Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) was created by a group of guys who work as hedge fund managers. Some are Democrats, other are Republicans. They support charter schools and high-stakes testing. They never support public schools. They support Teach for America. They think that teachers should be evaluated by the test scores of their students, even though research overwhelmingly shows that this method is a failure (see the recent RAND-AIR report on the flop of the Gates-funded demonstration of evaluating teachers by test scores). They believe in merit pay, even though merit pay has never worked anywhere. There is no evidence that any active member of DFER ever attended a public school, ever taught in a public school, or ever sent his children to a public school. DFER doesn’t like public schools. Like Betsy DeVos, which it pretends to oppose, DFER believes in free-market reform of schools. If I am wrong, I hope that one of these hedge fund managers contacts me to let me know.
DFER loves corporate charter chains and doesn’t like local democratic control of schools. They see nothing unsavory about out-of-state billionaires buying an election for their favorite candidate, even in a local school board election. DFER is a PAC that collects and distributes fund to candidates who support its goals.
Here is the DFER list for this year’s election. Cory Booker and Michael Bennet are perennial favorites of DFER. I don’t know if Congressman Bobby Scott of Virginia is aligned with their philosophy or if DFER is trying to establish a relationship. He is the ranking Democrat on the House Education Committee in the Congress. Maybe DFER is currying his favor. His predecessor, Congressman George Miller of California, was fully aligned with DFER’s views and was richly rewarded with fundraisers, even when he didn’t have an opponent. His former chief of staff, Charles Barone, now runs the DFER office in D.C.
Suffice it to say that DFER pays no attention to research that does not support its fervent belief in charters, private management, and high-stakes testing. DFER believes in the free market, punishments and rewards for performance. That works on Wall Street. It should work in schools, even if it doesn’t.
Here is a graphic that shows the links among DFER and unsavory characters who also want to privatize public education. There is a factual error in the graphic. Political money is spent by 501c4 organizations. Those designated as 501c3 are supposed to be non-political. The non-political wing of DFER is called ”Education Reform Now.” It has a political advocacy group called “Education Reform Now Advocacy.” Of course, it advocates for high-stakes testing and charter schools. “Education reform,” in the eyes of those connected to DFER, means replacing public schools with private management that is neither accountable nor transparent.
DFER puts out a list of candidates (all Democrats) and invites its members to send them contributions. In this way, it is able to raise very large sums for friends of charter schools in Congress and in important state races, even school board races. Its mailing list includes many very wealthy people, so DFER is a major source of money for candidates like Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado, Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York, and other charter-friendly Democrats.
The Democratic Party conventions in both California and Colorado denounced DFER for calling itsel “Democrats” when they undermine public schools.
They’re also vehemently and specifically anti-labor union, which they really should admit since it’s so blatantly obvious to anyone outside their tiny little circle.
I can never figure out which voters these lobbying groups are supposed to appeal to.
Who are the voters who will get so excited over an elaborate “value added ranking system” for public school teachers that they will just crawl over broken glass to come out and vote for Democrats?
I think we are on our 6th public school ranking system in Ohio over 10 years. There isn’t a person in this state who wants to hear “value added” ever again.
No one even knows the high school graduation requirements at this point- they change every 6 months. It’s frustrating for parents but imagine students! They have to navigate this ridiculous, fad-following gimmickry to graduate high school.
Education Reform Now wrote 10-26-2017, “…Center for American Progress (CAP) and the think tank sister organization to DFER…”
Since I first began following education “reform,” in the days of for-profit Edison Schools Inc. circa 2000-01, it’s been evident that a basic strategy has been to package right-wing, free-market ideas as progressive and liberal and woo Democrats to support them. That’s been a very successful strategy (though at least on the left side of liberal, the scales have fallen from many eyes).
Now-fizzled Edison Schools — a for-profit “education management organization” taking over public schools — was traded on the NASDAQ, so public investors could buy shares. It was hailed in a blizzard of gushing editorials and news coverage as the miracle that would save public education by applying the efficiencies of the private sector to public education. People on the left praised it, including liberal journalists. In 2001, the Nation published a positive article on Edison by Peter Schrag, and Joan Walsh did one at Salon — she’s a high-profile left/liberal journalist who’s now an editor at the Nation.
Those folks have pretty much fallen silent on the topic of charter schools, but the point is that the effort to portray education “reform” as progressive and liberal has been quite successful along the way. “Reform” operations like Parent Revolution have made a huge flamboyant whoop-de-do of hiring people with Democratic Party credentials — people who’ve worked in the Clinton and Obama White Houses — and never failing to mention those credentials.
So the name of Democrats for Education Reform is all part of that very carefully calculated effort to portray far-right principles as liberal and progressive. The effort, as far as I can tell, comes originally from so-called “think tanks” (actually propaganda operations) like the Hoover Institution, so that marketing/propaganda strategy has massive funding behind it.
carolinesf,
BINGO.
Thank you for this post.
