Much has been written about the influence the Koch Brothers and the organizations they fund, like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), have on advancing the right-wing agenda nationally. They have distorted such important issues like climate change, gun safety and basic social justice issues with an incestuous web of think tanks, pr operatives and friendly media organizations that invent and then spin their agendas.
Many here maybe surprised to learn that a Koch-funded and ALEC-affiliated organization has been enormously successful shaping the policy agenda in blue Massachusetts with barely any notice. In fact, they have integrated themselves into the upper echelon of power among the political and media elites in the Commonwealth, gaining a respectable perch from which to advance parts of the Koch/ALEC agenda.
For nearly 20 years David Koch, his foundation or one of his companies has supported the Pioneer Institute. According to the Center for Media and Democracy and the Pioneer Institute’s public disclosures, the Koch connection has given Pioneer more than $750,000, but that does not include several years when Pioneer did not categorize donors. So it is reasonable to assume Koch has given Pioneer more than $1 million during this period. In each of the last three years, Pioneer has disclosed Koch giving them more than $100,000–but the exact figure could be much higher–towards their $1.5 million operating budget.
For Koch, Pioneer is a cog in what can only be described as a “vast rightwing” web of foundations, think tanks (more like “stink tanks) and public-relation companies that have warped our public policy discussions in favor of the richest one-hundredth of one percent. Just as the tobacco industry spent millions over decades spouting “research” that cigarettes were not harmful, the Kochs and their allies, have amplified this effort, creating scores of Pioneer Institute’s across the country (and coordinated by the State Policy Network–see below) to advance their conservative policy objectives. Given the long and increasingly generous funding David Koch has provided Pioneer, it is evident Mr. Koch feels his investment is paying off in Massachusetts.
Since the tragic killing of Trayvon Martin last year, a light was cast on the role of the Koch-supported ALEC. ALEC develops model legislation that is filed by conservative (or unwitting) state legislators for passage. Among their most notorious “successes” has been their role in shaping Arizona’s racist anti-immigration law; pushing legislation to stop anti-climate change initiatives; advocating for anti-labor “Right-to-Work Laws” and using Florida’s “Stand Your Ground Law” as a template for other states (including Massachusetts) to adopt.
Pioneer has close ties to ALEC. First, as a member of the State Policy Network, which provides “strategic assistance” to “state-based free market think tank(s),” Pioneer shares a “Chairman” level sponsorship status in ALEC. In addition, Pioneer is has been an active member ALEC’s Education Task Force, which has been a driving force in the privatization of public education across the country.
Koch and other deep conservative pockets fund a myriad right-wing organizations, so it is no surprise that Pioneer is part of this network. But what may surprise some is the level of interconnection and agendas some of these groups have.
For example, the Sidney Swensrud Foundation, founded by the former head of Gulf Oil in the 1950s, has been a long time source of funding for Pioneer. This Foundation is also a longtime supporter of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) an anti immigrant organization that the Southern Poverty Law Center was labeled a hate group in 2007. Among the many accomplishments FAIR claims credit for is their role in crafting Arizona’s anti-immigration law (that apparently is a badge of honor for the rightwing).
But with major benefactors like David Koch and other conservatives (follow the links), Pioneer is not the wonkish, right-leaning public policy think tank they represent themselves to be. In reality, they are a frontline outpost for the conservative/corporate movement that for generations has spun the American public about a wide range of health, safety, human rights and social justice issues, all in the name of an unfettered economic system that harkens back to the Gilded Age.
At the end of the day, people like David Koch do not give money to an organization–year after year for nearly twenty years–unless he thinks his investment is paying off. Based on his contribution pattern, Koch must feels that Pioneer is advancing his agenda.
Of course Pioneer does calibrate their messaging for the liberal Massachusetts audience. Just last week they called for increasing taxes to pay for Massachusetts’ transportation needs. This position partly illustrates the severity of our transportation problems–even Pioneer understands that tax increases have to be part of the solution. But Pioneer supports the most regressive tax option: increasing gas taxes and fares for urban commuters, instead of the more progressive approach recommended by Gov. Patrick. And how much cover did Pioneer give House budget makers who today released a gas tax / sin tax to fund a more limited transportation package?
