I guess we just disagree mainly on whether DFER's objectives are worthwhile or if they aren't why they aren't.

Anonymous wrote:PP again. Jeff, I almost had to put on a tin foil hat after reading that article, the basic premise of which seems to be that rich people may get tax breaks by investing in certain non profits, like charter schools. It's simply not possible that that explains why hedge fund people support the DFERs of the world. I think a better explanation is that rich business people (and I mean uber rich) who want to donate to education are skeptical of school districts and instead want more of a business approach to schools (objective measurements, results). That may not be the best thing for public schools but it's not a "Plan" to set up schools so they can make money.

That is how they always explain it and maybe that is true in some cases. Obviously, none of them are going to publicize that they support Charter schools because they hope to financially benefit from it. None of them are that stupid. But, if you look at how things have played out (again, less so in DC than other places), you will see constant examples of their extracting funds from the public and lining their own pockets.

There are other non-financial aspects to their agenda such as opposing teachers' unions and, in some cases, weakening elected school boards, that are also controversial. But, they rarely, maybe never, run on that agenda. Instead, their advertisements will be about crime or whatever. For instance, DFER-funded flyers supporting Goulet said he stood for "safer streets". True or not, that's not why DFER supported him.

See this article about DFER's misleading advertisements:

https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/304500/a-national-procharter-school-group-is-flooding-dc-mailboxes-with-campaign-flyers-this-cycle/

DFER was so off-base that the organization eventually released a statement apologizing, saying, "We made a mistake, and we have learned from it."

https://dfer.org/2020/06/07/dfer-dc-releases-statement-on-organizational-values-and-ward-4-primary/

I don't see how even a cursory examination of DFER's agenda and campaign practices would result in being comfortable with the organization's involvement in local politics. Obviously, those being supported and those who believe the ends justify the means are all for it. But, I don't think that most of us are.

PP again. Jeff, I almost had to put on a tin foil hat after reading that article, the basic premise of which seems to be that rich people may get tax breaks by investing in certain non profits, like charter schools. It's simply not possible that that explains why hedge fund people support the DFERs of the world. I think a better explanation is that rich business people (and I mean uber rich) who want to donate to education are skeptical of school districts and instead want more of a business approach to schools (objective measurements, results). That may not be the best thing for public schools but it's not a "Plan" to set up schools so they can make money.

Anonymous wrote:

I don't hate charter schools. Both of my sons attended a charter school. I don't mind outside money from small donors like yourself. But PACs funded by deep-pocketed monied interests have a corrupting influence. Where would Goulet be without DFER backing? That's the only thing that made him a significant candidate. Moreover, DFER in particular is dishonest about its agenda. If it just came out and said, "we want to privatize public schools so that our hedge fund backers can make money from education" that would be fine. Instead, they act like they are concerned about crime or whatever issue polls well.

PP here. You almost had me. I agree that unchecked spending can maybe have a negative influence. But the idea that hedge fund people want to "privatize the schools" (does that mean charter?) so they can "make money" is laughable. Hedge fund people don't need charter schools to make money. I don't even know how they'd do that. Seems like a conspiracy theory talking point.

Take a look at the strongest backers of charter schools. They are filled with venture capitalists. The pattern has been played out over and over again, though less in DC. A non-profit group forms a charter school and gets public funds. They then hire for-profit firms for various services. Maybe they rent their building, hire a developer, pay a management firm. Whatever, the school basically becomes a funnel for public money to private firms. Here is an article from 2014 titled "Why hedge funds love charter schools":

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/06/04/why-hedge-funds-love-charter-schools/

It is true that this topic is so little discussed that most people know nothing about it. Then, when you try to explain it, you absolutely sound like a conspiracy theorist.

I don't hate charter schools. Both of my sons attended a charter school. I don't mind outside money from small donors like yourself. But PACs funded by deep-pocketed monied interests have a corrupting influence. Where would Goulet be without DFER backing? That's the only thing that made him a significant candidate. Moreover, DFER in particular is dishonest about its agenda. If it just came out and said, "we want to privatize public schools so that our hedge fund backers can make money from education" that would be fine. Instead, they act like they are concerned about crime or whatever issue polls well.

PP here. You almost had me. I agree that unchecked spending can maybe have a negative influence. But the idea that hedge fund people want to "privatize the schools" (does that mean charter?) so they can "make money" is laughable. Hedge fund people don't need charter schools to make money. I don't even know how they'd do that. Seems like a conspiracy theory talking point.

Anonymous wrote:I get that you hate charter schools or whatever but I don't understand the hand wringing about out of state money. I donate to plenty of candidates in races outside of DC, does that somehow taint them?

I don't hate charter schools. Both of my sons attended a charter school. I don't mind outside money from small donors like yourself. But PACs funded by deep-pocketed monied interests have a corrupting influence. Where would Goulet be without DFER backing? That's the only thing that made him a significant candidate. Moreover, DFER in particular is dishonest about its agenda. If it just came out and said, "we want to privatize public schools so that our hedge fund backers can make money from education" that would be fine. Instead, they act like they are concerned about crime or whatever issue polls well.

I get that you hate charter schools or whatever but I don't understand the hand wringing about out of state money. I donate to plenty of candidates in races outside of DC, does that somehow taint them?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Out of state interests trying to influence DC elections. How nefarious!

It's even worse than you thought. Whereas DFER gives hundreds of thousands of dollars, Dr. Bronners gives, chocolate bars?

But, both sides.

Seems like a waste of money, but hey what do I know?

Anonymous wrote:Out of state interests trying to influence DC elections. How nefarious!

It's even worse than you thought. Whereas DFER gives hundreds of thousands of dollars, Dr. Bronners gives, chocolate bars?

But, both sides.

Anonymous wrote:I have no opinion on DC elections but isn’t that the whole point of DFER?

Is the whole point to support losing candidates? It seems like it.

Voting for Silverman and no one else in the At Large race. Maybe Fred Hill, he’s a vet.

I have no opinion on DC elections but isn’t that the whole point of DFER?

Out of state interests trying to influence DC elections. How nefarious!

Legal use of campaign finance is bad.

Illegal use of campaign finance is good.

Just wanted to verify that this is where we are.

It's really interesting how committed DFER is to its involvement in DC elections. Luckily for those of us opposed to outside money corrupting our elections, they have a pretty bad track record. Here is a report of their latest spending: