Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Just Do it! Do the Drill-Downs to See ‘What Lies Beneath.’ Or, Continue to “Take It On Faith” in the Multi-campus, Digitally Driven, Public/Private Partnership Mega-Church aka, the U.S.A.

with one comment

Just Do it!  Do the Drill-Downs to see What Lies Beneath.  Or, Continue to “Take It On Faith” in the Multi-campus, Digitally-Driven, Public/Private Partnership Tax-Exempt Mega-Church aka the U.S.A. (post started 4/30/2017 published 5/3/2017, case-sensitive short-link ends “-6Hf”;”aka”=”also known as.”)

Yes I did just call this entire country a multi-campus, digitally-driven, public/private partnership, tax-exempt mega-church.

…(The post title as first published read “Digitally Dominated” which I caught when the title didn’t match the title copied into the contents just above; I corrected it.  “Digitally-Distributed” or “Diluted” or any other number of words might also describe the situation.  Deliberations are occurring “digitally” that is, electronically, often in places where the local communities may have no comprehension of in just how many ways their local and state policies are being set regionally and nationally in meetings and discussions to which they are not invited, and of which they are not really cognizant.).

May 4th, 2017, This post also contains some post-publication additions and corrections, especially in a section demonstrating decision-making on roundtables and conferences not quite in the public view — from the example of UCBerkeley’s Center for Cities and Schools 2008 meeting, involving an advisory board from a DC-based entity 21st Century Schools Fund, which brought in other entities it’s involved with (nonprofit of course), including taking funds FROM one in California whose president is the daughter of a wealthy investor, as well as a civil rights attorney from California who spent personal millions of dollars on a campaign to increase the income tax for more school funding (The Advancement Project) to form another (National Council on Schools Facilities) begun only recently and sharing a street address with its pass-through donor nonprofit in D.C. May 5th I will probably add tags.

Before I get into that, the other purpose for this quick post is to publicize two additional pages supplementing the posts dealing with the role of synchronized foundations for takeover and restructuring of school systems, that is, foundations funding both networks of nonprofits and a mixture of schools, school districts, departments of education to the point that tracking either the networks in isolation OR the schools, school districts, departments of education (etc.) responsibly would be so burdensome, so expensive, and so untenable that any successes in the task would seem to be “Pyrrhic” (<==examples of Pyrrhic military victories incl. the Battle of Bunker Hill and the one the term came from, Greek v. Roman empire)– that is, counterproductive. It would seem to cost more in the short and medium term than it might save in the long run.  You can see some of the struggles on these posts (!).

Here are those two pages, both published in late April, 2017. I picked background-colors matching their appearance on the first one and as referenced in a parallel post. (Will repeat this routine at bottom of this post.  I added an image and some commentary [6 short paragraphs] just under this first listing of the two pages to explain a reference to the “ECS” and why the name James B. Conant came up in one of them).

Page name and link:

Bank Street College of Education and School (Fast-Tracking FYI on its 100 year Progressive, Experimental Laboratories involving Young Children, History) [published April 30, 2017].

Page name and link:

Do you Know Your NGA?  Post-PRWORA, 1998 Stealth, Coordinated Expansion/ Diversion of Welfare Funds based on Sociological, Quasi-Religious Ideology on the Ideal Family Structure (the offspring of The 1965 Moynihan Report), Facilitated by (A) At least 39 of the Nation’s Governors and (B) as Coached by Wade Horn ℅ The National Fatherhood Initiative (Page Added Sep. 2016, Published Apr. 27, 2017) [<==with a case-sensitive shortlink ending “-4qs” ]

(Check out a 1964 review of a 1964 book by James B. Conant referencing his 1957 earlier book on the American High School in which he “forgot” to mention segregation as a problem in the public schools; but now (1964) has had a moral awakening and believes that, particularly because of segregation, the current “entrenched, ruling clique” educational leadership should be deposed and replaced by “strong boards of education” with new personnel.  The review (by a woman) was in the Harvard Crimson. Ted Sizer (d. 2009) of “Coalition of Essential Schools and with Harvard School of Education (I think he was Dean) background, coming to Brown University, MUST have known about Conant, and the ECS.**  It appears that he may have, in fact, copied the practice of first putting out a book, then setting up a nonprofit and demanding regional (CES was most certainly set up regionalized) networks for school change according to HIS brilliant (sic) concepts about what’s really “essential” for schools.)

Paragraph ONE. James B. Conant is referenced because the “ECS” (Education Commission for the States, a Colorado-based nonprofit incorporated Dec. 1967 to implement an Education Compact among the States) seems to have been primarily his idea.  A North Carolina ex-? governor Terry Sanford helped promote it to the “National Governor’s Association” (NGA) which of course helped also propagate it.  The NGA’s personal nonprofit is called the NGA “Center for Best Practices,” both allowing for corporate major sponsorship to get a personal audience in front of elected officials responsible for governing populations who mostly cannot get such an audience in exchange for payments because they don’t have the wherewithal to pay!  The NGA page will explain more; its preview part brings up the ECS, with supporting links.

TWO. The ECS ties into the Annenberg Public Education Challenge of the late 1990s early 2000s from the Challenge’s choice of ECS-related leadership. This color-coded* next image from “Chicago Annenberg Challenge Wiki reveals the ECS’ function in the $500M Challenge.

Click HERE to view annotations on “Chicago Annenberg Challenge WIKI Excerpt showing 113M to 3 School Reform Orgs, with #3 ECS to disseminate #2’s model and #1 AISR, chaired by Ted Sizer Screen Shot 2017-05-04 at 1.36PM”

THREE. (*Colors refer to specific entities in order:  Carnegie Corporation (blue), Brown University (rose/orange?), ECS (purple), the “NASDC” model (lime-green) and underscoring how the (then aged) Walter H. Annenberg (per this Wiki, which reads something like folklore, although it is footnoted) talking to a law partner who was ALSO at the time chairman of Carnegie Corporation (and just also happened to be an Annenberg professor over an Annenberg program at Northwestern University, i.e., Chicagoland) that “we need to do something” because — unlike our university system — no one here wants to send their kids to public school, especially in the cities.  (yellow star).  I’ve connected with various arrows, and at the bottom, you can see the plan that what looks like 3 “school reform organizations” splitting $113M between them is, in effect, basically only two school reform projects — “CES” (on which the AISR at Brown University is based) and “NASDC” which I’ve posted on some already, started originally by a US President, and tied into one of the largest social science and behavioral research entities around (operating globally), which is the AIR (American Institutes for Research) (“for behavioral research”) which 501©(3) has a London “related entity” among (several) others…  NASDC eventually merged into AIR. These NETWORK, and those developing the network are in the upper-level wealth sector of the country.

FOUR. ALL three universities involved here (Brown, Harvard, Northwestern) and two other which the Annenberg Foundation is financially involved with to a significant extent (starting and endowing communications schools at them), the University of Pennsylvania (contains “Wharton School of Business”) and the University of Southern California — are PRIVATE; Brown and Harvard are also historically Ivy League and among the last in the USA to admit women undergraduates to enroll in the same colleges as men (!) but it is the PUBLIC school systems they wish to restructure….Brown didn’t do this until 1969; Harvard around then also.

