Backers of the Bashers of Public Education

Overview For the past 20 years public education has been pilloried more than any other government institution, thanks to the work of just a few individuals.

The notion that the nation’s public schools are failing gained credence with the help of a core of well-financed critics of public education, who have used that financing to peddle their anti-public school venom.

This paper takes a look those “anything but public schools” persons, and identifies who have been their “sugar daddies.” Our aim is to expose the backers of these public education ‘bashers.’

American Association of School Administrators July 2005 Background Over the course of the past 20 years public education has been served up as “failing” by those eager to see its downfall. The launch of that effort coincided with the 1983 release of “A Nation at Risk,” which a top political strategist for then-President called “a little report gathering dust” at the Education Department, that was released with great fanfare “because Reagan didn’t have an education plan” for his re-election effort.

In the ensuing years members of the far right have attempted to link the word “failing” to public schools in the minds of the public. Cementing that concept in the public psyche should yield to fertile ground in which to plant and grow government vouchers to religious and other private schools. Is that goal altruistic or political? With the passage of the No Child Left Behind act, a law that uses a negative concept as its raison d’être, those who seek the downfall of public education now have a tool that uses the U.S. Department of Education to help attach the “failing” label to nearly every school system in the nation.

Why has public education gone from a positive issue, around which members of both major political parties have coalesced for years, into a target for Washington domination of this most local of institutions?

Much of the credit can be taken by those who have manipulated public opinion through speeches, and television interviews and editorial opinion, and an endless barrage of expensive print and electronic media advertisements. But where do these high-profile public school bashers get the funds to back their crusade against public schooling, the bedrock of state constitutions?

The “People” Money Read our landmark study, “Vouchers: Who’s Behind It All?” (Updated June 27, 2005) http://www.aasa.org/government_relations/other/07_30_01_voucher_supporters.htm, to learn the names of the organizations, that ardently advocate for public money to be spent on private schools, and the groups that fund each of these tax-exempt entities.

With this paper we intend to look at the individuals who are the most visible on the anti- public education/pro-voucher front, and the benefactors who give them the livelihood that allows them to pontificate.

Grover Norquist – President, Americans for Tax Reform Statements: Norquist’s driving principle: “I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” (: NPR interview, 5/25/01)

"We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals,” he told the Denver Post, “and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship. Bipartisanship,” he said, “is another name for date rape."

“The next person who runs for president, Norquist told Reason magazine, “should run on the six non-negotiables: (1) Racial preferences…(2) Tort Reform…(3) a single-rate tax system…(4) School choice, because the teachers' unions won't allow it. (5) Opposition to gun control. (6) A balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution…” “When you see [such] arguments [as] ‘should creationism be taught in the public schools?’ he told Reason, “Once you move to school choice you have eliminated that argument and it's not a problem any more.”

“[I]f you privatize Social Security, if you voucherize education, if you sell the $270 billion worth of airports and wastewater treatment plants, eliminate welfare, and so on, you can get the federal government, state government and local government to basically half”

Background: Grover Norquist served as a key aide to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and helped design Gingrich’s “Contract With America;” was on the campaign staff on the 1988, 1992, and 1996 Republican Platform Committees; and formerly was executive director of the College Republicans. He is also well-connected with large scale U.S. business interests, having served as economist and chief speech writer for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (1983-1984). [Source: MediaTransparency.org] Norquist holds a Master’s of business administration and a bachelor of arts degree in economics, both from Harvard University. Norquist serves on the board of the National Rifle Association of America, serves on the board of the American Conservative Union, served as a commissioner on the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce, a government-funded body created by Congress in 1998, and served on the National Commission on Restructuring the Internal Revenue Service, a government-funded body created by Congress in 1997. (Source: Americans for Tax Reform)

Backers of Americans for Tax Reform: Walton Family Foundation $ 85,000 Sarah Scaife Foundation 100,000 Sarah Scaife Foundation 50,000 John M. Olin Foundation Inc. 50,000 Sarah Scaife Foundation 50,000 John M. Olin Foundation Inc. 75,000 The Carthage Foundation 50,000 Sarah Scaife Foundation 100,000 JM Foundation 25,000 John M. Olin Foundation Inc. 100,000 The Carthage Foundation 50,000 John M. Olin Foundation Inc. 100,000 The Carthage Foundation 75,000 (Source: Media Transparency.org) Note: for description of contributors, see “V: The Foundations” at http://www.aasa.org/government_relations/other/07_30_01_voucher_supporters.htm

