Barron Trump’s elite private school collected federal coronavirus relief aid, as did several other private schools with multi-million dollar endowments. That includes the private school that Stephen Mnuchin’s children attend in Los Angeles.
The elite Maryland private school attended by Donald Trump’s son Barron is collecting taxpayer stimulus aid — and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin is demanding that money to wealthy schools be returned.
The Brentwood School in Los Angeles, attended by Mnuchin’s own children, is also collecting public funds as part of the administration small business stimulus program meant to help mitigate the economic damage from the coronavirus pandemic, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Neither school plans to return the money.
Another handout to the super-rich from funds intended to help small businesses.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Disgusting.
The congressional bills were filled with these perks for the uber rich and major corporations. The corporations have been buying back stock and giving CEOs assorted perks with little or nothing for employees.
The lobbyists have shaped the hurriedly passed bills and the harried members of Congress, and their staffs, are just shoving legislation out the door, along with money.
All oversight is gone. The pandemic is revealing the how thoroughly corrupted democratic governance has been become.
Mnuchin attended Riverdale Country School, a different expensive private school. They probably also got a loan.
We’re governored almost exclusively by people who have no clue how 99% of the country lives. Some of these people haven’t been inside a public school in three generations.
Mnchin’s big career success prior to joining the Trump Administration was stripping the assets out of Sears and transferring them to the bank accounts of other wealthy people.
a key point: We’re governed by people who have no clue about how most of the country lives.
I’m torn on this. The federal funding is intended to keep people employed, and these expensive schools have ordinary employees- the teachers and other staff aren’t wealthy. I don’t think the employees should be denied federal aid just because they work for institutions that exist to serve the ultra-rich.
The intent was to assist employees- the analysis isn’t whether the business is worthy- it’s whether the employees should get the same aid other employees get.
Say my small business makes luxury goods rich people buy- handbags or fancy furniture ot something. Should the people who work there not get federal aid? They’re not rich.
My assumption was that the federal funds were intended for small businesses that had been adversely affected by the shutdown. I didn’t see any evidence that these schools had lost any revenue —parents paid up front—and they had no reason to lay off teachers—or to collect bailout money. Many tens of thousands of small businesses shut their doors and have no revenue. They should receive the bailout money.
That’s a good point but Congress could have put qualifying conditions in, and they didn’t.
As far as these private schools, my concern would be they got better ACCESS to the funds that an ordinary small business because they serve the children of the ultra-rich. They are politically connected.
The tuition for the upper school is about $45,000 per year…base cost. Then there are dress codes, books to be purchased, lots of other fees. The land and buildings are owned and I’m assuming taxed very little since this is a religious institution(Episcopalian). Donor contributions from wealthy alumni are very abundant. The teachers are paid fairly well and have lots of perks. Very small class sizes and there are lots of children attending who “learn differently” and that’s why the wealthy parents choose this school. They don’t need the stimulus money and it should be returned. I know this because we have a relative that attends this same school.
Chiara,
You might be interested in this NYT article: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/29/us/prep-schools-coronavirus-loans.html
It is also important to remember that endowment spending is often restricted by the terms of the gift to the institution. A gift that was given to fund a student scholarship, for example, can not be used to pay teachers and staff. If there are no students in the fall, the school might have to retain the money for the scholarship in their endowment and also have to furlough staff and teachers because the school does not have funds to pay them.
None of these private schools have lost any money. They received tuition payments before school started in September 2019. In what respect are they eligible for loans designed for small businesses that were forced to close and lose all their revenue?
As I drive around, I see most shops are shuttered. Furniture stores, clothing stores, travel agencies, florists, barber shops, beauty shops, specialty shops of all kinds. Their owners have zero revenue. Why should private schools get the money that was intended to prevent these tens of thousands of small shops from permanent closure?
Easy answer is that Republicans care about profit not people.
@chiara
Why is this a conversation? Please read p. 280 of Dr. Ravitch’s Slaying Goliath.
These private schools are not peace corps schools with peace corps teachers. Teachers chose to work in elite private environments knowing salaries were lower and no unions.
Dr. Ravitch offers dozens of ways privatizers could help public education instead of stealing kids, decimating budgets, cutting programs.
These federal funds could be a start fulfill her suggestions – and don’t forget – public school layouts are immiinent.
A private school in the suburbs here is to receive over $2 million in aid. $54 million endowment (which has lost to $9 million to the market).
To their credit, they are well known and received for accepting a significantly high number of students given aid (25%) and students of color. They are outspoken leaders on issues of equity and race in a much segregated community.
HOWEVER – their 90+ teachers teacher 600+ kids. Do the math.
If only the urban district where I work could get to a 20:1 ratio to accelerate reading and math and the arts to expected levels. $2 million in aid would have gone a long way in distributing thousands of ipads to students in the past month and the funds used could be used elsewhere (increased social services to start).
I am usually the “there is another side to the story” or “don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater” respondent – but not on this one.
JH,
Under normal circumstances your worry that giving the money to a private school causes the money not to go to your urban district (or some other worthy organization) would be an important concern. These are not normal circumstances, however, and the deliberate intent of the program is that all private businesses would get these loans and congress would supply all the needed funds. No business would be deprived of a loan because a private school received a loan. No doubt we will see a similar program to address the deficit spending of all state and local governments, likely through the Fed buying up all of the new bonds that they issue.
I think Congress was sensible to put few restrictions on the kinds of businesses that can receive the loans. Once starting down the path of “XXX does not deserve access to the loans”, it would have taken far longer to get the legislation passed as legislators argued over what XXX should be, it would take far longer for businesses to get loans because they would have to document that they are not XXX and the government would have to verify that the businesses are not XXX. Speed is very helpful.
Wrong, TE. The money was appropriated for small businesses that were hurt by the pandemic. Private schools have collected full tuition for this academic year. They have not lost money or employees.
When I think of small businesses that need help, I think of the small beauty shop in my neighborhood where I get my hair cut. It has 4 or 5 people who cut and style hair. Two manicurists. Two women who shampoo hair. And a receptionist. They are all American citizens. The shop is closed. No one has earnings. I don’t know how the hairdresser who owns the shop will pay the rent. I thought that Congress wanted to help small business owners, not give tax breaks to the richest people in the nation and the biggest corporations, as well as elite private schools with multimillion dollar endowments, where no one has lost a job.
It may be that you think that private schools are not small businesses, or that faculty and staff at private schools have no moral value to society. The groundskeepers and secretarial staff may have a different view,
I think that it might be instructive to have the posters here to list all the businesses that should not be eligible for these loans, and then consider how that list would get through the Senate.
TE,
These elite schools are fully funded. They have multimillion dollar endowments. They have suffered no financial loss, and they are like the charter industry, putting their hands out for federal aid even though they have had no financial loss whatever.
Sorry, TE, I don’t see the point of “bailing out” schools that suffered no financial harm and also have large reserves.
I feel sure you would also defend tax breaks for the billionaires and large corporations that were neatly tucked into the coronavirus relief bill.
The small shops closed in my neighborhood by the pandemic will never see a dime.
As your favorite president would say, “It’s a rigged game,” rigged to favor people like him.
Are you as heartless as your comments always seem to be?
Does anyone know what criteria determined genuine need and how a business had to document it? You would think that “need” would be more obvious for the corner barber shop than the elite private school and there are a lot more “barber shops” than elite private schools.
Speduktr,
The legislation did not attempt to differentiate between organizations with a “genuine need” and ones without. If they had, they would have spent a long time arguing over who had “genuine need” and who did not, organizations would have spent a long time documenting that they met the requirements, and the government would have spent a long time verifying that the businesses did, in fact, meet the requirements. This would simply take too long to be helpful.
Oh that explains why Congress appropriated billions and trillions of dollars to pay off corporations and individuals who were not harmed in anyway by the coronavirus.
If that is true, it is utterly stupid. Why should we bail out corporations that have no need to be bailed out, especially when tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of mom-and-pop stores are closing permanently?
Under this logic–that it is too much trouble to identify who is in need and who is not–then we should have government subsidized healthcare for all, tuition-free college for all, food stamps for all. It is just too difficult to determine who needs the money and who doesn’t. So instead of giving it to the big banks and fat cats, give the money to everyone.
