Archives for category: Billionaires

At the recent school board meeting of Indianapolis Public Schools, Professor Jim Scheurich of Indiana University-Purdue University in Indianapolis got up to speak. The story he tells is similar to what happened in Denver, where Stand for Children, DFER, and other conduits for anonymous donors bought every seat on the elected school board, swamping the opposition with cash they could not match.

This was his testimony:

“My name is Dr. Jim Scheurich.

“I have been a professor of education for 25 years, first at the University of Texas at Austin and then at Texas A&M University and now at IUPUI.

“Throughout those 25 years, I have studied school success in urban districts, even winning a couple of major national awards as a scholar.

“Based on having studied some of the best urban districts in the country, I would have to say that the IPS school board and administration are among the lowest quality I have seen.

“This conclusion is particularly evident in the many negative issues that have arisen in the school closing processes and decisions.

“What I want to address about these negative issues is how we came to have this particular school board that follows an agenda that consistently disregards what the community wants, like closing legacy high schools.

“Up until 2010, an ordinary citizen of Indianapolis could win a school board seat for $3-5,000.
Starting in 2012, Stand for Children and the Mind Trust provided over $50,000 each for their candidates. Over the last 3 elections, Stand for Children and the Mind Trust have provided around $1.5 million to elect all but one school board member, Elizabeth Gore.

“This means that six of the seven board members became board members through the purchase of our local democracy. This means they owe their allegiance to the agenda of Stand for Children and the Mind Trust and NOT to the Indianapolis community.

“It seems to me that the big money election of these six board members is certainly anti-community and anti-democracy.

“But this is not the end of this scary story.

“The $1.5 million spent on the last three elections flowed through Stand for Children that used a tax designation, 501c4, to hide the source of that money and the ways they spend it.

“Why would Stand for Children and the Mind Trust try to hide the sources and spending of all of this money if they are as community oriented as they say they are?

“What they don’t want you to know is that much of this big money is coming from wealthy individuals and organizations from all around the country.

“Because then you might ask why do wealthy folks who may never set foot in Indianapolis want to buy our school board?

“You also might ask why the same wealthy folks from around the country are doing exactly the same agenda in 35 other urban centers.

“Why are wealthy folks from around the country purchasing so many urban school boards? Why are these 35 purchased school boards following the same agenda, like closing legacy high schools and supporting the opening of charter high schools?

“We in Indianapolis do not want to follow some national agenda created by wealthy individuals and organizations from outside Indianapolis.

“Instead we want to follow an agenda that is Indianapolis centered and focuses on the voices and needs of ordinary Indianapolis people of all races and incomes.

“And, thus, what we don’t need is any closing of our legacy high schools.”

Portland, Oregon, is in big trouble. Despite massive spending by the fake reform Stand on Children–err, Stand for Children–the corporate reformers lost in the school board election. Now, as local activist Deb Mayer reports, they are trying to bully a school board member into resigning.

Why the attacks on a man who won his seat and supports public schools? The board has been unable to pick a new superintendent. So the composition of the board is crucial, and the privatizers need another seat. They want Paul Anthony’s seat so they can win by bullying what they could not win at the polls.

Citizens of Portland must be informed. Stand for Children represents Bill Gates and the rest of the zbillionaire Boys Club that funds SFC. They are not working on behalf of the children and families of Portland.

Don’t be fooled.

This may be the most important post you read today.

Maurice Cunningham, a professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts, began investigating the millions of dollars pouring into the state during the referendum on charter schools last fall. He wondered why so many billionaires from other states wanted to expand the number of charter schools in Massachusetts. He continued his investigation after the election and has lifted the curtain on groups like Families for Excellent Schools, Stand for Children, and Educators4Excellence, and Leadership for Educational Excellence (a group connected to TFA).

He began researching the intersection between philanthropy and dark money.

My descent into darkness led me to decipher the hidden funding of Families for Excellent Schools, a New York based organization that poured over $17 million in dark money into the Great Schools Massachusetts ballot committee for 2016’s Question 2 on charter schools. That brought me to the initial funding to get FES up and running in Massachusetts, which came from a Boston based Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3) charity called Strategic Grant Partners. The investments from SGP are consistent with the practice of wealthy individuals using charitable entities to influence the direction of public policy, a topic I explored in Unmasking the Philanthrocapitalists Who Almost Bought Massachusetts Schools. One way for wealthy individuals to grease the path to their public policy goals is to fund organizations that undermine teachers unions, a topic I took up in Philanthrocapitalists Brandish BEANball at BTU.

In the course of this research I have created a database of all Strategic Grant Partners’ publicly available grants since its inception, from its Form 990PF tax returns. The non-profit has dispensed many grants for family support and educational purposes over that time to about seventy grantees, only five of which I would characterize as engaging in political activities: advocacy/organizing/mobilizing for three of them, adding lobbying activities for two, Stand for Children and Families for Excellent Schools. There were no grants to political activities organizations until Stand for Children in 2009, and then no other such organization received a grant until 2013 when Education Reform Now and Families for Excellent Schools received funding.

He concludes:

The Stand for Children and Families for Excellent Schools initiatives both led toward the ballot box and thus we could look at OCFP reports; but these days the reports only tell us which dark money front is laundering for which elegantly named shell. That’s the tip of the iceberg. But there is much more.

Professor Cunningham, keep up the research. Check out Donors Trust, another group that bundles dark money for school privatization. Add ALEC and its donors.

Dark Money wants to destroy our public schools and our democracy.

The people behind these activities use “civil rights” rhetoric to advance anti-democratic goals. They are thieves of democracy.

Steve Zimmer has been on the Los Angeles Unified School Board for eight years. This spring he ran for re-election. He came close to the 50% mark in the first round, but didn’t cross it. In the runoff, turnout was very low (less than 10%), and he was beaten by Nick Melvoin, who was funded by the Billionaire Boys Club.

He wrote these reflections on his defeat:


Friends,

It has been a month since the election that captured so much local and national attention and turned our worlds upside down. As some of the shock of the initial loss has lessened, the pain of what all of this means has begun to set in. Because we care so much and because we have worked so hard, it is very difficult to let go. And because we do the work of supporting the schools and school families that make dreams come true it is hard to know how to move on from doing the work. This email is my attempt to make some sense out of all of this and present some ideas for moving forward.

For each of you who worked so hard on this election and believe so genuinely in the promise of public education for every student and every family, I want to once again thank you for all that you have done and will do for our kids. On a personal level, the outpouring of love and support you have shown to Anika and me over this past month has been a blessing. Thank you. Never once have we felt alone. We went through this campaign with all of you as a family and we are absorbing the loss as a family. We are blessed.

I want you to know that I have reached out to Nick Melvoin and congratulated him on his victory in this election. He was gracious and is giving me the space to close out the many projects and initiatives that have defined this eight year effort to transform public education for all students in Los Angeles. I need us all to understand that no matter how deep the pain from this campaign may be, Nick will be the Board Member for Board District 4 and our schools, our students, their teachers and their families need him to be successful. I urge all of you, especially our teachers and parents in Board District 4, to reach out to Nick and the team he will assemble. There is too much at stake on the ground at our schools to have anything but the best working relationship with the new Board office.

But there is more I ask you to do and I ask us to do together.

We may have lost an election, but we were not wrong in the campaign we built for the soul of public education. The coalition that came together and the energy and the spirit of the campaign must move forward. Over this past month, there have been attempts to dissect our campaign in ways that endanger our efforts to keep working together on behalf of public education in Los Angeles. With so much immediately on the line, we cannot let in-fighting turn us against each other. That is exactly what our enemies want. We can’t let that happen.

So we have to understand what happened and what didn’t happen.