What is truly surprising is the level of acceptance Pioneer has developed in Massachusetts. They are frequently quoted in all the local newspapers, have guest OpEd columns and activity interact with city and state power brokers. Just last week, the former Inspector General of Massachusetts joined Pioneer, which the Globe described as a bland “boston-based think tank”.
In many ways, Pioneer deserves the proverbial “tip of the hat” from progressives. Their faux aura as an independent conservative public policy think tank has duped politicians, media outlets and civic organizations into believing their motives and information can be trusted.
The truth is far from that. It is imperative that the progressive community in Massachusetts set the record straight. Our public officials need to be educated about the motives of those behind the curtain at Pioneer. Media organizations must not be able to rubber stamp Pioneer’s PR spin as an “independent” source of information and civic groups that partner or participate in Pioneer events need to understand the real motives of the people they are standing with.
I’ll take your points in reverse:
(1) The media and legislators know that what we have to say is backed up by really good research. It’s pretty simple. That’s why we get into Boston, regional and national media outlets.
(2) On transportation we led the initiative to identify infrastructure maintenance all the back from 2005 when I joined Pioneer. The Governor and former Governor Dukakis have noted the importance of our report Legacy of Neglect in focusing legislative attention on transportation. And on whether to use user fees or general taxes, we are for user fees, especially as all revenues that go into the general fund can (and will) be diverted to non-transportation needs. If you are unaware, please know that the “structural deficit” that was supposedly solved is alive and well, and, over time, the governor’s office and the legislature are likely to raid a good portion of the new general operating revenues proposed today. (The same is true of the Governor’s proposed income tax revenues–easily diverted to other uses.)
(3) As regards ALEC, you really ought to do your research. Alas, how would you explain this press release from November 29, 2012? We do good research and then we call them as we see them.
PIONEER INSTITUTE
PRESS RELEASE
November 29, 2012
REJECTION OF ANTI-COMMON CORE MODEL LEGISLATION A SAD END TO BIZARRE PROCESS
American Legislative Exchange Council Board acts after model legislation approved twice by ALEC’s education task force
A decision by the board of directors of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) not to endorse model legislation opposing the so-called Common Core State Standards and testing after its own education task force’s public and private membership twice approved the model legislation is a sad ending to the highly flawed process directed by the organization.
ALEC is a conservative non-profit made up of state legislators and policy organizations that provides forums for those legislators to share policy ideas and model bills.
“ALEC has long played a leadership role on important issues that affect multiple states,” said Pioneer Institute Executive Director Jim Stergios. “With new leadership, I hope the organization can recover from this sad chapter in its history and resume that useful role.”
During its summer 2011 meeting, ALEC’s education task force voted to table its review of model legislation opposing Common Core until December because many members were not yet familiar with the national standards, even though their states had adopted them.
The lack of familiarity was not surprising given that state legislatures were largely bypassed in the process by which 45 states adopted Common Core. The Obama administration made adoption a condition for receipt of federal grant money and waivers from the “No Child Left Behind” education law.
ALEC planned to host a debate on the topic at the December meeting and at different times asked each side to come up with amounts between $25,000 and $40,000 to sponsor the debate. While the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation alone has invested more than $100 million in developing and disseminating the standards, Common Core opponents couldn’t afford the sponsorship.
ALEC then announced that the State Farm Insurance Company would sponsor the event. When Common Core opponents registered their concern due to the fact that a top State Farm executive sits on the board of Achieve, Inc., one of Common Core’s leading proponents and developer of one of the national tests, they were assured the debate would be fair and balanced.
Just days before the December meeting, the Gates Foundation gave ALEC $376,635 to support education public policy and advocacy efforts.
The December debate was to include two proponents for each side and a neutral moderator. But the debate sponsor, State Farm, initially rejected former Assistant U.S. Secretary of Education Dr. Williamson Evers and then-Texas Commissioner of Education Robert Scott, who were to present the case against Common Core.
The lunch that preceded the debate was sponsored by former Florida Governor Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Excellence in Education, a leading Common Core proponent. The lunch’s keynote speaker was Indiana Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Bennett, another prominent supporter. Bennett’s speech included advocacy for Common Core.
The education task force’s public and private membership nonetheless voted overwhelmingly to endorse the anti-Common Core model legislation, and the recommendation was sent to ALEC’s board, which was to vote on it in May of 2012.
Commissioner Scott and Superintendent Bennett were each asked to present their positions at the May 11th board meeting, and Common Core opponents were asked to prepare materials for the board packets.
But as late as the night before the meeting, there was confusion about what time the board would meet. Scott was ultimately told the meeting would be at 10:30 a.m. But the board actually convened at 8:30 a.m. Scott was able to attend only because an alert Pioneer staffer noticed the ALEC board members gathering. None of the materials prepared by Common Core opponents were included in the ALEC board’s packets, even though they were sent well in advance of the meeting.
Proponents for either position were not to be allowed in the room after Commissioner Scott and Superintendent Bennett made their presentations. Common Core opponents were indeed banished, but a staffer from the James B. Hunt, Jr. Institute for Educational Leadership and Policy, which is funded by Gates to provide public relations support for national standards and tests, was permitted to mingle with board members prior to the meeting.
According to then-ALEC Education Director Adam Peshek, the board decided it just “wanted too make sure that the language was tightened up.” Changes suggested by the Board were incorporated into the model legislation and once again approved by the Council’s education task force’s public and private members by even larger margins than in December.
The Board decided to take up what is normally a routine approval of task force decisions just prior to the departure of then-Chair Indiana State Rep. David Frizzell, a close confidant of Indiana School Superintendent Tony Bennett, who was just voted out of office.
The Board voted to remain neutral on the model legislation opposing Common Core. This is the first time we know of that ALEC has not adopted positions approved by issue task forces. In this case, it did not advance model legislation twice approved by the education task force.
“If Common Core were truly a state-led and voluntary initiative there would have been no need to involve the U.S. Department of Education and the various DC-based “reform” groups to coerce states to participate,” said Robert Scott. “It is truly sad that any conservative organization would sanction the violation of federal laws in the name of a deeply flawed nationalizing reform effort.”
“The model law is in furtherance of preserving federalism, supposedly one of ALEC’s founding principles,” added Emmett McGroarty of American Principles Project, one of the model’s sponsors and its original drafter.
ALEC’s action comes at the conclusion of a year of controversy created by accusations of pay-to-play sponsorships and the organization’s support for “Stand Your Ground” legislation after unarmed Florida teenager Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by a community watchman.
Pioneer has co-authored and produced four research papers that crosswalk the academic quality of the CCSSI against the state academic standards in Massachusetts, Indiana, Minnesota, Texas, and California, and other high-standards states.
“I’m proud of the fact that we have conducted more independent research on Common Core than any other think-tank in the country,” said Jamie Gass, director of Pioneer’s Center for School Reform.
Other Pioneer research includes a study from the former general counsel and deputy general counsel of the U.S. Department of Education (U.S. ED), which concludes that Common Core violates at least three federal laws that prohibit U.S. ED from directing, supervising, funding, or controlling any standards, curriculum, or instructional materials, or testing.
A Pioneer cost analysis found that states and local governments aligning their standards and testing to Common Core amounts to an unfunded mandate of over $16 billion, which will be paid for by the states and municipalities.
Pioneer’s research has received wide media coverage from columnists like George Will and Jay Mathews to publications that include, Education Week, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Boston Herald, The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Indianapolis Star, The Washington Times, and MSNBC.
•••
Pioneer Institute is an independent, non-partisan, privately funded research organization that seeks to change the intellectual climate in the Commonwealth by supporting scholarship that tests marked solutions against the conventional wisdom of more governmental involvement in Massachusetts public policy issues.
the keynote speech at your “Better Government” awards?
Gov. Rick Perry has been an overzealous in his support of the death penalty–the deepest government infringement on individual freedom–to point of applying it when reasonable doubt exists, and Perry has supported teaching creationism with science in classrooms.