FIVE. You can see how the role of the “ECS” at this point is to disseminate a model already chosen by these privately conferring foundation billionaires (Annenberg) or running billion-dollar-assets foundations (Carnegie) or billion-dollar-assets PRIVATE universities (Brown, Northwestern no doubt, Harvard) who in the course of their professional and philanthropic lives also had some favorite nonprofits (Coalition for Essential Schools — founded by a Harvard/Brown-connected Ted Sizer) and the ECS (as above) and NASDC — a project, per the wiki of a former U.S. President.

SIX. Does this start to look like the planning process is just bypassing the public, who will have to “just deal” with the consequences, as for decades they’ve also had to “just deal with” the conditions of the public schools still separate and unequal with most private schools at the K-12 level? and sometimes unsafe, sometimes going onto lockdown from violence in OR near them…??  (I think so!).  Look at the annotations on the image and see related posts (and those two pages) for more info.

In addition, those who “scroll down” on this post will see

a message in large print and bright-yellow background.

Now, moving back to the topics in the title:

Calling the U.S.A. “tax-exempt” is accurate, when referring to the federal government.

These definitions matter — a lot.  I will review in detail, again, on this post. Other examples might distract from the main message, and have been put onto nearby posts, for publishing ASAP.

There is going to be a constant tension between what we need to know and see, and what the government and nonprofit sectors working together to steer society (and solve its many problems) feel like telling us on their websites.  It’s our mission (should we accept it) to dig out what needs to be known, whether or not others feel like offering it up voluntarily.  We have this right where the institutions and the sources of funds to support them are “public.”  It’s a matter of where anyone stands on the tax spectrum.

Obviously not everyone operates tax-exempt or engages in public/private partnerships — but good luck existing without being heavily influenced and your future options in this country framed according to the debates, agreements, contracts and understandings made among and between those who do.

While these P/P Partnerships are to be considered by the public “in the public interest,” justifying their existence and formation, the real stakeholders in the eyes (judging by the words) of participant organizations,  on closer look are rarely the public at large.  Sometimes participant organizations who list “stakeholders” on the websites, seem to want extra-credit honorable mention for noble behavior if this time it happens to include normal civilians not in public employment or running a major tax-exempt organization at whichever roundtable is being described…

Search string:  “roundtables, stakeholders, school transformation.”  An October 2008 Roundtable hosted by the “Center for Cities and Schools at UCBerkeley“: (focus on facilities/learning environments and transportation, moreso than teaching).   (See  http://citiesandschools.berkeley.edu)

Looking through contents (see four images below, two from the roundtable, one from the Center hosting it, another from a DC-organization (21st Century Schools Fund) listed as “Advisory” to the UCB Center, and the first two, from the Roundtable), [THAT CONTENT HAS BEEN MOVED — see “reported separately” sentence in green below–actually, multiple images, quotes, and organizations referenced several vertical inches on the post below!–] an interest in engaging youth and “city leaders” and faraway technical advisors shows up — but parents, Californians who will be footing the bills and the long-term debt, or the adults (statewide) who will be funding the redesigned facilities?

On closer look one of the UCBerkeley Center for Cities and Schools Advisory Board   (referencing 21st Century Schools Fund in Washington, D.C.) has a nice (elegant, organized) website,


but on reviewing the tax returns (just a half-day’s worth or less) is already looking more like a sort of front group, delayed filing its first tax return for several years (after reported receipt of funds — which is illegal) and barely filled in the blanks, once they started.  Their connections to subgrantees is probably more relevant — which is not obvious at the UCBerkeley 2008 Roundtable level. The DC nonprofit’s website collects via “Network for Good” and obscures its own financials, showing a reticence to reveal who, as an entity, it is.

From the “about us page” towards the bottom:

The 21st Century School Fund helps staff the National Council on School Facilities. 21CSF provided support to an ad-hoc committee of school facilities directors in order to help plan and launch the National Council. The National Council’s mission is to support states in their varied roles and responsibilities for the delivery of safe, healthy, and educationally appropriate school facilities that are sustainable and fiscally sound. The membership is made of state K-12 public school facilities leaders.

And another article on this from 2016 is actually a press release by the USGBC (U.S. Green Building Council).  In the first sentence you can identify thus three different nonprofits, with (1) the most recent one (National Council, above) run by, apparently, civil servants (government employees) serving thus in both a private [this sponsored nonprofit] and a public capacity, (2) the 21st Century School Fund, which for purposes of starting the council, took money from another one (The Advancement Project — below) which itself, privately funded, still (as I scanned some of the tax returns) took a $1.2M grant from the Ford Foundation for their operating endowment… and (3) the USGBC itself (“LEEDS” in upper right corner).

The discussion then goes into a funding gap.  This ignores what I have later on this post, which brings up the topic of BUDGET  vs. TOTAL INVESTMENT ASSETS (as reported by CAFRs), and the typical assumptions, which those who know better, continue to let slide, that the larger held assets did not exist, or that if some of their revenues were used to meet any deficits or funding gaps, “the sky would fall.”

With a public, most people (most of us) not knowledgeable or literate enough on anything to contradict such assertions, the assertions go unchallenged, and this “business as usual” of stockpiling revenue-producing assets under government control, with private investments driving what happens to public assets in which the public lives, at least most of the children, MOST of their waking lives, and their parents often spend much of their WORKING lives, propping up… continues.

New report by USGBC, the 21st Century School Fund and National Council on School Facilities projects a $46 billion annual deficit in U.S. school funding

 Groundbreaking Schools Report Shows Systemic Inequity in a State-By-State Analysis of Investment in American School Infrastructure  Published on 23 Mar 2016 Written by Leticia McCadden

Washington, D.C.—(March 23, 2016)—The State of Our Schools: America’s K–12 Facilities report, released today by the Center for Green Schools at the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), the 21st Century School Fund and the National Council on School Facilities, shows that the nation faces a projected annual shortfall of $46 billion in school funding, despite significant effort on the part of local communities.

“One out of every six people in the U.S. spends each day in a K–12 public school classroom, yet there is very little oversight over America’s public school buildings,” said Rick Fedrizzi, CEO and founding chair, USGBC. “It is totally unacceptable that there are millions of students across the country who are learning in dilapidated, obsolete and unhealthy facilities that pose obstacles to their learning and overall well-being. U.S. public school infrastructure is funded through a system that is inequitably affecting our nation’s students, and this has to change.”

The report features an in-depth, state-by-state analysis of investment in school infrastructure and focuses on 20 years of school facility investment nationwide, as well as funding needed moving forward to make up for annual investment shortfalls for essential repairs and upgrades. The report also proposes recommendations for investments, innovations and reforms to improve learning environments for children in all U.S. public schools.

“The data on funding school infrastructure paints a clear picture of the importance of a national conversation regarding the way improvements are funded. The conversation surrounding student achievement must also include a component addressing the places where our children learn,” said Mike Rowland, president, National Council on School Facilities and director of Facilities Services for the Georgia Department of Education.

The report compares historic spending levels to the investment that will be needed moving forward to maintain today’s school building inventory. Estimated facilities investment requirements are based on building industry best practice standards that are adapted to public school infrastructure. This comparison reveals a projected gap of $46 billion that we as a nation must overcome to provide healthy, safe, and adequate school facilities for our children. Only three states’ average spending levels meet or exceed the standards for investment: Texas, Florida and Georgia.