Lobbying Clients of Grover Norquist: Americans for Tax Reform Fannie Mae Joseph E. Seagram & Sons Americans for Tax Reform Microsoft Corp. – (sole lobbyist) $120,000 Echostar Communications Inc. Microsoft Corp – (sole lobbyist) $100,000 Distilled Spirits Council Edison Electric Group Interactive Gaming Council American Business for Legal Immigration American Immigration Lawyers Assn. First Amendment Coalition for Expression Joseph E. Seagram & Sons Distilled Spirits Council Microsoft Corp. – (sole lobbyist) $ 60,000 (Source: Center for Responsive Politics)

William J. Bennett – Founder: Empower America, Fellow; Heritage Foundation Statements: “American schools are in general not very good, but our local schools are probably not any better.” “academic achievement among our students has, at best, stagnated during the past 40 years.” “To put it simply, the longer a child stays in school in the , the less that child knows relative to students in other industrialized nations.” “America is a land of second, third and fourth chances. When our K-12 education system fails, a number of safety nets cushion the fall. American companies now spend billions of dollars every year for on-the-job training, in large part to cover for the shortcomings of our school systems. In addition, our colleges and universities are increasingly devoted not to higher learning but to remedial education.” “The purpose of an education is not merely to prepare citizens for work, it is to prepare them for life…When our schools fail to fulfill this vital role, our citizens (especially those least able to learn these lessons at home) are forever diminished—and we, as a nation, are diminished as well.” “…it should not be a great surprise to anyone that the next chapter in education will be found in large part in the intersection of the public and private sectors. (Source: Hoover Digest, Winter 2001)

“The real concern is when those in the education establishment use OBE (outcome-based education) to (1) eliminate objective measurable criteria (like standardized tests); (2) do away with the traditional subject-based curriculum in favor of an emphasis on things like general skills, attitudes and behaviors; and (3) advance their own radical social agenda. Increasingly, OBE is applied to the realm of behavior and social attitudes becoming, in effect, a Trojan Horse for social engineering, an elementary and secondary school version of the kind of “politically correct” thinking that has infected our colleges and universities.” (Source: Empower America Issue Briefing, 5/27/1993)

“The president should fight for this critical element of this plan, for school choice is not simply an accountability issue, it is a moral and civil rights issue. It is about empowering poor parents with the option of a better education when their children are trapped in schools that repeatedly fail to meet basic standards.” (Source: Los Angeles Times, 5/4/2001)

“I have often maintained that the chief enemy of public education in this country is the public education system itself. Bureaucracies at the federal, state and local levels have become a significant obstacle to an excellent education for millions of American children. Frequently, these bureaucracies are extraordinarily resistant to change, fiercely protective of their own interests, and incapable of allowing any aspect of teaching or learning to go unregulated.” “Models for academic excellence are all around us—again, simply consider the two million home-schooled children who are already receiving an extraordinary education.” (Source: World Magazine 4/28/2001)

Background: William Bennett was chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities (1981-85) and U.S. Secretary of Education (1985-88) under President Ronald Reagan, and director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President George H.W. Bush. He is now a Distinguished Fellow at the Heritage Foundation and co-director of Empower America [founded in1993 by Bennett, Jack Kemp, Jeane Kirkpatrick and Vin Weber], which describes itself as being “devoted to ensuring that government actions foster growth, economic well-being, freedom and individual responsibility.” Empower America believes “the ideas that have fueled America’s stunning economic expansion – opportunity, competition, ownership and freedom – must be the framework for reform of century-old public systems such as K-12 education, the tax code and social security.” In 1999 Bennett founded K12 “an education company, based in McLean, Va., dedicated to building a comprehensive, standards-based curriculum and learning program. Working with educators and parents across the nation, K12 uses traditional materials and innovative technology to deliver our superlative academic program.” His company is seeking contracts with local public school districts.

Backers of William Bennett: U.S. Department of Education [to K12] $14,000,000 The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation through Empower America 75,000 John M. Olin Foundation through Empower America 75,000 John M. Olin Foundation through the Heritage Foundation 100,000 John M. Olin Foundation through the Heritage Foundation 125,000 John M. Olin Foundation through the Heritage Foundation 125,000 John M. Olin Foundation through the Hudson Institute Inc. 100,000 John M. Olin Foundation through the Hudson Institute Inc. 175,000 John M. Olin Foundation through the Hudson Institute Inc. 125,000 John M. Olin Foundation through the Hudson Institute Inc. 50,000

Grants to Empower America Sara Scaife Foundation 100,000 JM Foundation 20,000 The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation 75,000 Sara Scaife Foundation 100,000 (Source: Media Transparency.org)

Chester E. Finn Jr. – President, Thomas B. Fordham Foundation Statements: “U.S. public education is a vast enterprise, employing almost five million women and men and costing taxpayers more than a quarter trillion annually. An immense edifice, indeed, and one we have long taken for granted. Like the Berlin Wall a decade ago, however, it is not so stable or secure as it seems. Through its facade still appears formidable, inner rot has weakened it to the point that many have begun to doubt its durability…” (Source: Commentary Magazine, September 1996)