And if we look at the programs honored by your awards, one is
and another is
Private prison systems are ripe for abuse, creating incentives to imprison people long past the point of fairness and forcing prison guards to endure dangerous conditions so the CEO can have a fat salary.
Then making poor people have high deductibles on their health insurance? That’s a recipe for having them wait until the medical problems have grown terribly bad.
Jim Stergios, you might be quoted by the Boston Globe, essentially the Pioneer Institute is the Koch brothers prybar to open up that Overton Window, and help Massachusetts have a greater concentration of wealth at the top and bigger holes in its safety net. You’re a tool to take money and resources from the poor and middle class and give it to the wealthy.
Go read some of the headlines on their blog and research papers before you comment.
– Will Mass Unmerge Insurance Because of the ACA
– Legislature must open spending
– Driving Reform: New Study on Real Solutions to Our Transportation Challenges
– We Must Address Serious Transportation Needs In Massachusetts, But the Governor’s Proposal Is Not Serious
-Better Government Competition for 10K
Beside the occasional Globe Spotlight story they are the only organization looking at Massachusetts Government in a critical way.
Massachusetts public schools yield the best outcomes in the US, by far.
Our schools system is also one of the very-few best in the world – second to only Singapore in science, and 6th (of 56) in math.
Given the superlative performance of our schools, I’d think the prudent way forward is to make small tweaks in what we have, so as to not jeopardize our proven success, and for the rest of the US to study and copy what works so well for us. Yet Pioneer Institute (and most of Washington DC) seems to believe that the way forward is to largely scrap what’s proven to work, in favor of unproven experiments.
Hi Manny: Pioneer has been the source of most of the reforms that have led to Massachusetts’ rise on national and international assessments, to which you are referring. Whether focusing on high-quality literature and non-fiction texts, key mathematical attainments, stronger science offerings or US History requirements that span the colonial period, slavery, the founding, abolitionism and the urn-up to the Civil War, the Civil War, the nationalization of industry and labor movements, the Progressive Era and so much more — that’s us. We led on the MCAS (a baseline measure) and also teacher testing. We have also supported foundation funding. As a result, we have a stronger teacher corps than most anywhere in the country (and higher-paid teachers) as well as student results that are unlike anywhere else in the country. We truly are competing with the rest fo the world — not the rest of the country.
So why charters? Go to Lawrence, New Bedford, Fall River, Boston, Springfield and Holyoke — and look me in the eye and say that the schools are getting it done. You can respond by citing issues the kids have; you can respond by calling for more money, I suppose. But the fact is charters are getting it done. So my question to you: Why not charter schools in the lowest performing districts?
First Jim, thank you for jumping right in (google alert is a great tool). And again, a tip of the hat to the great job you do over at Pioneer, its just that almost everything you do is the antithesis of the values I and many here share.
As for your comment, I thank you for reiterating the basic point of my post: That the benefactors to organizations like ALEC and Pioneer– and you do share many of the same funders–expect these organizations to bend to there wishes.
That is what Pioneer accuses ALEC of–bending to the wished of their benefactors–in the above press release (which I provided a link to above–I did my research). You understand the rules of the game you’re playing in and apparently bending to the agenda of donors is one of the rules. That was the whole point of your press release and the point of my post. If Pioneer and ALEC truly where independent think tanks, the two would agree to disagree. Instead Pioneer questions ALEC’s motives based who gave them the most money. And that is my point regarding all groups –including Pioneer–who rely on financial support from entities with an agenda.
And really, disagreeing over Common Core Curriculum is hardly an example of a profile in courage. The issue has supporters and detractors on both the right and the left. I also suspect that Pioneer has earned a great deal of admiration within the conservative funding circles, so it has the political capital raise a dissent on a policy position. Although, if one shared the same cynicism in Pioneer’s press release accusing ALEC of bending to the whims of their funders, one could suggest the same thing is true about Pioneer: that your opposition to Common Core is dictated by the agenda of other key funders of Pioneer and what we are seeing is a proxy disagreement between different billionaires.