The analysis found that the federal government provides almost no capital construction funding for school facilities, and state support for school facilities varies widely.

The 21stCSF is a small entity with possibly very bad judgment, but here it’s funding another nonprofit.

In fact the books of that nonprofit (NCSF let’s call it for short) in its ONLY tax return filed to date, a Form 990EZ, are listed as ℅ the 21stCSF.  (single-row TABLE below).

I checked IRS Exempt Organization Select (<=search site; selected for Form 990-N search) for a possible earlier Form 990-N (Electronic Postcard) filing under the same (Nat’l Council) EIN#, and DID find one for its FY2012 (2012-2013 timespan), only.  Which leaves only the two questions (see Sched A image below), 1. where is the filing for FY 2013 (2013-2014) time span,  and 2. how is it that the 21st Century Fund, which claims having was given $50,000 in 2012 to start up the organization (whose books are under the control of the 21stcSF — the second small, horizontal-rectangular image below), but the NCSF somehow received $2,226 less, neatly qualifying it for not having to file a full-sized tax return (the cutoff is $50,000) (next 2 images)?

Search results showing NCSF filed a Form 990-N (post-card declaration of receipts not >$50K) so did not have to file a full-size Form 990 or 990EZ.

NCSF (EIN#46-194556) FY2012 Form 990-N details “Gross receipts not greater than $50,000

Except for only $1,000 donation, its revenues are ONLY membership dues, and its “Schedule A” of prior support shows that, despite this being its first filing, it qualified to have been required to produce a Form 990 (as I understand these things) starting a few years earlier, with the first year of funds received (Grant from 21st Century School fund, $50K recorded)[See below — I’d remembered The Advancement Project’s $50K grant to 21st Century School Fund, not the latter’s grant to a new nonprofit NCSF the same or any other year] as $47K.   WHAT’s MORE — membership requires being in a position of authority and control over school authorities (per the site) in either the 50 states or

click image for better view

Natl Council on School Facilities EIN#461945786, from Form 990EZ FY2014 (YESep302015) (apparently 1st) showing who holds its books!

NatlCouncilOn SchoolFacilities EIN#461945786, Form 990EZ FY2014** (YE Sep302015) (apparently 1st) SCHED A Pt III showing first funds rec’d **2012!

click image for better view

territories or (membership images below) “Bureau of Indian Affairs.”  SO, the membership fees would be coming from public sources, presumably! Fewer than half the states are involved so far. Like 21st Century Schools Fund, I see the National Council on School Facilities is not too interested in posting its own financials so far.

Total results: 1Search Again.

NATIONAL COUNCIL ON SCHOOL FACILITIES DC 2015* 990EZ 13 $83,725.00 46-1945786

*representing FY2014 only.  Where is tax return for FY 2015, which ended Sep. 30, 2016 (7 months ago)?


That one is moving to federalize the schools also, or at least the infrastructure assets of the schools as to planning for them.  The “About” page (see excerpt) explains that that facilities managers started meeting in 2006, planning in 2010, and only in 2012 did a grant coming THROUGH the 21st Century Schools Fund from another source (link provided) help the nonprofit get set up.  See second image for at least part of the purpose:

<==History of the Council (Nat’l Council on School Facilities).

“In 2006, state PK-12 public school facilities directors began meeting to exchange information on state-level policy and practice concerning PK-12 infrastructure. [see +++ Dec. 2016 Report] In 2010, the ad-hoc committee began planning a new nonprofit organization focused on state roles and responsibilities for PK-12 public infrastructure.

“The 21st Century School Fund, a long-standing {(??First Form 990 only filed in 2003)} advocate for high-quality public school facilities, received a grant from the Advancement Project to provide support to the ad-hoc committee of school facilities directors in order to help plan and launch the Council.

“As a result of a year-long feasibility-study process involving the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii,  Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Missouri, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, representatives from  ten states came together on December 2, 2012 to form the National Council on School Facilities.”

A year-long study “involving” 26 states (involved how?) apparently recruited representatives from less than half (10 states), although this summary doesn’t name WHICH states the 10 reps came from.  Besides which — There are 50 states.  Within each state, MANY school districts exist (Did this say how many representatives from the 10 states “came together” to form a new, sponsored-by-the-Advancement Project through-the 21st Century Schools Fund” nonprofit?)

In FY 2012, The Advancement Project granted 21st Century School Fund $50,000 (one of $342K worth of grants split 14 ways, and this one marked only “Education” as to right-hand column, “Purpose”).  Two images (horizontal charts) from that tax return, EIN# 954835230, Schedule I More are for Voting Rights than for Education.

I see no corresponding grant FROM 21st Century School Fund TO the National Council on School Facilities that year (or any year), probably because both are at the same location, and the relationship is, well, “complicated” (for example, although one basically created the other, the creator entity (not counting Advancement Project sponsorship in 2012) says it’s working for the created entity.  “Go figure.”

+++ (that 2016 report pictured above, referenced on the NCSF website) State Facilities Leaders Call for PK–12 Public Schools in Federal Infrastructure Initiative.  NCSF has a logo and letterhead listing their board members (public officials in various states).  The next image is from bottom of p1, top of p2 (to catch the logo) describing what I just referenced in the lsat paragraph:  “It’s complicated!”

It reads in part (Click Image to View full doc’t):   The National Council on School Facilities represents the states’ perspectives and experience regarding effective policy, planning, practice, regulation, finance, and management of PK–12 public school facilities. The 21st Century School Fund provides research, staff support, and technical assistance to the National Council. Contact: Mary Filardo, Executive Director, 21st Century School Fund (etc.) Joseph da Silva, Ph.D., AIA, 2017 President, National Council on School Facilities E-mail: president@facilitiescouncil.org


Education Writers’ Association, Mary Filardo continues to claim a 1994 start date for 21st Century School Fund; note she got a MPP from Univ. of Maryland in 1993, and before that a BA from St. Johns before? 1979, per this (from EWA headshot website):

Mary Filardo is a leading national authority and advocate for improving the equity, efficiency and quality of public school facilities.  She founded the 21st Century School Fund in 1994 to improve the policies and practice for planning, design, construction, management and financing for the District of Columbia Public Schools and then in 2001 started Building Educational Success Together (BEST) to work nationally on these issues. She has written extensively on public school facility issues and developed software to support long-range facilities master planning. She worked in the private sector in residential construction management and was an active parent advocate during the 19 years her children were in the D.C. public schools. She received a bachelor’s degree in philosophy and mathematics from St. John’s College, is a 1979 Truman Scholar from the District of Columbia, and was awarded a Master of Public Policy from the University of Maryland in 1993.

The only grant from 21cSF to anyone in its FY2012 was to “Cathy Reilly SHAPPE”– for $30K, who received grants from them for several years in a row, in fact.  In FY2004, a direct relationship between 21cSF grants to SHAPPE ($26,950) and their first-listed Program Service Accomplishment (which references grants of $26,950).  Next two images and here’s the whole return (of course, anyone can look this up by tweaking the url to the year, as I’ve posted from time to time). Question:  NCSF isn’t getting direct grants, just “technical assistance” (which would also imply some sort of contract between the two) yet becomes a separate entity (at the same address), while SHAPPE has been getting grants for years, and exists at a different address (per most of the returns) but SHAPPE didn’t become its own 501©3?  WHY?