“besides failing to solve the problems laid at their doorstep and fulfill their traditional responsibilities, our public schools are themselves becoming seedbeds of social dysfunction. Not the least of these threats is disintegration of the civic culture itself, a process aggravated by the schools’ willful rejection of their most fundamental mission: the induction of the young into society’s norms and traditions. I refer, of course, to the embrace by public education’s intellectual and managerial leaders of advanced multiculturalism, bilingualism and other practices whereby the schools join the universities in emphasizing that which divides rather than that which unites us as Americans.” (Source: Commentary Magazine, September 1996)

“…today’s public school reality [is] a vast bureaucratic monopoly of government-run institutions, buttressed by mandatory attendance laws and compulsory taxation and dominated by the interest of its won employees, managers and vendors, which accumulated vast political power to advance those interests via the government school systems that they, rather than their putative beneficiaries, now substantially control.” (Source: Commentary Magazine, September 1996)

“Armored by their own jargon, credentials and pseudo-professional expertise, walled off from conventional political leadership, shielded from any real competition, yet hostile to their own primal mission, the public schools of our time are practically immune to the wishes and worries of their clients. They are also hugely expensive.” “These are stodgy institutions that can absorb immense pressure without truly modernizing their practices.” “After all, little is expected of these young people while in school, much of their class day is spent in boring pursuits, and nearly everything that interests them happens elsewhere.” (Source: Commentary Magazine, September 1996)

“What we are really seeing, once again, is how the public education establishment despises school choice, how little it will bestir itself to assist poor families trapped in failing schools to gain access to better ones, and how the hardball tactics it deploys keep lawmakers from adding more exit doors.” (Source: Hoover Institution Weekly Essays, Dec. 9, 2002)

“It's been more than a little upsetting to watch the education community respond to the September 11 attack on the United States. The prize for greediest, most self-promoting, and solipsistic response goes to an outfit called the Public Education Network. Within 24 hours of the tragedy, they issued a statement that, after a few pieties, proclaimed that ‘access to a high-quality public education is the bedrock of our democracy’ and urged that ‘as important calls for rethinking our commitment to our national defense and the war against terrorism are made, the Public Education Network asks policymakers and citizens to remember the important role that public education plays.’ Translation: ‘We're so selfish that we think our stuff is more important than the security of a nation within which our stuff is possible.’ Maybe they'd like to spend a little time experiencing ‘public education’ under the Taliban.” (Source: National Review Online, Sept. 24, 2001)

“There are a lot of obstacles to fundamental education reform in this country. A lot of vested interests and large interest groups like the status quo, and don't much want any fundamental shifts in the ground rules. But the teachers' unions are the 800-pound gorilla. They are the largest, the wealthiest, the most populous, the ones with the large numbers of votes, the big war chests, and things like that. They are joined in these matters by the school boards' association and the administrators' association and the teachers' college association and the textbook publishers' association. We can go on down a very, very, very long list. (Source: PBS Online from Frontline, The Battle Over School Choice, May 2000)

“I think that a couple of things have happened since my time in the Reagan administration. One is that abolishing the federal role in education didn't turn out to be either good policy or good politics. And I think Republicans found that out in '95 and '96. Another thing that's happened is, frankly, Bill Clinton has accustomed the United States to a large, almost sprawling, federal role. I have my reservations about whether that was a good idea or not but the fact is it has happened.” (Source: PBS Online NewsHour, Jan. 23, 2001)

Background: Chester Finn, who holds a Ph.D. in education policy and administration from Harvard, was professor of education and public policy at Vanderbilt University from 1981 to 2002. He was assistant secretary for research and improvement under Secretary of Education William Bennett in the Reagan Administration (1985-88). He was a member of the National Assessment Governing Board, including two years as chair, from 1988-96. Previously he worked for the governor of Massachusetts, President Reagan, the ambassador to India, the Brookings Institution and the late U.S. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y. Founding partner and senior scholar at the Edison Project (1992-94), Finn was an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute (1995-98), and is currently a distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University; a John M. Olin Fellow at the Manhattan Institute; and president of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation in Washington, D.C. He sits on the board of Bennett’s K12.