Thank you again Jim for weighing in. Above I indicated we disagree on most things. One thing we do not disagree with is the need for more transparency in government (I feel that should extend to the private markets also–not sure of your views.) And in the spirit of transparency, you’ve made it possible to detail the financial connections Pioneer has to the Koch Brothers and others. But it is not complete transparency. So I was wondering if you could answer a question? What is the real amount of financial support all Koch affiliated organizations have given to Pioneer in the most recently completed fiscal year? Thanks again for weighing in.
The point of our press release was to shame ALEC because of a sham process. We participated in ALEC to engage in an open debate on the merits of national standards. Given that more than half of states have legislatures that are controlled by Republicans, and that thousands of legislators participate in ALEC, it’s a pretty logical place to go to present our research. Fact is we were shocked by the games the Council played, and we are no longer participants in the Council.
JC, sometimes a cigar is a cigar is a cigar. Perhaps you should light one up and relax a bit.
Again, JTP, nice try. We also had Governor Patrick keynote the Better Government Competition, Michelle Rhee, and others who have opposite views. At our health care events, we have showcased people like Jonathan Gruber, Don Berwick and other prominent thought leaders on the left. We have done events celebrating the life and work of Al Shanker, a storied labor leader in education (and a strong supporter of high-quality academic standards). We always ensure a voice for people on the opposite side of a debate at our events, whether labor leaders, critics of testing, people who are for nationalizing educational standards.
The reason is: We like – and we are not afraid of – debate. And that’s why we are easily the most vibrant think tank in Massachusetts. No one else has the same intellectual firepower. Who else gets James McPherson, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Battle Cry of Freedom, to speak on Lincoln and US History instruction? (BTW, he closed by beating up on the modern-day Republican Party and suggesting that Pres. Obama has taken up Lincoln’s charge.) Or how about Howard Dodson of Howard University to speak on the founders and slavery?
I’m proud to attract a broad range of speakers — and, if interested, I can get a list of Pioneer speakers over the past few years posted up here.
Her example of “Better Government” was highlighted during a Frontline episode that exposed a wide-spread cheating scandal in the Washington DC school district. Rhee has been a critic of the Massachusetts public school system, while praising states that have below average national test scores. The public school reformer has also been criticized for sending her children to private school. That Michelle Rhee?
Pioneer sometimes does good, empirical work; I’ve seen it on housing, and as Jim points out, infrastructure. I find their work on education/charters to be unconvincing (like most discussion around that issue), and their work opposing health care payment reform was an unfocused, tendentious joke. All depends on the staff, I suppose.
Here’s Jim’s problem, in his own words:
supporting scholarship that tests marked solutions against the conventional wisdom of more governmental involvement
I see. They support the scholarship *as long as it opposes the “conventional wisdom of more governmental involvement”*. I mean, that’s kind of a major condition, isn’t it — a prejudice to coming up with the best solution, which might be private or public? A substitution of right-wing “conventional wisdom” for the other kind, which they oppose, natch.
And that’s why they sound like jokers so much of the time. Pity.
Also notice he didn’t mention the Koch $. Jim, they’re anti-intellectual and dishonest, and you should drop them like the bad habit they are. Based on their misanthropic work on climate, they should be pariahs, not VIPs in your org.
was is in service of privatization and business: “Depending on where the line between our view of what should be ‘public’ and what should be ‘private’ should continue to evolve for the benefit of everyone.” That means privatization–or more precisely, profitization–of our infrastructure.
The Pioneer Institute uses facts and data to arrive at illiberal conclusions and advance their American Enterprise Institute agenda. Regardless of the problem, less regulation, less government, and more privatization is the answer.
Charley: Unfortunately, there is a spelling error in the quote you’ve taken from our press release (our error): “marked” should say “market”. But it is worth noting that the blurb says “tests market solutions against the conventional wisdom of more governmental involvement” not “as long as the scholarship opposes the conventional wisdom of more governmental involvement.” The power of markets is clear. We have always been for steering that private market energy through clear guardrails on private sector activity. That is why we oppose government taking a position in specific company balance sheets, and also why we helped devise in 1994-5 the most stringent charter school regulations in the country (that is one of the reasons our charters, unlike the charters in so many other states, easily outperform their district peers).