DC.gov references Cathy Reilly as former 21stCSF board of directors, yet 21stcSF was granting to her ℅ “SHAPPE” for yrs under Sched I “Grants to Orgs and Govts in the US” (as I recall). If she was at same time a bd of directors, this should’ve been acknowledged. S.H.A.P.P.E. has a googlewebsite but may not be an actual org. CLICK IMAGE TO READ (site was undated).

I looked chronologically through 21st Century School Fund grants from their tax returns (including several early ones to, for some reason, Chile (as in South America), and others seemingly to individuals, and consistent grants between $20 and $30K/year to a “Cathy Reilly SHAPPE” where S.H.A.P.P.E. is “Senior High Alliance of Parents, Principals and Educators, not that the tax return says so.  An EIN# was given which didn’t show up as qualifying for tax-deductible contributions.

Also 21st SF was or is sponsoring someone already well-known, well-favored, and connected with two major nonprofit entities on a continuing basis:  Mark Schneider of SUNY, AIR and AEI.

Click Image To See Advancmt Project (in CA) FY2012 Sched I Grants (p1 of 2) showing $50,000 to 21st Century School Fund (in DC but working/ contracting consistently over the years with UCBerkeley Center for Cities and Schools)

Advancemt Project p2 of 2 Grants, FY2012 (Click image to see.)

 See red-and-white image for “SHAPPE” below.  Next link (to a pdf from same website) shows that in fact, 21stCSF was functioning as Cathy Reilly (loosely named ‘SHAPPE’)’s fiscal agent: Contribute pge@ SHAPPE (Sr High Alliance-Parents,Princpls+ Educ’trs ADMITS that 21stSF Is its Fiduciary (Fiscal) agent — give at NetwkForGood (printed from GoogleWebsite2017May5




























So, who is The Advancement Project?”  It is probably in California — the website reveals NOTHING but brief rhetoric about their purpose, after which readers must choose either “National” (photo of a woman), or California (photo of a man) for more information:

Advancement Project is a multi-racial civil rights organization. Founded by a team of veteran civil rights lawyers in 1999, [Make that 2001, earliest return, 2002] Advancement Project was created to develop and inspire community-based solutions based on the same high quality legal analysis and public education campaigns that produced the landmark civil rights victories of earlier eras. From Advancement Project’s inception, we have worked “on-the-ground,” helping organized communities of color dismantle and reform the unjust and inequitable policies that undermine the promise of democracy. Simultaneously, we have aggressively sought and seized opportunities to promote this approach to racial justice.

[Click Image to See better]. California-based, EIN 954835230, started 2001, incl several attorneys, Stephen English + Molly Munger (husband/wife), Harry Belafonte (FY2002 at least) and others in L.A. & S.F., NY (sev’l incl NE regional director of the AFL-CIO, DC, AustinTX and (original return) ONE from Mississippi. Mostly privately funded. In 2012 ?Sched O notes $1.2M grant from Ford Foundatn for an Endowmt.

Our Mission Statement:“Advancement Project is a next generation, multi-racial civil rights organization. Rooted in the great human rights struggles for equality and justice, we exist to fulfill America’s promise of a caring, inclusive and just democracy. We use innovative tools and strategies to strengthen social movements and achieve high impact policy change.”

Cute.  This philosophy will be sure to direct systems-change activities towards attorneys, who play a significant role in this project’s board and (I looked) early highest paid employees.


I recognized the names Stephen English and Molly Munger (searchable on this blog).  IN 2012, when “The Advancement Project” granted “21st Century Schools Fund” (in D.C.) $50K (I looked it up) for “National Council on School Facilities” (which EIN# I haven’t even looked up yet), Ms. Munger ALSO spent $44.1M to push a proposition to raise more money for public schools.  L.A. Weekly reports:

Proposition 38: Molly Munger Spends Whopping $44.1 Million on Public Schools Funding Initiative TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012 by Patrick Range McDonald in L.A. Weekly

Molly Munger and husband Steve English (by Nanette Gonzales)

The Pasadena civil rights attorney, according to votersedge.org, contributed $44.1 million to Prop. 38, which seeks to improve funding for K-12 public schools through a state income tax hike. A recent Field Poll, however, found that only 34 percent of likely voters support the initiative.

EdSource.org compares spending for Prop. 38 and Prop. 30 — Governor Jerry Brown’s tax hike measure that is competing with Munger’s. …

Munger is the first woman in recent memory to put such major bucks behind a California ballot measure. | Steve English, her husband, also invested heavily in Proposition 38, handing over $3.2 million.

The California political establishment did not put money into Proposition 38. Instead, they forked over millions to Brown’s Proposition 30, which seeks to plug the state’s multi-billion-dollar budget deficit and stop “trigger cuts” for public education funding.

EdSource.org notes that “the largest contributors to Prop. 30 are the California Teachers Association, with a contribution of $11.6 million, the Service Employees International Union ($11.3 million), the Democratic State Central Committee ($5.1 million), the American Federation of Teachers ($4.4 million), and the Coca Cola Company, with just over $2 million.”

One more from 2012 (when The Advancement Project helped start up another nonprofit around school facilities infrastructure, but chose to do this through the 21st Century Schools Fund, for some reason…), this Nov. 7, 2012, by “Take Two®”  at SCPR.org (Southern California Public Radio, 89.3) tells more about who Ms. Munger and her half-brother Charles are, while reflecting on how you can’t always buy the popular votes, even should you be positioned in life to try.  It also has a 3-min. video.


Molly Munger’s Proposition 38 has officially lost. Munger, a multi-millionaire and Pasadena civil rights attorney has personally spent more than $44 million on the Yes on 38 campaign. Her brother Charles Munger spent $3 million on the campaign.

Molly Munger joins the show to talk about the outcome of her proposition and what she thinks is next for California schools.

Rich Padroncelli/AP, (see photo caption). Molly Munger…

Photo caption: Molly Munger, a wealthy civil rights attorney and primary advocate behind Proposition 38 on the California ballot, meets with reporters in Sacramento, Calif. Munger, the daughter of wealthy investor Charles Munger Sr., is on the opposite side of the political isle [sic] as her half brother, Charles Munger Jr. who is major donor behind Proposition 32, which limits campaign contributions from unions. Both Mungers have spent millions in this election year to transform California’s political landscape. [emphases added//LGH]]

Interview Highlights:

Her thoughts after hearing Prop 38 did not pass:
“Proposition 30 was supported by an enormous and powerful political machine, we certainly weren’t so its not such a surprise that when the governor of the state and all of the muscle that comes with that gets behind something that its very hard for the underdog, But when the underdog still comes up with 2.5 million votes thats still pretty good. You have to look at it that way, we’re fighting for the kids.”

Sounds like this particular underdog comes from a family line that knows how to leverage tax-exempt positions and back-end financing coast-to-coast; so a major increase in the income tax for ALL Californians may not hit her (and associates) quite so hard as “the average Joe.” The Munger wealth, I see from an April 4, 2015 Los Angeles Times article on Charles Munger, Jr. (a physicist whose father Charles T. Munger, then 91 and father of 8 children, was vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, i.e., business partner of Warren Buffet….).  Apparently son Charles spent $78M (starting in 2005) on campaigns to “remake” the Republican party in California.

I also cannot overlook the factor of public/private partnerships where there are investments by private entities in public assets with good odds when the public is taxed to make good on the government’s part of said investments.  Could this be also a part of the motivation?  Whatever the motivation, this family line doesn’t come from acquaintance with the “underdogs” of society, or through the underdogs’ school systems all the way, either.

GOP Donor Charles Munger finds Wealth Buys Few Friends, by Michael Finnegan and Maloy Moore Contact Reporters, April 4, 2015 in L.A. Times

…”If it weren’t for Charles Munger, the California Republican Party would have been driven into the sea at this point,” said Kevin Spillane, a GOP strategist.”

….Munger grew up in Hancock Park. He attended a local public school, Third Street Elementary, and a private high school, Harvard, now known as Harvard-Westlake.

He is one of eight children of Charles T. Munger, 91, the vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Corp. The family’s roots are in Nebraska, where Munger’s father met his business partner, Warren Buffett.  When Munger was a child, the family spent summer vacations in Minnesota at the same rustic lakeside cabin where his father and grandfather had long taken fishing holidays.

By the time Forbes listed his father as a billionaire, Munger was an adult. With net worth pegged at $1.3 billion, his father is ranked today as the world’s 1,415th richest person. He still lives in the North June Street house where Munger was raised.

Adept at math and science, Munger earned a bachelor’s degree in physics at Stanford University [[PRIVATE university in SF Bay Area//Silicon Valley etc.]] and a doctorate in physics at UC Berkeley. [[obviously PUBLIC]].

“My thesis topic was The Lamb Shift in Heliumlike Uranium,” he said by email.

Munger settled in Palo Alto [[home to Stanford]], where he and his wife, attorney Charlotte Lowell, have raised three children. He has not held a paid job since his research appointment at Stanford’s Linear Accelerator Center ended about 1992.

Family wealth has enabled him “to have the sort of scientific career usually supported by a salaried position at a national laboratory,” he wrote.


Getting back to the Advisory Board (including but NOT limited to the Mary Filardo of the 21st Century Schools Fund, Inc.) for the UCBerkeley Center for Cities & Schools….

…I found a July 2005 “Webcast” (power-point-style) referencing Mary Filardo as Executive Director of the 21st Century Schools Fund (“21stCSF” for short), posted under “NGA” (National Governors’ Association!).

Two “slides” below show other involved entities in the “BEST” network.  You will notice (left slide imaged below) the last two “partners” are National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities and Mark Schneider, SUNY Stony Brook.

I see from its tax returns that the “21stCSF” has been partially subsidizing Mark Schneider’s work which  is published in part by the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.  He also has ties (relationships) with both the AIR (American Institutes for Research) as an officer? and Institute Fellow, and a visiting ________ (expert?) at the well-known American Enterprise Institute which APPEARS to be residing within a street address or two of the former “National Trust for Historic Preservation” (EIN#53-0210807) also listed as a “partner” below) in Washington, D.C., which at some point moved OUT of the historic Andrew Mellon bank building (1785 Massachusetts Avenue NW) right near the “DuPont Circle,” to what is now the Watergate Office address (its website SavingPlaces.org shows map of US Office locations and that address)  while the American Enterprise Institute (AEI, not “AIR”) now is at 1789 Massachusetts Avenue NW.

[AEI welcomes comments on the policies and procedures described here. They should be sent to Arthur C. Brooks, President, American Enterprise Institute, 1789 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036. https://www.aei.org/about/ (phrase is at bottom of the page)]

Earlier tax return for 2010 (tricky to find because they’d changed the fiscal year recently away from Calendar Year) (and the website name also) confirms that it the NTHP used to be at 1785 Massachusetts NW.  It’s also interesting in that contributions (primarily private) increased drastically this year, but with $8M of grants donated (Expenses) there was an $8M budget deficit with Stephanie Meeks at the helm.

The current director of the National Trust for Historic Preservation (at least I think the current President) Stephanie Meeks, formerly worked for a $105-$110M annual (government grants primarily and NONcash donations primarily) entity called “Counterpart International.”  She was CEO there (Counterpart International) being paid $300K one year, then $138K the next (considerably lower, including than others involved) then moved on down the road apiece in 2010.  Per the wiki on that institution… and the tax returns I, naturally, was curious about.

{{=recent look-ups, I need to double-check the previous paragraph’s facts re: street addresses, and will correct as needed; sometimes I confuse one nonprofit with another.   Perhaps seeing how many of them exist, interacting with each other, doing this periodically is a pardonable offense!)

“WaPo” 2010 article on Stephanie Meek’s career transition (referenced from Wiki on the org. mentioned in its title)

(MORE on this fascinating situation will be reported separately, it’s a little complex).{Just two other examples, not my main point here):





A”Parents as Partners” search results (two main bulleted points, and below that, images):

  • From “Scholastic.com“, a “toolkit” for getting parents involved.  In the good old days (“once upon a time”) teacher were teachers (they taught reading, writing, and diagramming sentences) and parents were parents (teaching practical life skills, values and beliefs, etc.) (delegation of respective duties towards children).  [See first image or link] I should point out that the seemingly innocuous introductory comments are still misleading and inaccurate, and so not really “innocuous.”  Introductory comments are often spreading a foundation, a basis for what follows — often a recommendation, proposal, or statement of a need or problem to be solved in a certain way based on them.  They do matter, and I admit a tendency to argue with some, in part to show, it’s important to stay awake while in the process leading up to potential “sale” of goods or services in the public sector.
    • [1] Someone seems to have forgotten history that before, during & after “once upon a time” there have been parents teaching their kids to read (some also to diagram sentences and do math) also … Also, that state-supported public schools had a start date CENTURIES (if not millennia) after “teachers” of all kinds, and were not a nationwide, original feature even of the United States of America.
    • [2] the emphasis here is parent-less or family-deprived kids who need the schools (i.e., teachers) to step in and perform some familial functions.  No reference is made (but many of us experientially know) just how much parents have to step in, whether as volunteers, fund-raisers, hiring outside contractors for the schools, or for their own children (as possible) after school, to compensate for academics the (typically public) schools are not adequately providing for their enrolled children.
  • 9/20/2011 piece under “Finding Common Ground” (fine print to right, Peter DeWitt, Ed.D., former K-15 teacher, principal, and now (of course) consultant, trainer teacher and author) on how schools and parents ought to get along.  EdWeek.org publishes the opinion (page?) “Finding Common Ground.”

Click image to read fine print on this Scholastic.com article

Click image to read this 9/20/2011 article from EdWeek.org

Maybe not the best examples, but I’m going to move on with the post here.

In reference to my blogging, “the U.S.A.” often refers to the federal government OF the United States of America, specifically.

Plenty of profit-producing activities, and the entities and persons  who run them, not to mention plenty of profit-producing assets owned (or held in trust for others) by non-government entities and “persons” (corporate or flesh-and-blood human beings who still function as [are I gather considered] “persons” in the US Commercial sense)  in this country are taxed, and as an employer, no doubt the federal government pays certain taxes too, BUT entity-wise, its profits are tax-exempt, as are (to the best of my understanding) also are the profits (excess revenues after expenses are paid) from business operations or investment income of ALL government entities, of any sort, “across the board.”

That’s one significant difference between government and business — businesses have to come up with and organize themselves under some justification for tax-exemption while profiting (lots or little) from their activities — or income-producing assets; governments do not. Governments tax, and tax receipts collected go TO the governments; they are not taxable corporations or entities per se.

  • Incidentally, “churches” and certain religious qualifying organizations (houses of worship, etc. — see IRS.gov for which) are in a sense like government in that, once registered as such religious-exempt organizations, they don’t have to pay taxes on revenues (even if in the millions of dollars every year) from being a church or house of worship, NOR do they have to provide for the public tax returns on their assets and income as religious-exempt entities.  Government entities at least have to open their books in the form of financial statements — but some entities in this country do not.  They are private AND above that law that allegedly equalizes us all on the same page as just wanting to get along and manage society’s problems, together.
  • I’m sure this isn’t “breaking news” to most people, but it should not be forgotten as a factor in the collective status of life in the USA, and who controls how much of the overall real estate AND OTHER revenue-producing assets — including funds held and invested in public-traded securities, private traded securities, “other securities,” US or other government debt, etc.  Major wealth-holders don’t typically just stash it in savings or bank accounts, but spread out the types of investments across many categories, including hedge funds –private equity — emerging markets, international (and so forth)…
  • Later in this post I show some partner operations from a church whose pastor represented the “faith-based sector” on a White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Partnerships (Advisory Council or Council). The church links people to the partner organizations, and the partner organizations may or may not link to public funds.  This example shows what can happen when a church –itself exempt — partners with organizations that do have to file, but may be religiously of the same sentiments — and how leaders in these fields can get sometimes closer access to an elected official can than “normal” working/taxable human beings, I mean “persons.”  WHAT DO THOSE TAX RETURNS LOOK LIKE — AND WHO EVER CHECKS UP ON THEM?

And — just a reminder — check the US Census Bureau’s census of governments.  There are more than thousands of government entities; they are doing business, and that business is not taxable.  They also hold income-producing assets for both government activities, which is also not taxable, and for proprietary (held in trust for others).  And I’m not sure this US Census Bureau even takes into account the various JPAs that are formed time and again not just within a state (that census is given state by state), but also across state lines — like the WestEd I referenced, and its two earlier components.

2012 Census of Governments [see “https://www.census.gov/govs/cog/“]

The Census of Governments identifies the scope and nature of the nation’s state and local government sector; provides authoritative benchmark figures of public finance and public employment; classifies local government organizations, powers, and activities; and measures federal, state, and local fiscal relationships.

The data are available by:

  • level of government (state, local, or state and local combined),
  • type of government (state, county, city, township, special district, school district), and
  • category of governmental activity (more about governmental activities).

Next image from this website shows there is no table (and I don’t think they’d be included) for government entities as large or of the same type as WestEd (which covers several states and has cited a $160 million ANNUAL budget for running regional education laboratories– that’s not including its held assets, which, I think, includes buildings at least in SF and Los Angeles, which are rented out to others.  An “OIG” audit referenced these).  I haven’t located a financial statement for WestEd yet — it’s not advertising where this may be “warehoused” on-line, if anywhere. Perhaps having originated in California I might hunt it down at the California State (Dept. of Education) level.

The description of what qualifies something as “government” (per the Census

Click IMAGE to see full-sized (Tables to 2012 US Census of Govts issued Sep 2013)

Bureau) is good reading in the intro  of the 2012 Census (issued Sept. 2013).  I’ve posted it before.

The summaries are divided according to the five basic types of local governments recognized for the U.S. Census Bureau’s classification of government units— county, municipal, township, school district, and special district governments.

County, municipal, and township governments are readily recognized and generally present no serious problem of classification. However, legislative provisions for school district and special district governments are diverse. Numerous single-function and multiple-function districts, authorities, commissions, boards, and other entities, which have varying degrees of autonomy, exist in the United States. The basic pattern of these entities varies widely from state to state. Moreover, various classes of local governments within a particular state also differ in their characteristics.

Before attempting to identify and count governments, it is necessary to define what is to be counted and to establish standards for classifying the various types of governmental entities that exist. The discussion below sets forth the definitions and criteria that the Census Bureau uses in classifying and counting governments for the purpose of developing statistics on governments.

A government is an organized entity that, in addition to having governmental character, has sufficient discretion in the management of its own a airs to distinguish it as separate from the administrative structure of any other governmental unit.

To be counted as a government, any entity must possess all three of the attributes re ected in the foregoing definition: existence as an organized entity, governmental character, and substantial autonomy.

So, what according to the US Census Bureau (under the Dept. of Commerce) is “governmental character”?

See annotated image (from same pdf, below, right); I circled and underlined two important parts — (1) being responsible to the public, they must issue reports accessible TO the public (Typically, the “CAFR” format). WE SHOULD SEEK THESE AND LEARN TO READ THEM!) and, (2) they can levy taxes (!) and issue debt (meaning, I thinkborrow — when others buy into that debt and are later repaid with interest) for which interest earned on that debt is tax-exempt to the recipient [[i.e., such as bonds, often named after specific projects for which they may be issued — along with the issuing authority, such as — a special district.]].

Gov’t Character (from Definitions part of 2012 US Census of Gov’ts) CLICK IMAGE if needed to read full-sized.

JPA — Joint Power Authority (or, “Agency”)..

JPAs formed BY other JPAs for specific projects, often construction or other infrastructure-related, as involved with the San Francisco “Sinking Towers” (Millennial Towers) topic I blogged in one of my Q1 2017 Retrospective posts.  The Millennial Towers themselves were not (that I’m aware of) a public/private project, but a privately developed highrise with residential condos located in downtown San Francisco right next door to a public project, the Transbay Terminal — and the debate was on who was to blame for a major high-rise tilting to one side from sinking foundations (on one side only!) AFTER the luxury condos were bought and residents inside, as visible from space (!).

Also remember Walter Burien’s work at CAFR1.com SINCE 1998, on this same topic, or several others’ also, but for straight-talk hard to debate — because it’s straight talk — I still say his description of the overall situation “hits a bases-loaded home run.”

It’s ESSENTIAL understanding, and “IF TRUE,” is so basic, it shifts the entire perspective on the entire governmental landscape: on things financial in high places.  Burien doesn’t say much about the nonprofit sector (that’s kind of been my “thing”) or religious as playing into the whole, but name me if you can, someone else who’s laid out earlier, and any better, the issue of media and governmental blackout/ overall concealment of governmental financial statements from the public as a topic of discourse for decades (while profits accumulated)….

NEXT (as a reminder): three screenprints from CAFR1.com home page– not necessarily the most recent information he has put out.  I subscribe to his email list — it’s not excessive, but when emails do come out, they are always worth reading, and sometimes in response to a current nationally reported situation, others in response to questions or comments submitted elsewhere.  Note: The first image says “We the people as the #1 beneficiary” — however as I understand it, this is NOT the current situation, but  an ideal. Instead, “We the public” seem to be currently the ‘trickle-down” beneficiary, although it’s our labor, efforts (taxed) and consumption (sometimes forced consumption) of multiple layers of government entity enterprises (remember — that’s MANY of them) as well as being tagged to fund the debt for infrastructure owned and controlled by government (speaking collectively) itself at multiple levels (local, county, special district, school districts, state, WDC, etc.), making us more likely the targeted source of major “credit” (through the ability of government to levy taxes — appropriate assets if they’re not paid — and issue debt) for many private investors who are so eager to enter public/private partnerships.