“Those folks have pretty much fallen silent on the topic of charter schools, but the point is that the effort to portray education “reform” as progressive and liberal has been quite successful along the way. ”
My question is why is the progressive movement MIA on this issue. Falling silent is being complicit. The NAACP issued a comprehensive report about the problems with charters and and demanded a moratorium on new charters until there was proper oversight and accountability. That should have been a natural for leading progressive politicians to embrace and I find it mysterious that they remain silent on what is one of the most important issues of the day — privatizing public education!
I do not believe that DFER would be able to portray itself as “progressive” if the Democrats who ARE progressive were constantly calling them out and saying straight out — DFER is not progressive and is funded by right wing billionaires. Falling silent is being complicit. If the progressives criticized DFER with one tenth of the effort they use to attack the DNC, the public would be far more skeptical of DFER. DFER is a complete and utter sham. Why every leading progressive hasn’t called them out is beyond my understanding.
Democrats seem afraid to have the discussion because they do not want to bring attention to the rift within the party. It winds up making them seem less than honest, which is true, since a good number of them count on campaign donations from DFER.
retired teacher,
I agree with you about that. I just don’t understand why the same people willing to vehemently criticize the DNC itself from the left aren’t also attacking DFER. Without more criticism from the left, DFER is able to position itself as progressive. If the only criticism the public hears is coming from teachers’ unions it is easy for the public to dismiss that criticism as self-interest. If the criticism was coming from respected progressive politicians, it would be harder to dismiss.
The politicians who are willing to go against what DFER wants are both progressive AND mainstream Dems like Ralph Northam in Virginia. And the politicians who remain silent on charters are sometimes on the left as well as moderates and conservatives. I think it would be much harder if the most respected progressive voices were challenging DFER the way they challenge CAP instead of silence.
I think Cynthia Nixon may be missing an opportunity to make public schools a big issue in the primary against Cuomo. Cuomo has moved left on every issue she has loudly challenged him on. I wonder if she really started a major push where all she talked about were the bad things charters are doing — like Eva Moskowitz endorsing Betsy DeVos and Cuomo and his SUNY Charter Institute rewarding her by giving her hundreds of millions to run charters and insisting she train her own teachers — if Cuomo would also be forced to start being less of a tool of DFER.
What if the public started seeing tons of commercials saying “why did Cuomo’s favorite charter school CEO endorse Betsy DeVos?” “Why does Cuomo support letting Betsty DeVos loudest charter school supporter train her own teachers with no oversight?” It might change the tenor of a very quiet primary. Associate Cuomo with his strong support of the charter CEO who insisted that Betsy DeVos be confirmed.
At least I’d like to see Nixon try that approach because there is lots of support for public schools and at worst it might force Cuomo to the left.
THE CRUCIAL question for years and years, now: “My question is why is the progressive movement MIA on this issue. Falling silent is being complicit.”
Nycpsp, Love your proposed ads. Tying Cuomo to Trump/ DeVos is de rigueur & I expect Nixon will have that covered. For broad Democratic appeal however, she needs to tread carefully on the charter issue, because your Democratic pro-charter parents are located in the big-city Democratic strongholds. Charters are a highly-flawed discriminatory leech-like bandaid – more like a butterfly closure – but I can imagine some who depend on them voting against Nixon on that issue alone if she pledged to rip it off. I prefer her current platform which focuses on “public schools” and doesn’t mention charters at all.
I would like to see her plump up her pro-public-schools agenda by adding a full frontal assault on NYS’ expensive and harmful double-down on ESSA testing/ evalns.
It’s risky to make charter schools and so-called “reform” an issue in a political campaign, because the same campaign that portrays the charter sector as “the new civil rights movement” in which the Koch brothers would be marching shoulder to shoulder with Bill Gates has the wide world convinced that charter schools are miracles run by saints. So you have to convince the public that that impression is wrong at you take a stand (and people passionately HATE being told they’ve been fooled, so they resent you). That’s tough to do in a political campaign.
Ha — that was Freudian or something– I mean to say the Koch brothers and Bill Gates would be marching shoulder to shoulder with Martin Luther King Jr. My fingers couldn’t type that until I forced myself.
That’s a good point. I’m not sure how Ralph Northam was able to do it, but he had a very strong primary opponent (actually more progressive on many issues but pro-charter on education) and I suspect that it was his support for public schools that put him over the top in that primary. I wish that more Democrats would make it an issue. There are still a lot more parents in public schools than in charters so presumably they wouldn’t feel fooled when they hear that their own children or grandchildren or nieces or nephews are footing the bill for charter operators’ high salaries and wasteful and self-serving PR and marketing.