This was no ordinary election. We did lose and we did lose badly. And the California Charter Schools Association (CCSA) and their wealthy funders won and won big. But they did not win fairly and they did not win honestly.

The CCSA effort was precise in its science and its analytics. They recruited or encouraged a group of the right candidates to keep me just under 50% in the March primary and then they waged a vicious negative campaign during the run-off. It was the most expensive school board race in the history of the nation. CCSA had a singularly unique mix of unlimited money, unbridled ambition and the complete absence of any moral or ethical code. It was a perfect electoral storm.

They prosecuted a campaign with laser focus and strict discipline. They expertly targeted precincts that were either extremely wealthy or extremely motivated against me or both. With well-paid and well-trained campaign operatives, CCSA worked these precincts incessantly. Then, CCSA unleashed the electoral equivalent of a carpet bombing campaign against me and our work together. It was a new kind of ugly and a new kind of mean.

It was also dishonest and misleading. There are real reasons that families in certain neighborhoods in our district are unhappy with my leadership. I made difficult decisions and I didn’t always get things right. I also believe that charter schools must accept every child that comes to their door and that they must be transparent and accountable for the public dollars they receive. And I have fought against many charter co-locations. So there were real reasons that some families in some communities wanted a change in District 4. But this is not what the CCSA campaign was about.

The attack ads and mailers did not talk about charter schools, charter school regulation or charter school expansion. The attack ads and the mailers did not talk about the challenging issues in Board District 4. The attack ads and the mailers did not talk about teacher tenure, teacher evaluation or the role of standardized tests. Instead, the attack ads created a fictional history that blamed me for ipadgate, the budget crisis, teacher layoffs, cuts in arts education and child abuse lawsuits. Even worse, CCSA created an ugly narrative of failure about our students, their teachers, our schools, our families and our communities.

Our campaign and the independent expenditure campaign that supported us did not have the funding, the bandwidth, or the analytics to effectively dispute the avalanche of lies nor were we able to effectively mobilize a large enough base to compete with the CCSA effort. In the end, what happened is that a majority of voters in Board District 4 believed the fictional narrative of failure created by CCSA and their wealthy financiers. They spent, they dehumanized, they lied and they won.

But winning an election in this way is not a mandate. There is no mandate for charter school expansion. There is no mandate to end teacher tenure or to devalue seniority. There is no mandate to elevate the importance of standardized tests or increase competition between schools. None of these issues was even discussed or debated. The voters believed a compelling and relentless message about my “failures”, they didn’t endorse an agenda. There are real issues. The CCSA message and the CCSA narrative was not about those issues. There is no mandate.

There has also been the assertion that there was some kind of grassroots movement that fueled this campaign. Let’s be clear. Neither Speak Up Parents nor L.A Students for Change is grassroots or a movement. They are front groups for CCSA. Each group is funded by CCSA and their wealthy sponsors. We who have been blessed to be part of real movements, cannot let CCSA and a few angry parents defile the transformational force of grassroots movements in our progressive histories.

This is why we need to build upon the inspirational spirit of this campaign. We must pivot from this loss to the immediate work that we need to do to build coalition and further define a progressive public schools movement in Los Angeles. Done right, our work moving forward at the ballot box, in schools and in communities can transform this loss into the next best chance to build an agenda for collaborative progress for our public schools in Los Angeles and beyond.

The first step is at the polling place.

What happened to us in this election cannot be allowed to happen again and the only way to ensure that is to be present and engaged in critical upcoming elections.
Two weeks ago, Jimmy Gomez won an important victory and will be our next Member of Congress from the 34th District. This means his Assembly Seat for the 51st District will be open. The 51st Assembly District covers parts of East Los Angeles, Highland Park, Eagle Rock, Echo Park and Silver Lake. This is one of the most progressive districts in the State. It is essential that an educator or a pro-public education candidate be elected as the next Member of the Assembly from the 51st District. Last November, CCSA won huge victories in Senate and Assembly races throughout the State and gained dangerous influence in both houses of the legislature. These races were almost as ugly as my School Board race. We can’t let that happen in the 51st Assembly district. This will be an important statement race and if we are successful it could shift the pro-charter momentum in Sacramento. We need to bring the soul and the energy of our campaign together in coalition with good progressive democrats who are on the ground in the 51st District. That race starts now. We must be involved and engaged.

Next, we are exactly one year away from the State-Wide Primary Election. The stakes quite literally could not be higher. The Governor’s Race and the race for State Superintendent of Public Instruction will, in real and meaningful ways, determine the future of public education in California. In the coming months, I will write to you about the strong candidates who are running for these offices. But what is important for us to understand is that CCSA will be trying to take these important seats as well. And they will try to do it in the exact same way as they did this to us in this School Board race.

We must fight this state level fight through grassroots organizing, coalition building and through solidarity with our brothers and sisters in labor and progressive community organizations. We need to get even more active in our local democratic clubs. We need to engage club by club throughout Los Angeles County and we need to make sure that no one who calls claims to be a Democrat is allowed to get a pass for outsourcing jobs and privatizing public education. The values that CCSA promotes may be cloaked in the civil rights of children and their parents, but they are in fact Donald Trump and Betsy Devos’s value. And CCSA’s deregulatory agenda for public education must be rejected by the Los Angeles County Democratic Party and local democratic clubs just as we Democrats reject Environmental and Labor deregulation. The fight against privatization must also be a fight for equity and a fight for justice. And so our campaign in 2018 for the Governor and Superintendent must be a campaign that speaks to voters about how teachers, families and community leaders can work together to change education outcomes for children.

The second step is within our own unions.

There has never been a more important moment for solidarity. I had labor support, but that did not translate into labor priority and we lost control of the school board. The consequences will be even graver if Antonio Villaraigosa and Marshall Tuck are able to divide the labor movement in 2018. Given Villaraigosa’s positive labor record in some areas this is going to take strategy, focus and discipline. But it is also possible. We must build an understanding about why labor unions need to prioritize education issues and recognize how interconnected the collaborative transformation of our public is with the growth of the labor movement.

The 2018 Statewide races give our coalition another important chance to present a positive, “all kids and all dreams” public education vision for California. Over the next few weeks, I will work to connect our coalition with progressive pro-public education forces from across the state. We lost an important round in the fight for public education last month, but we have to learn from this loss and deliver Los Angeles County in a huge way for progressive, pro-public education candidates for Governor and State Superintendent.

And of course, we must resist the Donald Trump’s racist, xenophobic and nationalist Presidency on every level. I urge you to fight Betsy DeVos’ efforts to privatize public education and strip away the nation’s commitment to equity, access and protections for all students; particularly our immigrant students and our LGBT students. We must fight her on social media, in the legislature and on the streets. As teachers, community activists and as parents we have an important voice in the resistance. Let’s connect all the dots and build bridges of common cause to win the State House and take back Congress in 2018.

Friends, I came to Los Angeles to teach 25 years ago. I started my student teaching at Jefferson the day it re-opened after the uprising in South Los Angeles. Throughout my career I have had the chance to stand with my students and their families through some of the most important fights in California political history. More important, I have grasped hands with parents and guardians to uplift all American dreams through public education in Los Angeles. I have been welcomed as a brother and as comrade in communities that were not my own. I am forever grateful to the students who taught me that teaching is listening and that counseling is listening even more. And that leadership is listening the most. I am forever grateful to the teachers, the counselors and the school leaders who worked with me to build programs where we never gave up on a single student.

I have two weeks left as your Board President. I intend to work with all my heart and all my soul and all my might until June 30th.

But on July 1st, the dreams of all children in Los Angeles will be just as important as they are today. And so I ask you to keep on keeping on. I ask you to never stop believing and to never give up on a single child. We need to stay focused on our kids and we need to keep doing the work. The dreams of our children and the purpose of our LAUSD family are too important for us to stop even for a moment. The soul of public education will hang even more in the balance when we wake up on July 1st. Not at the School Board, not in the State House, not in the White House but rather right here at the school house. Because the dreams of families, our dreams, are still alive and well at our school house door.

We know that dreams can come true through public education. And we know that dreams have no boarders and that dreams cannot be put behind bars. We know that dreams are more powerful than hate. We know that dreams are more powerful than pain, disappointment or loss. And we certainly know that they are more important than any one election. These dreams, our dreams will guide us towards a better tomorrow and towards this beloved community.

It has been a blessing and it has been an honor to elevate the dreams of our children together with all of you. I believe in each of you and all of you. And I have never been prouder of this family.

Anika and I thank you.

Steve

Add us to your address book

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list

All over the country, PBS stations are showing anti-public school propaganda in a three-hour series called “School Inc.” This series was paid for by libertarian foundations who want for-profit schools, vouchers, charters, and for-profit teachers, competing for students. The lead funder is the Rose-Mary and Jack Anderson Foundation, which supports radical libertarian causes and acts as a funnel for Donors Trust, which bundles money from the Koch brothers and DeVos family for their favorite causes.

PBS emendation accepting money for the series, which has no opposing views and which was never fact-checked, because it likes to show divergent views.

Really?

Would PBS accept funding to run a three-hour program that was opposed to abortion rights? That argued that homosexuality was a sin? That attempted to prove that climate change was a hoax? That insisted that the Sandy Hook massacre of children and staff never happened? That defended Confederate flags and monuments in public space?

The Network for Public Education encourages you to write an email or call your PBS station. Apparently, some local stations watched the series and decided not to show it. Most, however, are running it without any rebuttal.

Here is my rebuttal, which was seen only in New York City.

Here is my written commentary.

The irony is that these foundations do not believe in public education or public television.

Wayne Gersen explains here why billionaires are willing to spend millions of dollars to privatize public schools and to keep their taxes low.

Education is the most expensive item in every state’s budget. Teachers are the most expensive component in the budget of public schools. Reduce the number of teachers, reduce costs, get rid of senior teachers, and no new taxes.

The trick for the billionaires is to fool voters who earn $50,000 a year into believing cutting taxes is good for them, and that they share common ground with the billionaires.

Billionaires don’t care about public schools, don’t worry about class sizes, don’t care if kids are taught by machines, because their children don’t go to public schools.

Clever. Mean. Duplicitous.

I wish that everyone who sees the PBS program “School Inc.”–which airs nationally this month–knew who was funding this error-ridden attack on public education.

Please watch my 10-minute interview with New York City’s PBS affiliate, WNET, where I gave a concise response to this meretricious three-hour program. It airs locally, not nationally.


Public education today faces an existential crisis. Over the past two decades, the movement to transfer public money to private organizations has expanded rapidly. The George W. Bush administration first wrote into federal law the proposal that privately managed charter schools were a remedy for low-scoring public schools, even though no such evidence existed. The Obama administration provided hundreds of millions each year to charter schools, under the control of private boards. Now, the Trump administration, under the leadership of Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, wants to expand privatization to include vouchers, virtual schools, cyberschools, homeschooling, and every other possible alternative to public education. DeVos has said that public education is a “dead end,” and that “government sucks.”

DeVos’s agenda finds a ready audience in the majority of states now controlled by Republican governors and legislatures. Most states already have some form of voucher program that allow students to use public money to enroll in private and religious schools, even when their own state constitution prohibits it. The Republicans have skirted their own constitutions by asserting that the public money goes to the family, not the private or religious school. The longstanding tradition of separating church and state in K-12 education is crumbling. And Betsy DeVos can testify with a straight face that she will enforce federal law to “schools that receive federal funding,” because voucher schools allegedly do not receive the money, just the family that chooses religious schools.

Advocates of the privatization movement like DeVos claim that nonpublic schools will “save poor children from failing public schools,” but independent researchers have recently concurred that vouchers actually have had a negative effect on students in the District of Columbia, Indiana, Louisiana, and Ohio. Charters, at best, have a mixed record, and many are known for excluding children with disabilities and English language learners and for pushing out students who are troublesome.

This is a time when honest, nonpartisan reporting is needed to inform the American public.

But this month the Public Broadcasting System is broadcasting a “documentary” that tells a one-sided story, the story that Betsy DeVos herself would tell, based on the work of free-market advocate Andrew Coulson. Author of “Market Education,” Coulson narrates “School, Inc., “ a three-hour program, which airs this month nationwide in three weekly broadcasts on PBS.

Uninformed viewers who see this very slickly produced program will learn about the glories of unregulated schooling, for-profit schools, teachers selling their lessons to students on the Internet. They will learn about the “success” of the free market in schooling in Chile, Sweden, and New Orleans. They will hear about the miraculous charter schools across America, and how public school officials selfishly refuse to encourage the transfer of public funds to private institutions. They will see a glowing portrait of South Korea, where students compete to get the highest possible scores on a college entry test that will define the rest of their lives and where families gladly pay for afterschool tutoring programs and online lessons to boost test scores. They will hear that the free market is more innovative than public schools.

What they will not see or hear is the other side of the story. They will not hear scholars discuss the high levels of social segregation in Chile, nor will they learn that the students protesting the free-market schools in the streets are not all “Communists,” as Coulson suggests. They will not hear from scholars who blame Sweden’s choice system for the collapse of its international test scores. They will not see any reference to Finland, which far outperforms any other European nation on international tests yet has neither vouchers nor charter schools. They may not notice the absence of any students in wheelchairs or any other evidence of students with disabilities in the highly regarded KIPP charter schools. They will not learn that the acclaimed American Indian Model Charter Schools in Oakland does not enroll any American Indians, but has a student body that is 60% Asian American in a city where that group is 12.8% of the student population. Nor will they see any evidence of greater innovation in voucher schools or charter schools than in properly funded public schools.

Coulson has a nifty way of dismissing the fact that the free market system of schooling was imposed by the dictator Augusto Pinochet. He says that Hitler liked the Hollywood movie “It Happened One Night” (with Claudette Colbert and Clark Gable); should we stop showing or watching the movie? Is that a fair comparison? Pinochet was directly responsible for the free market system of schooling, including for-profit private schools. Hitler neither produced nor directed “It Happened One Night.” Thus does Coulson refer to criticism (like Sweden’s collapsing scores on international tests) and dismiss them as irrelevant.

I watched the documentary twice, preparing to be interviewed by Channel 13, and was repelled by the partisan nature of the presentation. I googled the funders and discovered that the lead funder is the Rose Mary and Jack Anderson Foundation, a very conservative foundation that is a major contributor to the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, which advocates for vouchers. The Anderson Foundation is allied with Donors Trust, whose donors make contributions that cannot be traced to them. “Mother Jones” referred to this foundation as part of “the dark-money ATM of the conservative movement.” Other contributors to Donors Trust include the Koch brothers’ “Americans for Prosperity” and the Richard and Helen DeVos foundation.

The second major funder is the Prometheus Foundation. Its public filings with the IRS show that its largest grant ($2.5 million) went to the Ayn Rand Institute. The third listed funder of “School Inc.” is the Steve and Lana Hardy Foundation, which contributes to free-market libertarian think tanks.

In other words, this program is paid propaganda. It does not search for the truth. It does not present opposing points of view. It is an advertisement for the demolition of public education and for an unregulated free market in education. PBS might have aired a program that debates these issues, but “School Inc.” does not.

It is puzzling that PBS would accept millions of dollars for this lavish and one-sided production from a group of foundations with a singular devotion to the privatization of public services. The PBS decision to air this series is even stranger when you stop to consider that these kinds of anti-government political foundations are likely to advocate for the elimination of public funding for PBS. After all, in a free market of television, where there are so many choices available, why should the federal government pay for a television channel?