Backers of Chester Finn: John M. Olin Foundation through the Manhattan Institute Inc. $ 43,000 John M. Olin Foundation through the Manhattan Institute Inc. 43,000 John M. Olin Foundation through the Manhattan Institute Inc. 43,000 John M. Olin Foundation through the Hudson Institute Inc. 43,600 John M. Olin Foundation through the Hudson Institute Inc. 150,000 John M. Olin Foundation through the Hudson Institute Inc. 100,000 John M. Olin Foundation through the Hudson Institute Inc. 150,000 John M. Olin Foundation through Vanderbilt University 132,000 John M. Olin Foundation through Vanderbilt University 100,000 (Source: Media Transparency.org)

Jeanne Allen – Founder and President, Center for Education Reform Statements: "The very freedom [from testing mandates] private schools have is what makes them more successful than their counterparts here in the District. It's more bureaucracy, more paperwork, and once you give any education system license to control a private institution, they will take it and run." The Washington Post story continued, “Allen said of the two Democratic senators [suggesting accountability in exchange for vouchers]: ‘It sounds like they are more interested in placating [public education] interest groups than in doing something that is successful.’” (Source: The Washington Post, Sept. 25, 2003)

"Accountability without consequences means nothing." (Source: George W. Bush, quoted by Center for Education Reform, July 1, 2003)

“In observing how slowly districts have complied with the law’s [NCLB] directives, we have learned just how impervious most systems are to the kind of widespread reform that is necessary to ensure that every child receives an excellent education.” (Source: Center for Education Reform, Jan. 7, 2003)

AASA “is spending time NOT [CER emphasis] helping their members to best implement the new federal act requiring more accountability and allowing more independence (they opposed it!) but rather, is running a massive research project to determine ‘Who’s Behind Vouchers?’ This special interest group argues that vouchers are only an issue today because of a handful of wealthy individuals. They [AASA] can’t fathom that perhaps the reason people spend money on groups and foundations – like this one – is to help the people who do not have a voice and who need better options for their children to get them.” (Source: Center for Education Reform Newswire, Jan. 22, 2002)

“How come we never hear the words ‘hype’ and ‘love-fest’ when it comes to traditional public school system? Hype and love-fest are words that I would describe what the people, the media in this country have had with traditional public education. We haven't questioned public education until recently, for almost a hundred years. Particularly the last 25 years. We've act as if they can do no wrong. I think by introducing an idea [charter schools] and saying that it's good and talking about the accomplishments is beneficial for kids, it's not hype. (Source: The Merrow Report, “Charter Schools: Hope or Hype?,” April 14, 1999)

“…[T]he president should, in fact, as Bush for example is suggesting, close down programs like Title I which spends enormous sums of money and by its own analysis says it's not working. But at the same time, he can't raise standards like he's doing in Texas and Al Gore can't lower class size or give teachers tests that are valid. Only people at the local level can do that.” (Source: PBS Online NewsHour, “The Education Debate,” Sept. 20, 2000)

“If it's a voucher, or grant, or scholarship, or conduit, or piece of paper, or plain old financial aid, what does it matter? If money is supposed to help kids and it doesn't, move it over to someone who will make it work.” (Source: NationalReview.com, “W’s A+ Plan: The Right Thing to Do,” Jan. 25, 2001)

Background: A political science graduate of Dickinson College, Jeanne Allen began her Washington career in the 1980s as a receptionist in the office of U.S. Rep. Marge Roukema, R-N.J. She then moved to the U.S. Department of Education when William Bennett was secretary, and worked on higher education issues. In the early ‘90s Allen was a policy analyst and editor at the Heritage Foundation. She founded the Center for Education Reform in 1993.

Backers of Jeanne Allen [via Center for Education Reform]: United States Department of Education $960,147 Walton Family Foundation 115,000 The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Inc 50,000 The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Inc. 25,000 The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Inc. 25,000 The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Inc. 25,000 John M. Olin Foundation Inc. 25,000 JM Foundation 25,000 John M. Olin Foundation Inc. 25,000 The Carthage Foundation 25,000 The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Inc. 25,000 The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Inc. 25,000 The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Inc. 25,000 John M. Olin Foundation Inc. 60,000 Scaife Family Foundation 35,000 JM Foundation 20,000 The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Inc. 50,000 John M. Olin Foundation Inc. 50,000 Scaife Family Foundation 35,000 The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Inc. 31,860 John M. Olin Foundation Inc. 50,000 Scaife Family Foundation 50,000 John M. Olin Foundation Inc. 50,000 Scaife Family Foundation 53,600 Scaife Family Foundation 25,000 John M. Olin Foundation Inc. 25,000 (Source: Media Transparency.org)

Howard Fuller – President and Founder, Institute for the Transformation of Learning; Chairman and Founder, Black Alliance for Educational Options Statements: But, in the end, denying parents the right to decide where their children are educated is "unacceptable, un-American and does not stand on the foundation of equal opportunity that is supposed to be the foundation of this country." (Milwaukee Journal, Sept. 25, 2000 [quoted during announcement of creation of the Black Alliance for Educational Options.)