In other words, we’ve been sold as real, and as comprehensive summary of the position of government(s, collective) something which isn’t real, although technically referring constantly to “budget deficit” isn’t so much “lying” as “not telling the whole truth,” or turning the lights on the respective difference in size between that “not told” and that advertised and pushed on the public from all sides — “Budget Deficit,” and so on.  That’s why I use the phrase “honest.”  This behavior is NOT “honest” i.e., showing intent that we all know the whole truth and potentially act on it, instead of the parts that are being fed us, piecemeal and with a desired outcome in mind while feeding this information (i.e., submit to reduction in services, consolidation in agencies and governments across jurisdictional lines, and/or raised taxes — up to breaking points, which can be and are being continually tempered and tested over time for just how much the public will put up with, and how gullible (we) are).

CAFR1.com selected screenprints: 1 of 3

CAFR1.com selected screenprints: 2 of 3

CAFR1.com selected screenprints: 3 of 3


Businesses apparently quickly figured out doing business with the big-guys (gov’ts.) over time is a fantastic source of revenues, and that by funneling some profits and holdings into tax-exempt entities, can hit “two (or more) birds with one stone“: taking credit for doing good deeds for others, and reducing what would otherwise be taxed; attracting contribu-tions from others (with something to give!), a double-benefit for the donors, who also reduce (typically) their own taxation in the process.

Kind of like a money-magnet for easing one’s conscience for the “haves,” and selling hope for the future in problem-solving for “the have-nots.”  Yes, there are many similarities with religious entities and government, and private tax-exempt philanthropies or foundations, even in the official “no national religion” at least of the traditional nomenclatures (labels, varieties) U.S.A.


Calling the U.S.A. a “Church” — well, now that we’ve reviewed what is “government” and some types (like WestEd) who may not even be counted even in the U.S. Census of Governments, state by state (and for D.C.),

WestEd is playing “hide-and-seek” (in addition to fronting with false descriptions of when it started or what it was “founded as” and finally coughing up an accurate — but absent DATES fine-print admission in fine print on the very, very bottom of an annual financial report I did find)** about WHO it is on its own annual report (which is more advertisement and program summary than a set of audited financials), and whose audited financials in CAFR format, it’s playing shy about also.  I’ve blogged it.  I have a post in draft (“Disconnected”) on it, and may not include the recent screenprints proving this statement here, but you can look through the 2011 Annual report I found, which sidebars throughout call it a “Catalyst”  and “Agency,” then finally show, on the page listing its 16 offices (many, but not all, in California or other western state, such as Arizona)

© 2012 WestEd. All rights reserved.

WestEd is a public, not-for-profit education and research agency created under a Joint Powers Agreement, pursuant to California government code section 6507.** WestEd is tax exempt under Section 115(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code. With this status, WestEd’s work meets the giving guidelines for philanthropic or- ganizations. Building on more than four decades of research, development, and service work, WestEd’s commitment in the 21st century is to foster success for children and schools by helping resolve the most critical problems confronting education and related areas of human development.

The creation of a business or agency, officially, requires a DATE.  The omission of date here constitutes an omission, makes the statement a half-truth.  Also, anything created has at least one BY WHOM — “creators” — and WestEd had two creators — but near the front of the report claims that it was originally found as (both of them) in 1966, which is a lie, shown (it’s on the WestEd.org website under “About” but as a link) in which both creating JPAs (which were around decades earlier) clearly distinguished their creaTION (“WestEd”) from themselves, meaning this was NOT a traditional merger with a surviving and a dissolving entity.

Extracting this truth (and that there were untruths scattered around the annual report) is “like pulling teeth, “possibly without anesthesia.   The truth doesn’t come to the surface easily, pressure must be applied, and the process can be painful and expose some painful related truths — like the dishonesty!

From 2011 WestEd Annual Rept; Click IMAGE for better view (annotated excerpt)

Sidebar Detail WestEd 2-11 Annual Rept; click image for better view. The “Founded As” sector is misleading –> in fact, false.

Those involved must surely know that a government ENTITY (including a JPA) MUST produce a financial report of a certain kind (CAFR-style, with the numbers, not promotional, glossy-pdf-advertising our programs-style) and some casual references to numbers to satisfy the partially curious only.

By the way, I saw contracts with some of the other nonprofits I’ve been reporting on listed, as well as “funding sources” (donors) — that is, Coalition for Essential Schools (WHICH ONE, not shown), and “Alliance for Excellent Education,” and others.

Does that clarify better what “Government Entity” means as to its character, tax-exempt status, and duty to report to the public on its operations, and financial holdings? AND, that government entities can levy taxes (taxes FYI can be levied from other government entities to support contracts with or grants to WestEd activities) and when they raise money by issuing debt (which the public is going to pay off anyhow one way or another) for which it pays interest to the debt-holders, that interest is not taxable to those who have been holding it. (cf. “tax-exempt bonds…”)  This attracts investors, I suppose. [Not a CPA, don’t quote me on that].  The interest paid on debt issued by private entities isn’t tax-exempt, giving gov’t debt an advantage.

Then again, it seems that one part of government can force another into bankruptcy, which also has been happening, which might be a deterrent for specific (like, municipal) debt.  Then distressed assets (foreclosures etc.) can be sold off at below-cost…ALL in ALL, government sets the rules, and does not play by its own rules, or at least the same rules, fiscally.  Yet we are still told repeatedly (it takes a LOT of public relations to keep up this appearance) government entities as a whole are supposedly “on the same page” as the public, [although judging by the propensity for forming Public/Private Partnerships they admit to needing intensive (fast!) system transformation from time to time during national declared crises…]

Churches and houses of worship, other religious-exempt (from reporting) entities do this too; it’s a similar rationale.


So, the religious terminology in post title is deliberate and for generic application to things and causes not necessarily overtly religious on the surface.


I’m talking about “take on faith” that those in positions of trust on public/private partnerships, associations, collaborations, movements, initiatives, programs (etc.) to engineer systematic alterations in any public institutions (whether family courts, criminal justice system, child protection, juvenile justice or — from my recent blog focus — the nation’s school systems, especially urban or for ‘disadvantaged” populations, are acting in good faith.


In a panorama of restaurants, if the choices is where to dine, what about preparing one’s own food at home?  In a panorama of public school reform debates, is ‘Public v. Charter” a legitimate label, or the full spectrum?  Charter schools ARE public schools in different form!   I’ve been studying both republican and democrat/progressive school reform entities, including major sponsoring foundations — and some of these major sponsoring foundations are promoting charter schools, public school redesign, and alternative (i.e., not public schools) — so long as the leadership sit through their trainings.

AND, I didn’t even cause this — fraud and bribery, kickbacks, to the point of felony convictions have already been found, within ONE generation of the major Annenberg Public School Challenge involving the Chicago Area, and a Chicago Public Schools CEO.  (See the “Bank Street College” page I’m promoting here for more details). Generally speaking, the more networked nonprofits around, the greater opportunity for loopholes in accountability and conflicts of interest which will not come to attention promptly.

We are constantly (unless tuning it out!) being conditioned to obsessively follow politics and personalities (including the U.S. Presidents and their appointees, who differentiate themselves often by pro/con a list of causes.

This conditioning happens through the (privately owned, for the most part) mainstream media.

