CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Georgia State University Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University Educational Policy Studies Faculty Publications Department of Educational Policy Studies 5-1-2005 Institutes, Foundations, and Think aT nks: Conservative Influences on U.S. Public Schools Deron R. Boyles Georgia State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/eps_facpub Part of the Education Commons, and the Education Policy Commons Recommended Citation Boyles, Deron R., "Institutes, Foundations, and Think aT nks: Conservative Influences on U.S. Public Schools" (2005). Educational Policy Studies Faculty Publications. Paper 1. http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/eps_facpub/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Educational Policy Studies at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Educational Policy Studies Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. pr public resistance www.publicresistance.org volume 1, number 1 May 1, 2005 Institutes, Foundations, & Think Tanks Conservative Influence on U.S. Public Schools Philip E. Kovacs & Deron Boyles Georgia State University In the middle of the “liberal” Clinton years, Stefancic and Delgado (1996) wrote presciently of a future dominated by ultra conservative ideology, established and maintained by well-funded think tanks. Black misery will increase. The gap between the rich and the poor (already the highest in the Western world) will widen. Women’s gains will be rolled back, foreigners will be exclud- ed…Conservative judges, appointed by conservative presi- dents with the encouragement of a conservative Congress, will repeal prisoners’ and children’s rights, and narrow women’s procreative liberties. Unregulated industries will require em- ployees to work in increasingly unsafe workplaces, pollute the air and water, and set aside less and less money for workers’ health benefits and retirement. Tort reform will ensure that con- sumers and medical patients injured by defective products, medical devices, and careless physicians will be unable to ob- tain compensation. Children will be required to pray in schools, absorb conservative principles of freemarket economics, salute the flag, and learn in English whether they know that language or not. (p. 155) Other scholars and social commentators have agreed: “Over 30 years after the cowardly murder of Martin Luther King, Jr., black America sits on the brink of collective disaster” (West, 2004/2005). “Income inequality is growing to levels not seen since the Gilded Age, around the 1880s” (Ever higher society, ever harder to as- cend, 2004). “As a result of more restrictions on entering the U.S. due to post-9/11 security concerns, fewer foreigners are visiting the U.S.” (Suskind, 2003). The Right controls all three branches of gov- ernment, and impending vacancies on the Supreme Court threaten Roe v. Wade. (Garrett & The Associated Press, 2003). “We have a higher percentage of our population in prison than any other nation. And, we keep building more prisons; in fact, may locales lobby for new prisons as a tool for economic recovery” (Prisons in America, 2003). Unregulated industries, in addition to ripping off millions of people on the West coast in the largest energy scandal ever, con- tinue to pollute the air and water (Bustillo, 2005; North County Times Wire Service, 2005). While corporate executives allegedly throw multimillion dollar birthday parties at their shareholders' ex- pense, their associates tell us that we cannot afford universal health care (Associated Press, 2005; Clark, 2005). Tort “reform,” one of the pinnacles of George W. Bush’s successful reelection campaign, is now being contested in congress, while at the same time the President works to make tax cuts to the wealthiest permanent (Havemann, 2001; Zion, 2005). Children are not only being forced to absorb free market economics, they are experiencing a freemar- ket revolution, as neoconservatives work diligently to end public schools as we know them, believing that market-based reform will save our “failing” education system. While a complete analysis of the effects of conservative think tanks is beyond the scope of this article, we include the above passage as evidence of what, on a broad scale, the “idea brokers” have been working towards. While education is only one area where neoconservative think tanks seek to influence public policy, it has become the issue for many neoconservatives. In this article, we fo- cus on four think tanks—The Manhattan Institute, The American Enterprise Institute, The Heritage Foundation, and The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation—and what they are doing to reshape public schools in ways more suitable to neoconservative and corporate ends. Our goal is to problematize and critique the assertions of these think tanks, with the hope of generating a counter-narrative to their bold and influential proclamations. A Brief History Quite simply, think tanks are nonprofit organizations that both pro- duce and rely on research and expertise to aggressively influence the public, political leaders, and policy. (For lengthier definitions, see Abelson, 2002; Rich, 2004). While most claim to be nonparti- san, part of the requirement to remain tax-exempt, the institutes we focus on support legislation that furthers a neoconservative agenda. It should be noted here that Left-leaning think tanks do exist, but they are outnumbered 2 to 1, outspent 3 to 1 and have failed to counter the advocacy or activity of the Right (Rich). “Con- servatives,” explain Stefancic and Delgado (1996), “tend to have more money than liberals. They raise it more effectively and spend it more wisely than their counterparts on the left” (p. 142). As a re- sult, the voice dominating discourse over public education in Amer- ica has a distinctly neoconservative tone. Things were not always this way. Before the 1960s there was a healthier balance of institutes representing a host of viewpoints. In fact, the first think tanks were progressive. Rich (2004) traces the beginning of the conservative think tank explosion to Barry Gold- water’s 1964 presidential defeat, after which the business commu- nity committed itself to influencing national policy. “For scholars of modern conservatism,” writes Rich, “the emergence of conservative think tanks, in particular, is attributable to the efforts of conservative intellectuals along with corporate and ideological patrons, who formed think tanks and other organizations in order to disrupt the political status quo” (p. 32). Disrupting the status quo was contingent upon increasing the num- ber of corporate representatives in Washington. As a result, the number of trade associations with offices in the District of Columbia went from 99 at the beginning of 1960 to 229 by the end of the decade (Rich, 2004). An increased number of “agents” in the capital guaranteed corporate access to policy makers. While access is one matter, influence is entirely another. To shape policy in manners fa- vorable to their needs, corporations sponsored research, rewarding individuals whose work furthered their various causes (Rich), one of which was, and continues to be, ending the government “monopoly” on public schools. Central to corporate needs is deregulation, less interference by the government in business affairs. In the mid-1970s, William Simon, former Secretary of the Treasury in both the Nixon and Ford ad- ministrations and head of the ultraconservative John M. Olin Foun- dation, called on business leaders to support and finance a “coun- terintelligentsia” which would check the activities of “leftist” univer- sities, considered by many on the right to be dens of socialism (Spring, 2001). Not limiting himself to a counterattack, Simon “urged the business community to support intellectuals who advo- cated the importance of the free market. Simon called on busi- nesspeople to stop supporting colleges and universities that pro- duced ‘young collectivists by the thousands’ and media ‘which serve as the megaphones for anticapitalist opinion’” (p. 38). A num- ber of wealthy foundations, corporations, and individuals re- sponded, and conservative activists continue to echo Simon’s words, blaming left leaning teachers’ colleges, among others, for public education’s “failure” (e.g., D'Souza, 1991). Tactics and Techniques Since Simon’s clarion call, the Right has grown stronger. Today the actions of neoconservative think tanks continue to further a corpo- ratist agenda, inhibiting participatory and deliberative democracy by dominating the discourse that influences agenda setting. Because neoconservative think tanks are so well funded, they have freedom, access, and influence that the average American citizen simply does not have. Indeed, they have freedom, access, and influence that the so called “liberal intelligentsia” can only dream of. For ex- ample, The Heritage Foundation (n.d.b) spent over $34 million to influence policy in 2003 alone. Of that figure, more than $14 million went to research, $6 million went to media and government rela- tions, and an additional %7 million went to educational programs. (The remaining $6 million and change went to "supporting serv- ices.") One can’t help wondering what liberal minded scholars might actually be able to accomplish given such budgets, which include over $2 million