"We do not want public schools to fail. It is not about anti-public education. It is about empowering parents to decide what works for their children." "We've gotta stay when staying makes sense, and leave when leaving makes sense. The beautiful thing about choice is it doesn't force people to leave. Choice doesn't just affect public schools...the private schools have to get better too." When asked what impact a perceived connection with folks who are opposed to civil rights but support school choice, or who are opposed to public schools but support school choice might have on BAEO, Fuller said, We will work with people who support what we are doing." On the other hand, "We will not take money from anyone who tries to dictate to us, no matter what their reason may be. (Source: Education Policy Institute, Aug. 25, 2000)

"It's not about whether it's a religious school," Fuller said. "It's about whether parents choose to send their children there." (Source: Heartland Institute’s School Reform , June 1, 2001)

We are prepared to voluntarily take the same tests that people take in the Milwaukee public schools. We just want to do it in a way that does not bring about excessive government entanglement, because she [AFT President Sandra Feldman] knows that there’s an issue of excessive government entanglement when you put too many rules and regulations, including mandatory testing, on programs, so we’re prepared to do this on a voluntary basis…And I think what we have here really is redefining the nature of public education and public education cannot be confined merely to the system that currently delivers it…What we’re saying very clearly is we are prepared to do the testing, the same ones at MPS because most of the schools are already doing the same testing in any event. We would do more than testing. We would look at completion rates, we look at parent satisfaction, we look at attendance rates, we look at value-added. We would look at all the things you ought to use to judge a school; we will make that public. What we’re saying is we presented that idea three years ago. The people who have opposed it in Wisconsin are the Senate Democrats and the Wisconsin Educational Association, which is an affiliation of the NEA. (Source: PBS Online NewsHour, June 27, 2002)

U.S. Department of Education Undersecretary Gene Hickok today presented a $600,000 grant to the Black Alliance for Educational Options (BAEO) to develop an intense public information campaign to reach parents about the choices available to them under the sweeping federal No Child Left Behind Act. “I remain convinced that history is on the side of the families and their right to make choices for their children. These types of contributions – this grant – enable us to continue to fight these fights for these parents and these children,” Fuller said. (Source: U.S. Department of Education , Oct. 15, 2002)

When Dr. Fuller took over Milwaukee public schools in 1991, fewer than 1 in 4 black students could read or do math at grade level. In response, an unlikely coalition of businesses and low-income black parents lobbied for and won the first school-choice plan. “If [school officials] know that not only the child, but also the money could leave [the school], the discussion changes,” says Fuller, now a professor at Marquette University in Milwaukee. “Suddenly, poor children have value. Money talks. It sends a message.” (Source: The Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 23, 1999)

“I don’t think that the people who oppose vouchers will now say, ‘Oh, well, because it’s constitutional, we won’t oppose it anymore,’ “Fuller said. “The reality is, that (voucher supporters) have to be happy today, but we should also be sobered by the fact that we know that the battle to have these type of programs will go on, and will become maybe even more fierce.” (Focus on the Family’s Citizen Link, June 27, 2002)

"’I don't know who people are voting for and I don't care; our view is that our kids have been suffering,’ said Howard Fuller, the former Milwaukee schools chief who has championed that city's experimental voucher program. But Fuller, who's voting for Bush, said, ‘We don't believe the old ‘just-elect-the-same-people-because-everything-is-going- to-be-better’ answer is going to work.’" (Source: Associated Press, Aug. 24, 2000)

"All that is new is that a small number of low-income parents finally have won power that middle- and upper-income parents long have taken for granted," said Fuller. "This is a debate about power, not a debate about vouchers." A public school need not be authorized by a school board nor managed only by a public agency. What makes a school public is whether it serves a public purpose. Private schools serve the same public purpose as government-operated schools. (Source: Heartland Institute’s School Reform News, May 2000)

Howard Fuller, a former Milwaukee school superintendent and a top national spokesman for school choice, has been asked to help formulate the education position of Texas Gov. George W. Bush's campaign for president. Fuller, a Marquette University professor, has joined about a dozen other prominent education policy experts from around the country in advising Bush on campaign issues related to schools. Bush has yet to articulate his precise stances on many education issues but has expressed support for tuition vouchers for use at private and religious schools, an issue Fuller strongly supports. "I made it clear to the Bush people that I'm not in any political party," Fuller said Tuesday. "I vote and give money to Democrats and Republicans, as a matter of practice." A generation ago, he founded Malcolm X Liberation University in North Carolina and spent a month with Marxist guerrillas in Mozambique. He said that it has long been obvious to him that he would not be able to support other candidates for president in 2000 because of their unwillingness to consider changes to the way education is delivered to children. "There's no room for someone like me with someone like Al Gore," Fuller said. (Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Aug. 10, 1999)

Background: A distinguished professor of education and founder (in 1995) and director of the Institute for the Transformation of Learning (ITL) at Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wis., Howard Fuller is also founder (in 2000) and chairman of the board of the Black Alliance for Educational Options (BAEO). Prior to his university post, Fuller was superintendent of Milwaukee Public Schools from 1991-1995. He also serves on the board of directors of Transcenter for Youth, the Crusade to Save Our Children, the Johnson Foundation, and the national advisory Board of the Danforth Foundation Forum for American School Superintendents.

Backers of Howard Fuller: [Note: All grants except those marked “BAEO” made to ITL] 2002-2003 United States Department of Education [for BAEO] $1,100,000 10-30-2001 The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Inc. [For BAEO] 500,000 9-21-2001 The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Inc. 118,750 1-25-2001 The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Inc. 118,750 1-11-2001 The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Inc. 118,750 1-1-2001 John M. Olin Foundation Inc. [For BAEO] 100,000 10-25-2000 The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Inc. 118,750 8-10-2000 The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Inc. 118,750 3-9-2000 The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Inc. 81,250 1-6-2000 The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Inc. 81,250 1-1-1999 The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Inc. 125,000 1-1-1999 The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Inc. 162,500 10-9-1998 The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc. 62,500 7-10-1998 The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Inc. 62,500 7-10-1998 The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Inc. 57,350 9-10-1997 The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Inc. 60,000 7-10-1997 The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Inc. 60,000 5-12-1997 The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Inc. 55,000 (Source: Media Transparency.org)

Lisa Graham Keegan - Founder and Former CEO, Education Leaders Council Statements: “We know that phonics instruction produces the kind of real results that gimmicky ‘whole language’ approaches can’t replicate. We know that competition—through vouchers, charter schools, and even simply a diverse array of school districts and private schools in a geographic area—creates an environment in which successful schools thrive.” (Source: Education Next, Hoover Institution, 2003)

“It is reasonable to assume that the next generation of potential leaders will come from pipelines other than colleges of education—a virtual breeding ground for educational stagnation—such as alternative certification programs for teachers. The Koret report rightly endorses choice, but choice must apply to the adults, as well as the children, in the education system.” (Source: ibid.)

“Shaming the education establishment into doing the right thing—as ‘Risk’ attempted to do—only motivated educators to defend their turf and the status quo more creatively. As a result, reformers have let the establishment define the terms of the debate. Advocates for school choice suddenly become ‘anti-public school.’ Those who want to professionalize teaching are labeled as unsympathetic to the ‘plight’ of teachers. Those who push high academic standards for all students are scolded for supposedly forcing poor children to drop out of school.” (Source: ibid.)

“…provisions in the law that require supplemental services, such as tutoring, and school choice for schools that have failed to improve have led some critics to bemoan these actions as a federal power grab. ‘This law moves against the tradition of local control in a fundamental way,’ said one Midwestern school board member in the autumn of 2001. ‘We all seek nationally defined excellence, but we must be free to adapt to local conditions.’ What needs to be pointed out is that these same local decision makers have always had the authority to put such programs in place, but have simply refused to do so out of a need to protect their power base. Choosing not to act must no longer be considered ‘adapting to local conditions.’” (Source: ibid.)

“The requirements of No Child Left Behind—which include, for the first time, real consequences for schools that do not show academic progress for all students—are beginning to break the stranglehold that entrenched interests have had on our schools for far too long. If local autonomy has been somewhat impeded by the new law—a debatable conclusion—then it could also be argued that this is a self-inflicted wound. Because the system could not be shamed into moving 20 years ago, the federal government has finally tried to move the system itself.” (Source: ibid.)

“It is clear that ‘Risk’ underestimated the influence of the education establishment in framing education policy and overestimated its interest in doing the right thing for children. While teacher unions and other organizations representing administrators, policymakers, and school chiefs all claim to be acting on behalf of children, they are all by their very nature really only looking out for their own best interests—that’s what they’re there for. Self-preservation is a strong motivator, and breaking the stronghold on the system of these interests—what Teddy Roosevelt would have called ‘trust busting’— will likely continue to be a major challenge for educators and policymakers.” (Source: ibid.)

“Such trust busting will require a new generation of educators who not only know what works in education, but also know how to do it. Ensuring that these innovators have the authority to make the necessary changes to the system will take time. Until then, we need to hold those who presently have the authority to create successful schools accountable for doing so. The price for inaction is another 20 years of unrealized promises and another generation of unrealized student potential.” (Source: ibid.)

"We are the nation's premier group of practicing reformers," she declared, adding with a grin: "We are also the nation's only group of practicing reformers." (Source: The ELC Weekly Policy Update, June 22, 2001)

While she rejects the ‘right-wing’ tag, she says "It is necessary to be ideological in education these days if you want to promote academic standards, school choice, and new routes to certifying teachers that work against the grain of current ideas in education." (Source: The Washington Post, “Critics Say Education Dept. Is Favoring Political Right,” Jan. 2, 2004)

“In the wake of September 11, I am concerned about curriculum and student proficiency,” said Keegan. “The Rudman Report on Homeland Security showed that foreign students consistently outscore American students in math and science. We need to change that. Our students need that knowledge and we need to compete.” (Source: Hoover Institution Newsletter, Winter 2002)

Days after the Republican National Convention in San Diego, a former colleague met with Ms. Keegan about the upcoming legislative session. She mentioned that people at her house watching a keynote speech by Rep. Susan V. Molinari, R-N.Y., saw shades of Ms. Keegan. She paused and then grinned. "I like that. She looks like the kind of person who'd be fun to smoke cigars with," Ms. Keegan said. (Source: Education Week, “Ariz. Chief Puts Name and Face Front and Center,” Sept. 25, 1996.)

“We got charter schools in Arizona by focusing on vouchers. We also got a lot of advice from people in Colorado and Minnesota who had preceded us in the charter school movement. They said: ‘Don't leave it up to school districts to open charter schools. They won't do it because then they have to be responsible for schools they don't want.’ So we didn't do it that way, but the Arizona Education Association just focused on eliminating the voucher provision. The bill actually died the last night of the session, a couple of votes short. Two weeks later the governor called us back into special session for five days and we passed the bill without the voucher provision. We had been debating the bill since January. Everybody had seen it and everybody was on the record saying it was fine-- except for the voucher provision. So they got caught.” (Source: School Reform News, The Heartland Institute)

“We shouldn't think in terms of just one alternative to public schools, like ‘This is “The School”’ and ‘this is “The Alternative School.”’ I believe what will evolve is a range of different educational options at public expense. For example, private tuition vouchers are publicly funded education, no matter where they're spent.” (Source: ibid.)

“We need to get rid of the school districts as a monopoly. School districts now have an exclusive franchise on children who live within their district boundaries. The fact that you elect a school board to run the monopoly does not make it any less of a monopoly. These people make every decision possible about a child's life when it comes to education. That's not very democratic. There's no marketplace there; there's no choice. The most difficult of my notions to square with conservative thinking is my advocacy of a state-run financing system. It really is more of a central distribution system than a central control system. It simply means, that, for example, if you had statewide vouchers, you'd have a central distribution system to say: ‘All kids are worth five thousand dollars a year. Here's your check.’” (Source: Ibid.)

“Now, I believe that there ought to be differentials in how much money any given school has, but I would handle it through a tax credit for money that is given to the school rather than doing it through property taxes. So the differences in how much money is available ought to come through direct contributions to schools.” (Source: ibid.)

“We pay for a child's education, we don't pay for a school building. If a child chooses to go to the Catholic school down the street, we pay the Catholic school. Nothing happened to the school that they left--other than, apparently, they didn't do a good enough job to induce that child to stay, in which case they don't need the money. Misunderstanding how money moves in this system is so easily hijacked by hyperbole, mostly from the teachers' unions. They do a masterful job of seducing people.” (Source: Ibid.)

The problem is: If we will not stand up and say,"This is reading, this is writing, this is mathematics, and this is science," other folks will. Those of us who are conservative and wary about government intrusion have ceded this territory, in terms of what children need to know, to other people. When there are no academic standards, or nobody has written down what teachers must teach, education gets taken over by fluff, such as self-esteem coursework, multicultural diversity coursework, and gender-equity coursework. The result is that you lose your core instruction in the foundations, and that all comes back on our children.” (Source: Ibid.) Background: Lisa Graham Keegan does not have the traditional background of an education policymaker. She has never taught in a public-school classroom. She received a bachelor's degree in linguistics at Stanford University and a master's in communications disorders at Arizona State University in Tempe. (She is a product of the Scottsdale, Ariz., public school system, which today also serves her two youngest children.)

She worked as a speech pathologist before entering the political arena in 1990 as a state representative. For two years, she served as chair of the education committee and was a major force behind the state's 1994 charter-school law. An interest in ensuring that the law was well implemented led her to run for her current position.

Keegan has been a magnet for media attention in Arizona, where a group of five women currently in top offices, including Gov. Jane Dee Hull, have been dubbed "the chicks in charge." But she is more than a local celebrity. As one of the founders of the Washington, D.C.-based Education Leaders Council, a group of reform-minded education leaders from several states, Keegan has attained stature that transcends Arizona's borders and is often mentioned as a rising star in the Republican Party's national ranks. (Source: Christian Science Monitor, “A leading lady in a state that leads in education reform,” May 1, 2001)

Backers of Lisa Graham Keegan [via Education Leaders Council]: 2003 U.S. Department of Education $ 35,000,000 [Via American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence, an “alternate” certifying board founded by ELC] “We have never positioned the American Board as a one-size-fits-all solution, and we welcome and expect the opportunity to engage in a discussion about new research and alternatives,” Mrs. Keegan said. “The absence of this discussion and categorical comments that offer nothing but the status quo are the true disservice to students.” - The Washington Times, March 19, 2003 2002 U.S. Department of Education $ 3,500,000 “To launch a nationwide initiative at developing state models of action plans for putting the principles of President Bush’s No Child left Behind Act into practice.” 2002 The Walton Family Foundation, Inc. $ 138,340 [Source: Media Transparency.org] 2001 U.S. Department of Education $ 5,000,000 “To help create a national standard for teachers from nontraditional backgrounds.”