Just as fathers’ rights vs. violence-against-women organizations + “protective parents” groups also capitalized on-line (social media especially, blogs, Facebook, Websites, Twitter and sponsored (nonprofit-run) websites) on their differences and kept the comments coming, pro/con, pro/con, anecdote for anecdote, story for story.

Meanwhile, I found through my earlier research (much of it shown on this blog) that NONE of them were then or are now honestly and transparently reporting on their own associations and affiliations, or deals cut with the supposedly opposing side).  I can say with some authority based on what I’ve seen, that it’s a been a basic cattle drive at least since 1996 (welfare reform a major turning point year), but more likely since about 1980.  (Which just happens to be when the Department of HEW, Health, Education and Welfare (first formed in 1953, so this was a major event) split into HHS and Dept of Educ., after which HHS became THE largest grant-making agency in the US Government.

AND, as you know if you read enough of my posts, HHS was granting to both fathers’ rights groups through one funding stream (which filtered into other programming and was not just limited to a single CFDA# in activities) AND “Violence Prevention,” implying alignment with the prevention of violence against women act (VAWA, first passed 1994), such that a nonprofit could be receiving simultaneously from BOTH sides of that pro/con debate, as some big ones did.  Meanwhile, also, being nonprofits, able to attract private funding too, then organize into statewide “coalitions” and so forth, controlling (dominating) the respective fields, which is one reason I used the word “DV cartel” to describe that scenario.

Left/Right, Pro/Con, Limited-Spectrum of Issues at any time — it’s basically a cattle drive! Or should I say (in accord with the religious references), SHEEP-herding?

A new U.S. President is a terrific opportunity to drive the major news media readership/viewership/public profile up, featuring the Nation Divided, the Left/Right, or Black-Latino/White or Immigrant/Immigrant backlash, or (fill in the blank) any two, or at most three-pronged debate.

Without saying these debates have no merit or aren’t critical (if they weren’t, who’d follow them? Of course they are!), I still say, WHEN will our communal, collective, nation-wide attention be put on the operational backdrop to both sides of ANY major cause, and WHEN will some collective, communally shared comprehension, perhaps incited or inspired by enough outspoken individuals who started to pay attention, start to filter down — or bubble up — not just to a vague conscious awareness, but also to a personal interest and decision, with or without company or socially gratifying endorsement, to investigate the operational backdrop in terms which can be compared across sectors?
Whatever this type of lookup may be called doesn’t matter (I call the process “drill-downs”), so much as that it happens, and sooner rather than later.
It’s already LATE in the day for this understanding to reach, imho, anyone born after the widespread, common access to the Internet, cell phones, laptops, etc., (roughly starting 1980) or I could also say, after the civil rights movements of the 1960s when many social programs and related federal funding came into play (I’m thinking particularly about CDBGs — Community Development Block Grants, etc.).
Our access in the USA is already segregated into castes by sector (with nonprofits, universities, research organizations (incl. universities) developing shared networks that individuals can’t access.


I was inspired to preach this message again, with some show-and tell from the Annenberg Foundation, regarding Education Initiative “Annenberg Learner” (but, it could’ve been taken from almost anywhere else), after a day or two polishing the page “Bank Street College of Education” (with added reference to BroadCenter.org entities — two or three of them relating to the two Broad Foundation EIN#s also — and inclusion of where this and the Annenberg School Challenge consequences included (and intersected with) felony convictions of a Chicago Public School CEO and her forme (and, except for the convictions — and theirs) probably future intended employers who ran SUPES Academy and another entity for repairing the Chicago public schools from a safe distance of Willmette, Illinois.

The other purpose for this quick post is to publicize two additional pages supplementing the posts dealing with the role of synchronized foundations for takeover and restructuring of school systems, that is foundations funding both networks of nonprofits and a mixture of schools, school districts, departments of education to the point that tracking either the networks in isolation OR the schools, school districts, departments of education (etc.) responsibly would be so burdensome, so expensive, and so untenable that any successes in the task would seem to be “Pyrrhic” — that is, counterproductive. It would seem to cost more in the short and medium term than it might save in the long run.

Here are the two pages, both published in late April, 2017. I picked background-colors matching their appearance on the first one and as referenced in a parallel post.

Page name and link:

Bank Street College of Education and School (Fast-Tracking FYI on its 100 year Progressive, Experimental Laboratories involving Young Children, History) [published April 30, 2017].

Page name and link:

Do you Know Your NGA?  Post-PRWORA, 1998 Stealth, Coordinated Expansion/ Diversion of Welfare Funds based on Sociological, Quasi-Religious Ideology on the Ideal Family Structure (the offspring of The 1965 Moynihan Report), Facilitated by (A) At least 39 of the Nation’s Governors and (B) as Coached by Wade Horn ℅ The National Fatherhood Initiative (Page Added Sep. 2016, Published Apr. 27, 2017) [<==with a case-sensitive shortlink ending “-4qs” ]

(Check out a 1964 review of a 1964 book by James B. Conant referencing his 1957 earlier book on the American High School in which he “forgot” to mention segregation as a problem in the public schools; but now (1964) has had a moral awakening and believes that, particularly because of segregation, the current “entrenched, ruling clique” educational leadership should be deposed and replaced by “strong boards of education” with new personnel.  The review (by a woman) was in the Harvard Crimson. Ted Sizer (d. 2009) of “Coalition of Essential Schools and with Harvard School of Education (I think he was Dean) background, coming to Brown University, MUST have known about Conant, and the ECS.  It appears that he may have, in fact, copied the practice of first putting out a book, then setting up a nonprofit and demanding regional (CES was most certainly set up regionalized) networks for school change according to HIS brilliant (sic) concepts about what’s really “essential” for schools.)


BUT, that’s only if a price can be set on things which are, in fact, priceless.  Like truth, a civic understanding of government entities and how and in which ways they interact with the private, and a far better educated (more financially literate, not just “Politically persuasive — with money acquired legally and/or illegally, morally and/or immorally) populace.

And who would be motivated to do this, when the media-saturated, media-driven, public relations (PR) with political “we’re the good guys” propaganda is coming from all sides (East Coast, West Coast, several different prominent foundations, and participating school systems, often systems in trouble)?  But, I have to ask, IF and basically SINCE there isn’t a “quorum” of non-oligarchy, non-“1%” people doing this and able to connect and discuss the scenario with each other, will it self-correct or stop voluntarily?

If you’d seen what I’ve seen — including how many million-dollar salaries (not to mention investment management fees) of CEOs (not to mention substantial revenues for the subcontracting entities) the foundations can pay their own, and an obvious intent to steer the “ship of state” with “informed consent” meaning “What we decide to inform the public about — only” and not the operational backdrop to the various schemes and strategies — you might agree with me that the most priceless “commodity” is the truth of the situation, expressed in terms that are SUPPOSED to be common to all in the United States of America, primarily the subjection to individual (per-capita) tax on income earned under the label “the public good” and of course, decade after decade, the “budget deficit”

Except for those who have found ways to avoid paying it, and banded together with others to make sure this is NOT the majority of the population, whose labors, energies, problems AND poverty status are needed to justify some of the current revenue-producing strategies for these networks of “systems-change” entities, real and fake.

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

May 3, 2017 at 8:56 pm

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. daveyone1

    May 4, 2017 at 11:39 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: