John Thompson, historian and teacher in Oklahoma, writes here about a growing awareness in the mainstream media of the infusion of Big Money into education. The New York Review of Books is a major influence among highly educated people and has a reach far beyond professional educators.
The New York Review of Book’s Michael Massing, in “Reimagining Journalism: The Story of the One Percent,” proposes a new journalism to document and explain the effects of secretive corporate elites on our diverse social institutions. He basically calls for a very well-funded version of the Diane Ravitch blog.
O.K., it’s more complicated than that. Massing notes that “Education is but one area of American life that is being transformed by Big Money.” He wants a website that is staffed by top investigative journalists, and experts in the fields that are being taken over by “billionaires [who] are shaping policy, influencing opinion, promoting favorite causes, polishing their images—and carefully shielding themselves from scrutiny.”
Massing proposes a site, complete with reporters, editors, and “digital whizzes,” who “could burrow deep into the world of the one percent and document the remarkable impact they are having on so many areas of American life.” Similar to Ravitch’s blog, its purpose would be “tracking the major participants, showing the links between them, assessing their influence and impact, and analyzing the evidence on the performance of both public and charter schools.”
Moreover, Massing wants a site that:
Could also serve as a sounding board for people in the field, encouraging principals, teachers, parents, and grantees to send in comments about their dealings with these institutions. The most thoughtful could be edited and posted on the site, providing a bottom-up perspective that rarely gets aired.
Massing explains that “even amid the outpouring of coverage of rising income inequality … the richest Americans have remained largely hidden from view.” And, “journalists have largely let them get away with it.” We need sites that will cover more than education, but Massing, who has been influenced by the work of Mohammad Khan, Zephyr Teachout, and Ravitch, uses their work as a model for the 21st century journalism we need.
His website would:
Produce an ongoing record of the activities of the foundations and private donors trying to affect education policy. The political and lobbying efforts of the teachers’ unions and their allies would be included as well, showing how much money and influence they are able to mobilize in elections and for what candidates.
In the first of two articles, Massing describes Paul Singer, the CEO of the hedge fund Elliott Management as an example of “the ability of today’s ultrarich to amass tremendous power while remaining out of the limelight.” Singer is not merely a key funder of the blood-in-the-eye, anti-union StudentsFirst NY, but also the test, sort, reward and punish policies pushed by Joel Klein, Michelle Rhee, and other corporate school reformers. The billionaire is the single largest donor to the Republican Party; a backer of Marco Rubio and many Tea Party candidates; a funder of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which attacked John Kerry’s war record; a donor to Karl Rove’s American Crossroads and the anti-tax group, Club for Growth; and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, “which has worked tirelessly to isolate and sanction Iran.”
To illustrate the secretive and far-reaching influence of the One Percent, Massing draws upon the Washington Park Project, and Kahn’s and Teachout’s “Corruption in Education: Hedge Funds and the Takeover of New York’s Schools.”
They offered:
An eye-opening look at the large sums being spent by what it called “a tiny group of powerful hedge fund executives” seeking to “take over education policy” in the state. This “lightning war on public education,” they wrote, was “hasty and secretive” and “driven by unaccountable private individuals. It represents a new form of political power, and therefore requires a new kind of political oversight.”
Massing then praises the online Hechinger Report and Diane Ravitch who have sharply analyzed the record of the Billionaires Boy’s Club and education reform movement. He explains the need to further document the activities of the Gates, Broad, and Walton foundations, as well as analyze their real world effects on schools.
Yes, America needs websites for examining the structure of money and influence on all of our institutions. Ravitch and her contributors, commenters, and readers should all feel proud of our bottom-up efforts. Massing is correct; our nation needs to produce Diane Ravitchs to lead similar grassroots efforts in health, finance, economics, and politics. I bet it will happen.

The only thing Big Money wants is Bigger Money.
LikeLike
If someone else’s money.
LikeLike
“He wants a website that is staffed by top investigative journalists, and experts in the fields that are being taken over by “billionaires’
Top investigative journalists?
Where?
I don’t see them. They must be hiding.
LikeLike
David Sirota, Matt Taibbi, the Center for Media and Democracy, Mother Jones, Doug Livingston (Akron Beacon Journal), and Laura Bischoff and Josh Sweigart (Dayton Daily News) are crusaders for the truth. Granted, it’s a small representation of the total.
LikeLike
Investigative journalism seems to be lost art. The oligarchs control mainstream media. I would love to see a blog delve into the mysteries of the 1% and organizations like ALEC. In order to pay for it, they would have accept some form of advertisement.
LikeLike
They are there. Look to Bill Moyers and associates. How about Salon? My apologies to all of those I have not mentioned. There are people and publications out there that are not mouthpieces for the 1%. We read them!
LikeLike
Yes, yes, yes!
Our 240-year experiment with democracy, which we call America, can’t end with a secretive revolution that installs a non-democratic shadow government. Sovereignty must reside with the people and not with the so-called 1% (which is really 0.01%).
This is a very conservative view I’ve just espoused. The super-rich who call themselves conservatives are hypocrites. It’s really important to get this message out, because the coalition behind charter schools and privatization thinks it’s all free-markety. Not when it comes to education. Control by the people, not corporations, is paramount, a bedrock value in America. Consider this statement from a decidedly non-liberal Supreme Court decision:
“No single tradition in public education is more deeply rooted than local control over the operation of public schools; local autonomy has long been thought essential both to the maintenance of community concern and support for public schools and to quality of the educational process.”
—Chief Justice Warren Burger, writing for the majority in MILLIKEN v. BRADLEY (1974)
That court decision effectively ended integration of schools by busing, so we might think twice about lauding it. But the reasoning behind the court’s decision is exactly why it’s relevant today. Do conservatives still want local control by *elected* school boards or not? Do liberals want to get rid of local control so corporations and financiers can run their schools instead?
What a strange situation! Charter schools go against left and right orthodoxies; they worsen segregation; they adhere to unsound, even cruel pedagogical methods; and their outcomes hardly justify their existence. Yet politicians and the super-rich fawn over them. Fortunately, Americans are smarter than the politicians they sometime elect and their good sense eventually triumphs over the schemes of self-interested elites. The truth is starting to come out and change will follow.
LikeLike
Yes I am witness to the dissociation of progressive charter schools and the values of a humane society. My wife involved us in founding the first charter in Asheville North Carolina. To reimburse ourselves for our personal sacrifices my wife was secretly given a contract with a very large “bump-up” in salary during her last three years before retiring. I was told that it was done that way “so that she can draw more out of the system.” I now believe this is a formula to pay back what is basically a large loan and call it compensation to achieve a much enhanced retirement calculation. I also believe that this practice is the bait to entice “progressive” teachers to exploit their peers and jeopardize the retirement prospects of future state employees. This situation has turned my life into an Alfred Hitchcock movie and I keep waiting for someone help me figure out what I should do about it. Any ideas?
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Crazy Normal – the Classroom Exposé.
LikeLike
Good comments.
Again, what took some of the media so long to look at this problem?
OH
Corporate controlled media, 6 corporations controlling 80 to 90% of the news promote THEIR corporate interests, not the interests of the general public.
LikeLike
Massing could look close to home. A Columbia professor co-wrote a paper with a pro-charter school, Walton-funded, organization. The paper was funded by Arnold and the Walton’s. The professor serves on a plutocratic-funded charter school prize review board, along with a former Gates employee and U.S. Dept. of Ed. executive (under Duncan). The professor’s review board colleague, received an ethics waiver while in “government service”. Then, she deftly gained employment as an education executive in private industry.
The College’s charter school paper was “embargoed” for announcement at a later date, which it appears Teachers College’s PR team, honored. Is it standard practice for an academic paper to be embargoed and, if so, what is the reason? An answer to why the press release, failed to mention Arnold’s contributed money to the paper, would require speculation.
The characteristics that distinguish trade industry and oligarch-funded think tank work products from university research, would be an excellent topic for journalistic review.
LikeLike