Identity of Boards Behind the Backers: Backer: The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Board of Directors: Thomas L. Rhodes, chairman Michael W. Grebe, president & CEO William L. Armstrong Reed Coleman Terry Considine Pierre S. du Pont Thomas L. Smallwood Brother Bob Smith David V. Uihlein Jr.

Backer: John M. Olin Foundation Board of Trustees: Eugene F. Williams Jr. chairman George J. Gillespie III, president and treasurer Peter M. Flanigan Richard M. Furlaud Charles F. Knight James Piereson, secretary

Backer: JM Foundation Officers and Board: Jeremiah Milbank, president and director Jeremiah Bogert, member Margaret M. Bogert, member and vice president Mary E. Caslin Ross, director Wm. Lee Hanley Jr., director and treasurer Jeremiah Milbank III, member Peter C. Morse, director Michael Sanger, director Daniel G. Tenney Jr., director and secretary Carl Helstrom, asst. secretary

Backer: Sarah Scaife Foundation [Unit of the Scaife Family Foundations] Board of Directors: Richard M. Scaife, chairman Michael W. Gleba, executive vice president Barbara L. Slaney, vice president and treasurer R. Daniel McMichael, secretary Yvonne Marie Bly, assistant treasurer

Backer: The Carthage Foundation [Unit of the Scaife Family Foundations] Officers: Richard M. Scaife, chairman R. Daniel McMichael, secretary Michael W. Gleba, treasurer Alexis J. Konkol, assistant secretary Roger W. Robinson Jr., assistant treasurer

Backer: Allegheny Foundation [Unit of the Scaife Family Foundations] Officers: Richard M. Scaife, chairman Matthew A. Groll, executive director

Backer: Walton Family Foundation Board of Directors: Helen R. Walton S. Robson Walton Jim C. Walton John T. Walton Alice L. Walton Samuel R. Walton Carrie W. Penner Benjamin S. Walton Alice A. Walton

Business Related to Basher William Bennett K-12 Board of Directors: Herman Badillo Arthur H. Bilger Chester E. Finn Jr. Joseph G. Fogg III George Gilder Lowell Milken Bob Miller Ron Packard, CEO John C. Ryan Andrew H. Tisch

Thomas B. Fordham Foundation Board of Trustees Chester E. Finn Jr. president Chester E. Finn, Esq. Thomas A. Holton, Esq., secretary/treasurer Michael W. Kelly Craig Kennedy Bruno V. Manno David H. Ponitz, vice president Diane Ravitch

Backer: Hudson Institute, Inc. Board of Trustees Jeffrey T. Bergner Conrad Black Linden S. Blue Rudy Boschwitz Charles H. Brunie Joseph Epstein Joseph M. Giglio Roy Innis Marie-Josee Kravis Andre B. Lacy L. Ben Lytle Robert H. McKinney John M. Mutz Neil H. Offen Richard N. Perle Steuart L. Pittman George A. Schaefer Jr. Wallace O. Sellers Max Singer Walter P. Stern Stephen A. Stitle Allan R. Tessler Jeffrey H. Thomasson Ambassador Curtin Winsor Jr. John C. Wohlstetter

Backer: Manhattan Institute Board of Trustees Roger Hertog, chairman of the board Charles H. Brunie, chairman emeritus Walter Mintz, vice chairman Lawrence Mone, president Robert J. Appel Professor Gary S. Becker Eugene D. Brody Andrew Cader Timothy G. Dalton Jr. Peter M. Flanigan Mark Gerson Professor Nathan Glazer Maurice R. Greenberg H. Dale Hemmerdinger John W. Holman Jr. Bruce Kovner William Kristol Frank J. Macchiarola Rodney W. Nichols Edward J. Nicoll Peggy Noonan James Piereson Joseph H. Reich Richard Reiss Jr. Joseph L. Rice III Robert Rosenkranz Nathan E. Saint-Amand, MD Lewis A. Sanders Andrew M. Saul Lord Robert Skidelsky Thomas W. Smith William K. Tell Jr. Thomas J. Tisch Dietrich Weismann Byron R. Wien Walter B. Wriston Kathryn S. Wylde Fareed Zakaria Martin E. Zweig

******************************** Source for funding figures: MediaTransparency.org

American Association of School Administrators July 29, 2005

##