Betsy DeVos has chosen Jim Blew, who is a veteran of the privatization movement, for one of the most important positions in the Department of Education.

From Education Week:

“Jim Blew, the director of Student Success California, a 50CAN affiliate, is a top contender to lead the office of planning, evaluation, and policy analysis at the U.S. Department of Education, multiple sources say.

“Blew declined to comment. The U.S. Department of Education did not confirm the information.

“If ultimately nominated by the White House and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Blew would bring significant policy heft to the U.S. Department of Education, multiple sources say.

“Blew was the national president of StudentsFirst, an education redesign organization started by former District of Columbia schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee. He took that gig beginning in late 2014, when Rhee stepped down from the organization, serving until mid-2016, when StudentsFirst merged with 50CAN, a network of state advocacy organizations.

“Before that, Blew spent nearly a decade as the Walton Family Foundation’s Director of K-12 Reform, advising the foundation on how to broaden schooling options for low-income communities. He worked in communications before devoting himself to K-12 policy. More in his bio. (Note: Walton provides support for Education Week coverage of parent-engagement and decisionmaking.)”

Jim Blew has dedicated his career to the destruction of public education. He deserves a place on this Blog’s Wall of Shame.

In this latest episode of the “Have You Heard” podcast, Jennifer Berkshire and education historian Jack Schneider interview Michigan professor Rebecca Jacobsen about the role of big money in school board elections. Jacobsen has studied this relatively new phenomenon and identified 96 super-rich individuals who have decided that buying local school boards is fun. Others would call it the corruption of democracy.

Here is an excerpt:

For Big Money Donors, School Boards Are the New ‘Must Buy’ Accessory

“Billionaires now buying local influence to push controversial school “reforms.”

“The recent school board election in Los Angeles drew close to $17 million in donations, much of it in the form of untraceable “dark money” from a familiar cast of enormously wealthy donors. In the latest episode of the Have You Heard podcast, co-hosts Jennifer Berkshire and Jack Schneider talk to researcher Rebecca Jacobsen about what—and who—is behind this trend, and how the influence of huge donors threatens to drown out the voices of people who actually live in these communities. You can hear the entire episode here.

“Have You Heard: You’ve been looking into the influence of wealthy donors in school board elections in cities including Los Angeles, Denver, Indianapolis and New Orleans. What most surprised you about what you found?

“Jacobsen: I think I’m just constantly astounded at just how much is being spent. You opened with the recent LA election, and the LA Times reported that $144 was spent for every vote cast on the reform side, and then on the union side it was $81 for every vote received by the teacher union backed candidate. And I just think about how much money that is, you know I would have never dreamt that there would be a 15 million dollar school board election. And so I think that’s probably one of the things that I find most surprising.

“Have You Heard: Tell us a little about the donors who are suddenly so interested in school board elections.

“Jacobsen: In our research we’ve looked at all the different campaign contributions that were given, and exactly who was donating and how much. And we came up with a set of about 96 big national donors, and these are folks that some of us are familiar with, especially when we’re in the education reform world. They’ve often been very influential from a philanthropic perspective. Many of them have created their own education organizations or their education reform groups. These are folks like Reed Hastings of Netflix, who has been really active in sort of reforming education. Laurene Powell Jobs, who is the wife of the late Steve Jobs, who has created her own education reform initiative, Sheryl Sandberg, many of these people are involved in sort of the tech world, and so we see not only connections for regionally, these folks all sort of work and live in the same circles. But then we also see connections that they’re involved in the same charter boards or the same education reform organizations and boards. They often share affiliations beyond just the fact that they’re now donating to the same organizations. And what’s especially striking is that these connections just exploded over a relatively short period of time.

“Have You Heard: I’m guessing some people will hear this and think, ‘well we need some kind of influence to counter the power of the teachers union.’ But one of the surprising findings from your research is that unions are not as involved in these local elections as one might expect.

“Jacobsen: It has long been assumed that the teacher’s union was the most influential interest group in local elections, partially because they’re relatively small cost, they’re not held at a regular time, which enables these interest groups then to, for very little money and very little mobilization, have a particularly out sized influence. And that certainly has been the case, there’s no denying that, however I think that that just sort of universal assumption as truth needs to be challenged by what we’re seeing today. Because at least in the cities that we’ve looked at, union money has been significantly dwarfed by these large outside donors. And increasingly, not just direct donations, but we’re seeing dark money donations.

“So more and more political action committees are being set up, or independent expenditure committees is what they’re sometimes called in the school board world, where there can be sort of unlimited funds and you don’t actually even know where they’re coming from. Now unions have those as well, but there’s just an explosion of these different types of groups and it’s really hard to keep track of where the money’s even coming from.

“Have You Heard: You mention a couple of specific reasons why having wealthy donors try to influence school board races. Start with the part where it turns out that billionaires have different policy priorities than most of us.

“Jacobsen: Unfortunately it’s not so easy to just call up these very wealthy donors and poll them about their opinions on various policy issues. As one academic stated, their gatekeepers have gatekeepers. So this is a population that is very hard to study, and those that have gotten to it have found that they often have distinctly different views than those of us that are sort of more in the mainstream middle class America. And so the same is true in education. I think that right now we’re seeing a huge push for vouchers, a very particular type of education reform, and this is not something that I think we’re seeing overwhelming support from local communities. And I think that this is again where we see a mismatch between those that are very wealthy and those that are actually attending the public schools and using them on a regular basis.

“Have You Heard: The school board race in Los Angeles got a lot of attention, but as you found, the priorities of local voters often got short shrift versus the agenda of the donors you describe: which basically boiled down to charter schools, charter schools and more charter schools.

“Jacobsen: In LA we heard from a few candidates that were very concerned with adult education because of the large immigrant population in LA USD. And the role that adult education plays in supporting student learning. Not just adult learning, but then in turn student learning, and how they could not get that item on the agenda because they simply didn’t have the money to compete. There was no conversation to be had around that issue because they just didn’t have the ability to publicize it in the same way that those that were getting the large outside donations were able to do. We had one candidate who gave the example of getting a picture from a friend of theirs on a cell phone that showed seven mailers that had been received in one day alone, and this candidate was saying I can barely raise enough money to send out one mailer, let alone seven mailers in one day. So we are concerned that this outside money has the potential to really drown out particular voices and particular issues that might be really important to the local community, but aren’t necessarily seen or recognized by this larger national agenda.”

In 2006, reporter Daniel Golden wrote a book called “The Price of Admission” about how uber-rich families buy places for their children at elite colleges.

In this article published in ProPublica, Goldren says that the Kushner story was included in his book. He never dreamed that the Jared Kushner story would one day be a big deal.

He writes:

“My book exposed a grubby secret of American higher education: that the rich buy their under-achieving children’s way into elite universities with massive, tax-deductible donations. It reported that New Jersey real estate developer Charles Kushner had pledged $2.5 million to Harvard University in 1998, not long before his son Jared was admitted to the prestigious Ivy League school. At the time, Harvard accepted about one of every nine applicants. (Nowadays, it only takes one out of twenty.)

“I also quoted administrators at Jared’s high school, who described him as a less than stellar student and expressed dismay at Harvard’s decision.

“There was no way anybody in the administrative office of the school thought he would on the merits get into Harvard,” a former official at The Frisch School in Paramus, New Jersey, told me. “His GPA did not warrant it, his SAT scores did not warrant it. We thought for sure, there was no way this was going to happen. Then, lo and behold, Jared was accepted. It was a little bit disappointing because there were at the time other kids we thought should really get in on the merits, and they did not.”