I believe that was an argument of Andrew Yang’s in his proposal for a guaranteed income.
Exactly my point. How does “genuine need” get defined? My husband had enough trouble filling out the required paperwork without more hoops.
I wrote a response , “Ecxactly my point…” that probably makes no sense. I have no idea where my bit in support of some of your thinking is, but I agree that getting everyone to agree to a program probably means paring it way down, so no one demands endless hoops.
Dr. Ravitch,
Perhaps a medical analogy would help. Patients claim to have many of the symptoms of an illness that is dominating society. Physicians could 1) treat the patient as if they have this common illness or 2) demand that the patient take a test, wait a week for the results, and then if it is positive, treat the patient. During that week some of those patients die because they in fact have the illness and could have been saved if treated.
The first option will result in fewer patient deaths but some patients will get the treatment who do not need to be treated. The second option results in more deaths but no patient who does not need treatment for this illness. Which would you suggest is the better course of action?
That’s a very poor analogy.
There is no drug that is given to the entire population because 10% may need it.
That’s a flimsy excuse for giving billions to billionaires and big corporations that don’t need it. What you propose is a tax systen that gives money out for “relief” to those who are flourishing. How about a replied package that helps those with the greatest needs? That would be a fair system, whereas you propose to tax everyone and let the richest take a share without any need at all.
Actually, the analogy is exactly the one we have had to follow in the case of COVID-19. People have died waiting to prove they were sick because we didn’t have the resources to do otherwise. The small business loan programs are far from perfect, but they are helping a lot of people who truly need the help. We may have to keep calling out those who really don’t need the help, but have found legal loopholes. I’m not sure we could have waited for the government to figure out and agree on a plan that would help the “most needy.” In the very short time frame the government had to act and given the incredible partisanship (and corruption of the current administration), I find it remarkable that they have managed to cobble together some relief for the little guy. In the meantime we keep vigilant and call out the B.S.
They are not going to be out of business in two months when the money runs out to pay their employees. Too many small business will be. They make (or did make) enough to cover their costs with little cushion. They don’t have wealthy benefactors or investors looking for a ROI. The vultures are already circling businesses where they see potential for profit whether it is because of the service and/or product or the location of said enterprise.
As much as I wax unpoetic about the virtues of independent school freedom to teach (at least as I experienced it), I also understood the great wealth many of my students’ families had. I taught 6th graders who had trust funds worth more than I would ever collectively make in my life. Or 5 lifetimes. If they choose to be independent and teach the most privileged (and fund a few token scholarships), they can easily come up with the funds to dave their schools, pay their teachers during the times of lockdowns, and not access public funds. Yes, the teachers are underpaid, but compared to what public school teachers have to endure, it’s still a good deal. And the parents can continue to pay them if they care.
The bailouts are rigged to give to the well connected and wealthy. The bill was deliberately written to include large, wealthy businesses. If they really wanted to help “mom and pop” operations, they could have easily capped the number of employees much lower than 500 per location. AOC saw through the scheme and did not vote for it.
When Republican ethos is “Grab what you can,” Democratic response must be, “No grabbing for the wealthy. Period. No tradeoffs. No, just gab a little. Ensuring human rights are not contingent on giving the already privileged a bit of what they want.”
The non-profit tax designation is difficult for me in terms of bailouts. Maybe these entities should start paying taxes if they want to be eligible for bail outs.
Every single ed reform analysis of how public schools should respond to the coronavirus is written by people who 1. advocate for charters and vouchers, 2. don’t work in public schools.
Is it really too much to ask that we could hear from some of the people who actually work IN the public schools 90% of kids in this country attend? Is that not possible?
I’m a public school parent. This entire policy discussion will be limited to asking people who 1. don’t support public schools, 2. don’t work in public schools?
Ludicrous, but typical of the echo chamber nature of ed reform. God forbid they should ask an actual public school leader what to do with public schools. They’re excluded.
https://www.the74million.org/article/robin-lake-flattening-the-learning-loss-curve-when-school-reopens-will-take-federal-leadership-state-and-local-buy-in-and-these-4-steps/
Charter schools are also receiving these funds. In addition to being fully funded for this year, many (not all) charters have very healthy cash reserves plus investment income.
The criminality of this administration should surprise no one. From the first moment that he was installed in office the Resident has sought to grub as much illicit wealth as he can from our nation and he has surrounded himself with like-minded leaches on the American economy. We can only hope that the rampant money grab will finally be halted in January of 2021.
Harvard gave the money back, I’m just saying. It was ten million.
The issue is not whether Harvard kept the money but why they accepted money from a convicted pedophile and then gave him red-carpet treatment.
That was not Harvard’s money, it was money offered to low income students that attend Harvard. My university accepted the payments on behave of its students and it spent less than a week in university accounts before it was sent on to low income students.
As someone who taught in such schools, and who is also familiar with religious institutions in the area where Mnuchin’s kids attend school: when economic disaster occurs, the wealthy donors (on whom the institutions depend) lose money in the stock market and, as a result, curtail their giving. When the parents’ stock portfolios take a big hit, they typically reconsider whether they can afford private school next year, and the school’s enrollment declines. When enrollment goes down, teachers can be laid off, etc. Some synagogues in our area (and, I expect churches, too), lose revenue when their preschools must shut down, and when members tighten their belts. In some cases clergy and employees have been asked to take pay cuts. I agree that that we are seeing way too much of the money bypassing the small businesses who need it most, but the notion that the private schools and institutions are not affected by an economic crisis is false. By the way, I am opposed to public money being used to fund tax-exempt institutions.
Your last sentence supports the view that public money should not be used to bail out private schools. When parents choose not to send their children to free public schools but to spend $30,000-$60,000 to send them to a private school, the government should not be expected to bail out the private schools when the stock market declines.
I agree, though I am not sure that the general parent body expects the government to bail them out. The Board of Trustees–sure What I was responding to was the assumtion that private schools and other private institutions with some wealthy constituents are immune to economic fluctuations. These fluctuations adversely affect those with an average or even low income who are receiving financial aid. The question for me, though, is less “why are these schools applying for funds?” but “why is the government allowing them to receive funds?”
We’re coming close to a slippery slope here. Are we saying that any business that is supported by wealthy people should not get relief funds? Like TE said, we start to get into pages of criteria for what makes a business worthy of help. I am not defending the actions of some businesses; I don’t really know enough in most instances to make a judgement. I do know that no one knows what the future holds, so businesses of all types are making plans in uncertain times.
We are not all going to agree on the morality of choices many may feel forced to make. I don’t know about “you,” but I am not at the local food pantry handing out food. I am hunkering down and spending far too much time online passing judgement on others. I have the excuse of being high risk; I would probably die if I got a bad case of COVID-19, but why are some people expected to be martyrs for the cause and not others?
I am obviously wandering. Too much time for thinking/worrying and not enough action.
There’s a pretty clear distinction that can be made here – the SBA loans were set up to provide immediate relief to small businesses that would not otherwise be able to pay employees and to meet other immediate financial obligations such as rent and utilities. If the funds are used for those purposes the loans are fully forgivable. It’s not about values, it’s about the economics and it isn’t at all hard to figure out who should get priority in funding. That’s why so many companies have ended up returning the loans due to public pressure.
“That’s why so many companies have ended up returning the loans due to public pressure.”
Sounds like they were shamed into it by me. That’s values. Apparently they qualified under the program provisions.
Trump and Mnuchin made sure that the multi-trillion dollar relief package had minimal oversight.
Trump fired the independent Inspector General. He announced that he would not comply with the Congressional requirement for oversight and reporting. Will he direct big grants to the Trump Organization? Who knows.
The intent of the bill was clear – the loans were designed to keep workers on the payroll now, not at some future date if you happen to run short of cash. The first round of loans were basically given out on the honor system and many businesses snatched them up while experiencing no hardship whatsoever. When you have cash in the bank and significant assets, you are not experiencing a hardship. And that’s easy to discern without making any personal values judgement about the the worthiness of a company.
I don’t think my husband felt like the paperwork he had to fill out was basically signing up on the honor system. He did get some relief in the second round, which is forgivable if he keeps his current employees for six months, I think.