLike
The evidence is in and it is conclusive: Like test-and-punish reform, charter reform also owns a record of abysmal FAILURE.
YET, we continue to pump untold billions of dollars, billions of hours of time, and gazillion joules energy that could otherwise be directed in beneficial ways.
FAILURE! This must be our counter-point (really the only narrative we need) to all of their bogus claims and empty, and now disproved, promises.
LikeLike
I also believe it has to do with power and greed.
LikeLike
I think a lot of it is about control. They run the ed reform “movement” – it’s stacked with people who came out of and from the same foundations, think tanks and lobbying groups. “Self interest” doesn’t have to mean a direct financial benefit. It can just as easily mean “reliably promote my ideas or ideology”.
Gates or Broad don’t fund any policy they disagree with, obviously. Why would they?
Whatever your opinion on ed reform, one would think we could all agree that 5 wealthy people running US education for tens of millions of children is just a bad idea. The arrogance of that takes my breath away. I would feel better about it if just one politician would ever contradict these people, but none of them ever do. I guess I’m supposed to believe that Bill Gates’ vision for public school students is identical to that of everyone in government.
LikeLike
Frankly, Bill Gates owns the place.
LikeLike
“The Gatesphone”
The White House has a Gatesphone
That’s answered by Barack
When Billy Gates is home alone
And simply needs to talk
LikeLike
“Gatesphone”- most important and protected equipment in the
U.S. Dept. of Ed. It’s shackled to Duncan’s wrist.
LikeLike
Because they can’t make money off of public schools…period.
LikeLike
“SomeDAM Poet
January 11, 2016 at 11:03 am
Frankly, Bill Gates owns the place.”
I hate the deferential tone and how weirdly PERSONAL they always make it, where we’re supposed to guess at whether Gates if a “good” or “bad” person and somehow interpret his motives.
I don’t care whether he’s good or bad. He has too much power and influence. Period.
LikeLike
Changing the subject to the motives of people like Gates is a popular way to divert attention from the main subject.
Bill Gates himself did it in the interview with Lyndsey Layton of the Washington Post when she asked him whether Microsoft would benefit from Common Core.
Gates got all indignant and said something along the lines of “You really believe I’m in this for the money?”
Gates also said “there’s no connection to Common Core and any Microsoft thing” at the very same time that MS was working with Pearson on a CC related project. Ha ha ha ha!
But as you say, Gate’s motives are irrelevant — as are those of all the other reformers. They should be judged by 1) whether they are working within the democratic process (and not actually breaking laws) to implement their policies and 2) whether their policies are actually beneficial for public schools and above all else, based on sound educational research.
Gates and others fail on all counts.
LikeLike
Did Layton ask Gates if “he was in it for the power?”
Chiara and Poet are right. Motives don’t matter unless one is persuading a jury in a fraud case. One can only hope that education fraud is better prosecuted than Wall Street’s financial crimes.
When Melinda Gates described herself in terms of the quote about making “one person breathe easier”, she split with reality. Talking about motive, to a person in a vacuum without a tether to reality, is descent into a rabbit hole
LikeLike
Our current Overclass has no interest in supporting public education because it can only offer them reasonable profits and limited power, and they’ve made it clear they want Everything.
LikeLike
To Linda and Raj:
One thing that I learn from a movie ‘The big short” is that we should have a clear mind like actor Steve Carrell character in the movie: INVESTIGATE THE SOURCE OF FRAUDULENCE in
1) consumer like the exotic dancer without a stable income, but own lots of real estate
2) middle men like CHEATING commission ‘financial adviser”
3) crooked but respected “rating” industry like Standard and Poors.
The reality in TODAY American Education is that the majority of all true educators in this forum thoroughly understand the strategy of DIVIDE AND CONQUER from RICH TECHNOCRATS. However, please INVESTIGATE THE SOURCE OF DESTROY BOTH PUBLIC EDUCATION AND TEACHING PROFESSION and then unite to work out the solution because the mass (WORKERS in both white and color collar) only has power whenever the mass is educated and cultivated in humanistic education and value.
Whenever people realize that
” From the brain to the intestine, the hair to the nail, the mouth to the a**, each part needs to be well care for the whole well-being of a human being. In the same vein,
from leader to laborer, each person needs to be cultivated in humanistic education for the whole well-being of a country.”
people will UNITE AND FIGHT with their might to preserve and control their own fate WITHOUT FEAR. Back2basic
LikeLike
New reform model: make every public school a Sidwell Friends. Why not? If there’s any chance of reducing inequality, poor kids should get at least an equal education. Actually they need a BETTER education than the rich kids if there’s to be any hope of reducing the gap. So really poor kids deserve BETTER than Sidwell Friends. But I’d settle for Sidwell Friends caliber.
LikeLike
I thought education didn’t lift people out of poverty.
LikeLike
Flerp,
The best ship building skills won’t prevent the disaster that a mega ton torpedo causes.
On the other hand, ship building skills can contribute to productivity, if there’s opportunity to ply the seas.
This, your best challenge? Hope you’re not feeling under the weather.
LikeLike
Providing equitable opportunities in public education is a moral obligation. The only reason it doesn’t lift many out of poverty is not because it can’t, it’s because political and public will have failed those at the bottom.
LikeLike
To Ponderosa:
Thank you for your recommendation of a new reform model. But we DO NOT need or want it.
Being a tax payer and commoner parents of humanistic children, we just DEMAND all technocrats to leave American public education the way it has been before Reagan era.
Free education from K- 12 and vocational college. Thank you. Back2basic
LikeLike
I wrote a satire from the perspective of the wealthy Fat Cats –http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0692585605
LikeLike
To Flerp:
Your sentence does not fully complete. May I please add three capitalized words in the end of your sentence and a modification of a specific education.
[start sentence]
I thought “”HUMANISTIC””education didn’t lift people out of poverty, BUT IGNORANCE, MISERY.
[end sentence]
Today technological education pushes learners toward the end of human civilization because it produces leaders without humanistic value. Back2basic
LikeLike