I would put it more strongly — charter schools drain resources from their children’s or grandchildren’s or nieces’ or nephews’ public schools, hurting the children in the public schools, hurting the most vulnerable children the most. That’s true of even well-intentioned, supposedly righteous, supposedly progressive charter schools where administrators don’t have high salaries and where there isn’t wasteful and self-serving PR and marketing. Here’s a commentary clarifying how charter schools are harmful in California; all or most of its points presumably apply in all states where charter schools exist. https://teachingmalinche.com/2018/04/29/whats-wrong-with-charter-schools-the-picture-in-california/
Not on topic: Spending by teachers for supplies, etc. is increasing. see
https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/08/16/teachers-out-of-pocket-spending-on-school-supplies.aspx
It is at a 5-year high.
I am embarrassed and ashamed that our nation cannot provide adequately for these supplies, and underpaid teachers have to cough up the money from their meager salaries.
One thing I suggest. If you are a teacher, and you need supplies in your classroom, you might contact a non-government organization, like a service club.
Rand- former employer of Julie Marsh, associate professor of education at PUBLIC USC Rossier (which has the first Pahara Fellow to be a Dean at a school of education). Prof. Marsh got a grant of $1,392,000 from Edison Schools, almost $2,000,000 from William and Flora Hewitt,…., and money from Arnold and Walton. Currently, she’s a participant in DeVos’ Dept. of Ed. $10,000,000 project aimed at creating a better product and to study marketing for it, so that charter schools can be more effective- REACH.
In free enterprise, private organizations do their own product development and marketing.
Glitzy, big budget marketing is about the biggest contribution, if you can call it that, of privatization. The real results continue to be less than stellar and mostly a waste. The public needs to see behind all the “razzle-dazzle” of privatization.
USC is a private college, just for the record. UCLA is public.
Thank you, Caroline for the correction. It makes me feel marginally better that the taxpayer isn’t writing a paycheck via USC in addition to paying “scholars” at USC to do product development /market research for the private contractors of the charter industry.
Any taxpayer funding of legacy admission universities should be prohibited.
Long known as the University of Spoiled Children in Southern California, according to my L.A.-born-and-bred husband.
Not surprising. Critics refer to SIEPR as the Stanford Institute for the Evisceration of People’s Retirement.
REACH’s Katherine Strunk and Julie Marsh are Stanford grads.
The charter cabal took a page from big Pharma. They’re getting the government to pay for the research, then, the cabal makes the profit. And, the hypocritical Koch’s and Gates defend their garbage plot as capitalism when it is in reality, corporate welfare.
If I tell you what they really are I won’t be allowed to comment here anymore.
DFER is D4M.
Good one, Akademos. NO DFER for me. It’s about $$$$$ and control over rather than the common good.
Jim Crow = charters and vouchers.
Don’t forget this DFER, Jared Polis, former House Rep (D). now running for Governor or Colorado. Polis lives in Boulder, CO.
http://dfer.org/co/dfer-colorado-congratulates-jared-polis-celebrates-progressive-education-victories-up-and-down-the-ballot/
Polis has two charter schools: http://jaredpolisfoundation.org/keyprograms/charter-schools.html
I agree that some DFERs are Republicans. I disagree that some are Democrats; rather, some call themselves Democrats. DINOs: Democrats In Name Only.
LCT, I agree.
DFER = DINOs and GOP = hedge funders
DFER believes schools should be run like a business. As a retired school superintendent I can attest to the fact that many newly elected school board members and in some instances a majority of taxpayers share this sentiment. On most school boards the experienced school board members would patiently explain to their newly elected “run-schools-like-business” colleagues that public schools, unlike businesses, are operated democratically and decisions that a school board makes need to be done openly and democratically. And unlike a business, which can determine their “success” based on the bottom line, schools lack a clear metric for success.
This is why the “run-schools-like-a-business” reformers love standardized tests: test scores provide them with a seemingly precise metric that serves as a proxy for “profit”. In this way the “run-schools-like-a-business” crowd can make a cold determination on which schools are “successful” and which are “failing”. Many Democrats, wanting to show that they can run government with the same kind of cold efficiency as CEOs can run a corporation, buy into the “run-schools-like-a-business” ethos. That’s why there is bi-partisan support for test-driven “reforms” like NCLB and why a “liberal president” spent billions on testing and test-based “merit pay” instead programs that would help children or provide a means for states to equalize funding disparities.
DFER is very comfortable with privatization because that is the ultimate consequence of “running-schools-like-a-business”… and until voters realize that businesses are not operated democratically we may see our all our public services operated by the private sector. And instead of getting a human voice on the phone when your child encounters a problem in school, expect to get a menu urging you to go to a web page and engage in a chat with someone who will likely be housed offshore following a prescribed problem solving algorithm.
DFER doesn’t believe in capitalism. They scheme to get corporate welfare, which forces taxpayers to pay for the development of their products and for their marketing plans ($10 mil. from Bitsy’s Ed Department to Tulane’s new project, REACH, run by Douglas Harris.)
With apologies to Langston Hughes
What happens to a dream DFERred?
Deformer, of course
Is this what happens to a dream DFERred?
https://dianeravitch.net/2018/08/11/jan-resseger-did-students-in-chicago-die-because-of-arne-duncans-school-closing-program/