On “sounding like jokers,” well, I’ll take a pass on that. The NYT, Economist, WaPo as well as many other national publications don’t think so, nor do local and regional media. Same is true in the policy world. That’s because we have the best people in the business writing on education, health care, government effectiveness and job creation.
You may not like our work because you don’t agree. Not much of an argument, but you’re entitled to it.
On climate — it’s not an issue we work on at Pioneer. As far as who is anti-intellectual and who isn’t, I find anti-intellectualism most everywhere in our public debates. On the left, the anti-intellectualism nests around the world of social research (many on this website deny the data from CREDO, Harvard, Pioneer and others on Mass. charters, and probably denied the data on broken windows policing and welfare reform in the 1990s. This is probably because these issues affect or affected important constituencies. On the right you see more anti-intellectualism on environmental issues. And that is again because the proposed solutions are, in their view, too government focused.
This sentence makes no sense. It is grammatically inconsistent and logically incoherent: “through clear guardrails” sounds like transparent guardrails which are then breached… which are not guardrails at all. If you meant to say ‘between clearly marked guardrails, I contend further incoherence: “private market energy” is, by definition, unsteerable since it involves multiple actors going in multiple directions at multiple different speeds each with their own motivations and none sharing the same information; it can only be prevented from doing actual harm by clear prohibitions, honest regulators and stated expectations.
I don’t like your work because it is often incoherent and inconsistent. Without daring to speak for Charley, I’ll simply point out that he, also, points out inconsistencies and incoherence.
With all due respect Jim this was an assertion and needs to be substantiated
I got numerous studies showing they are actually worse on aggregate. To use Cambridge as an example, CRLS has a significantly higher graduation rate and four year college rate than its Prospect Hill and Cambridge Charter High School competitors.
90% of education dollars and almost all of the policy decision-making power rests with states and localities. State policies matter as regards standards, testing for teachers and students, teacher salaries, teacher recruitment and retention strategies, charter schools, and really every aspect of a kid’s educational experience. The fact is that Massachusetts got a lot of things right, when Tom Birmingham, Mark Roosevelt and Bill Weld moved the 1993 Education Reform into statute. As a result, Massachusetts schools improved greatly on just about every measure out there.
There are really two conversations in the country — what Massachusetts did and what the other states did. We are internationally competitive, and they aren’t. Given the teacher testing approach that we have (which is unique–and not PRAXIS), our teacher corps is better than most other states. And given the solid charter approval process (ahem, up until recently, with Gloucester, which should not have been approved, and the decision on the SABIS charter in Brockton, which should have been approved) and our willingness to close down failing charters, as well as Massachusetts’ ability to attract real talent to work in charters, our charters are also head-and-shoulders above the other states. To link to the CREDO report on charter school performance nationally. Funny. Well, then what do you do about CREDO’s report on Massachusetts charters? Their report from February notes that Massachusetts charters provide the equivalent of 1.5 to 2.5 more months of learning every year in English and math than district peers; and Boston charters provide 12-13 months more learning in English and math than their district peers. Moreover, 83% of Boston charters do substantially better than their district peers, and none do worse than the average district performance.
JC, you can’t have it both ways.
Your underlying premise that charters in MA suck because charters in AZ or AL or KS suck holds about as much water as the argument that all district schools suck in MA because they suck around the rest of the country.
Charter schools are public schools, so if you wish to say that a particularly good charter raises the public school average, feel free. But you do nobody, least of all yourself, any service by counterpoint. every teacher and every student in the CommonWealth deserves good schools.
If the goal is to make education better then you should start talking and think-tanking as though that is the goal.
If the goal is to drive a wedge between charter public schools and traditional public schools and to hold the one up and disparage the other, keep going. You’re right on track with that goal, here.
Better why? Because they start with students more likely to score well (there is self-selection even among the families that will participate in the application process), then politely show the door to students with poor academic performance or who cause disciplinary problems, before the 10th grade MCAS. Without filling the spots on the theory that new students would not be properly immersed in the school’s “culture.”
The Red Sox would have had the highest team batting average in the majors last year if they had the option of kicking anyone who brought the average down off the team.