Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Which organizations are willing to call for or demand a Congressional investigation of Pearson?

Let’s give Pearson’s abuse of power the national media attention it deserves. Let U.S. senators and representatives point fingers, sling mud at each other and examine financial links to Pearson’s power and influence as well as its spying activities on our children’s lives.

Pearson. PARCC. CCSS. Enough is enough.

A Congressional investigation may open this can of nasty worms to sunlight and heat – which often kills lots of nasty worms.

“Pearson’s reputation was hurt by an ongoing FBI investigation of possible collusion in dealings with the Los Angeles Unified in a contract with Apple and Pearson to supply iPads pre-loaded with Pearson’s Common Core curriculum.” – via Huffington Post. (Even more examples are given.)

State-by-state investigations are happening nationwide. We now need a national Isn’t it about time to demand a Congressional investigation of Pearson? | Reclaim Reform:

What Every American Needs to Know About High Stakes Testing and the Latest Threat to Civil Liberties | Yohuru Williams http://bit.ly/1LQtUBb

Thousands Of LAUSD Educators To Boycott After-School Faculty Meetings In Ongoing Contract Dispute « CBS Los Angeles

Thousands Of LAUSD Educators To Boycott After-School Faculty Meetings In Ongoing Contract Dispute « CBS Los Angeles:

Thousands Of LAUSD Educators To Boycott After-School Faculty Meetings In Ongoing Contract Dispute

LOS ANGELES (CBSLA.com) — In an escalating dispute between teachers and the L.A. Unified School District, educators announced that they’ll gather Tuesday to boycott faculty meetings.

It’s the latest move by the teachers union, UTLA, to negotiate better contracts.

Teachers along with health and human services professionals will gather at their school parking lots after classes let out. They’re slated to start at 2:30 p.m.

Organizers say the demonstrations won’t disrupts students’ classes.

The superintendent has threatened to dock the pay of workers who participate but educators say that won’t stop them.Thousands Of LAUSD Educators To Boycott After-School Faculty Meetings In Ongoing Contract Dispute « CBS Los Angeles:

Baraka meets with Chicago mayoral hopeful who's trying to unseat Rahm Emanuel ‪#‎Chuy2015‬

Baraka meets with Chicago mayoral hopeful who's trying to unseat Rahm Emanuel | The Auditor | NJ.com:

Baraka meets with Chicago mayoral hopeful who's trying to unseat Rahm Emanuel

Newark Mayor Ras Baraka didn't come toJesùs. Jesùs came to him.

Jesùs "Chuy" Garcia, that is — the insurgent Democrat who is attempting to unseat Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel on April 7.

The Auditor has learned that the labor-backed New Jersey Working Families Alliance — which helped Baraka in his race against Shavar Jeffries last year — arranged a dinner meeting between Baraka and Garcia at Adega Grill in Newark's Ironbound Monday night while Garcia was in the area for a fundraising swing.

A sister organization in Chicago is backing Garcia. And activists see parallels between the two men. Baraka, with the backing of organized labor and especially the city's teachers union, defeated the establishment-backed Jeffries in 2014. Garcia is attempting to ride a similar anti-establishment wave 800 miles away, although, unlike Baraka, he faces an incumbent.

Chicago mayoral candidate Jesus "Chuy" Garcia meets with Newark Mayor Ras Baraka at Adega Grill in NewarkNJ Working Families Alliance

"It's a very similarDavid and Goliathstory," said Analilia Mejia, executive director of the New Jersey Working Families Alliance. "They both have organizing community service background, they both have this history of being deeply rooted in their communities and going into public service to really push the progressive values. And they're facing off with some large, I would say well-funded Goliaths."

Emanuel, a former congressman who became the first chief of staff for President Obama before leaving in late 2010 to run for mayor, came in first place among five candidates in last months' election but failed to win a majority, forcing him into a run off with Garcia. Emanuel finished with 45.6 percent to Garcia's 33.5 percent.

Despite his deep Democratic credentials, Emanuel is unpopular with much of organized labor and other liberal groups — most notably the city's teachers union, whose members struck in 2012.

"The underlying thing here is this question of organized people versus organized money," Mejia said. "Pushing people to recognize that this model of private gain that a lot of corporate Democrats end up pushing or promoting shouldn't trump the common good. We were excited to get them together."

In a statement, Baraka said "I enjoyed meeting with Chuy Garcia. He is a progressive Latino candidate. I wish him well and support his efforts to become the next mayor of Chicago."Baraka meets with Chicago mayoral hopeful who's trying to unseat Rahm Emanuel | The Auditor | NJ.com:

Toward Fiscal Sustainability: A New Approach in Prudent Fiscal Management of Chicago

Click here to go to Jesus "Chuy" Garcia for Mayor of Chicago Website

‪#‎Chuy2015‬ ‪#‎imwithchuy‬

An open letter to NPR about their coverage of the SOS march | Parents Across America

An open letter to NPR about their coverage of the SOS march | Parents Across America:

An open letter to NPR about their coverage of the SOS march

This letter was sent today to Claudio Sanchez, the reporter and Edward Schumacher Matos, the NPR ombudsperson. We will let you know if we receive a response. If you’d like to send your own message, their emails are: csanchez@npr.org and eschumachermatos@npr.org

Dear Mr. Sanchez and Mr. Schumacher-Matos;

I was very disappointed in your coverage of the SOS march. You severely underestimated of the size of the rally, reporting that there were only 2,000 to 3,000 teachers there, whereas most others, including the National Park Service, estimated the crowd at 5,000- 8,000. You failed to mention that there were hundreds if not thousands of parents there as well – including at least two prominent speakers who represented Parents Across America – Karran Harper Royal from New Orleans and Rita Solnet from Florida.

But what most needs correction is how you gave the entire second half of your story to spokespersons from organizations that vehemently oppose the goals of the teachers and parents who participated – Democrats for Education Reform and the Fordham Institute – while making it seem as though this presentation was balanced, by calling one organization (DFER) “liberal” and one “conservative” (Fordham).

To describe Democrats for Education Reform as a “liberal” organization is highly inaccurate; it is funded exclusively by hedge-fund operators and other wealthy individuals whose primary purpose is to privatize public education through charter school expansion and to weaken the teacher unions by eliminating all seniority protections from the profession.

One of its principal founders, Whitney Tilson, recently admitted that the only reason they put “Democrats” in their name in the first place and focused on giving money to Democratic candidates was that the GOP had already adopted most of their positions. The following is an excerpt from a film made by Tilson called “A Right Denied”:

“The real problem, politically, was not the Republican party, it was the Democratic party. So it dawned on us, over the course of six months or a year, that it had to be an inside job. The main obstacle to education reform was moving the Democratic party, and it had to be Democrats who did it, it had to be an inside job. So that was the thesis behind the organization. And the name – and the name was critical – we get a lot of flack for the name. You know, “Why are you Democrats for education reform? That’s very exclusionary. I mean, certainly there are Republicans in favor of education reform.” And we said, “We agree.” In fact, our natural allies, in many cases, are Republicans on this crusade, but the problem is not Republicans. We don’t need to convert the Republican party to our point of view…”

In fact, DFER’s positions are in total agreement in every respect with the Fordham Institute, which you accurately call “conservative”– with the possible exception of publicly funded vouchers.

Many teachers and parents have expressed deep dissatisfaction with the coverage of NPR on education issues, and have given up hope for any improvement. Some parents have even pointed to the funding NPR receives from the Gates and Broad Foundations, two of the most powerful funders of the corporate reform movement.

But I have not given up hope that your coverage in the future might more fairly represent the views of real stakeholders– parents and teachers who, from the ground up, realize how the current wave of education

- See more at: http://parentsacrossamerica.org/an-open-letter-to-npr-about-their-coverage-of-the-sos-march/#sthash.PwyeTZDn.dpuf

New report: charter school fraud could be costing CA taxpayers $81 million « Education Votes

New report: charter school fraud could be costing CA taxpayers $81 million « Education Votes:

New report: charter school fraud could be costing CA taxpayers $81 million

by Jeremy Deaton

TAKE ACTION ›

To learn more about charter schools, and how they are impacting public education CLICK HERE ›

According to an audit report by California’s Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team, Ben Chavis, founder of Oakland’s American Indian Model Charter Schools, steered an estimated $3.7 million in school funds to his own businesses. The audit also listed thousands in unauthorized credit card purchases: charges for meals, flights, hotels and tickets to see the San Francisco Giants.

While these audit findings suggest the misuse of public funds at one California charter school, this is not an isolated case. Another audit by the Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team found that Kendra Okonkwo, founder of the Wisdom Academy of Young Scientists in Los Angeles, reportedly engineered $2.6 million in payments to herself, her relatives and her close associates. Steven Cox, founder of the California Charter Academy, was indicted for allegedly misappropriating $5.5 million in public funds, leading to the collapse of his school. Emilio Vazquez, executive director of Santa Ana’s Albor Charter School, allegedly funneled more than $12 million to his family, friends and businesses.

A new report released by the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD) charges that, to date, fraud, waste and abuse at California charter schools have drained more than $81 million from the public coffers. The report indicates this may just be the tip of the iceberg. In a state with roughly 1100 charter schools serving more than half a million students, ferreting out fraud presents a significant challenge to overseers. Under the current system, countless abuses are bound to fall through the cracks. CPD highlights three fundamental flaws in California’s oversight scheme.

1. California relies on audits paid for by charter school operators. Oversight agencies depend on self-reporting by the charter schools themselves.

To view entire report, click here

2. These audits are not designed to uncover fraud. Charter schools commission audits designed to expose inaccuracies and inefficiencies. As a result, fraud detection falls almost entirely to whistleblowers.

3. Local school districts lack the staff needed to find and eliminate fraud. Staff members who oversee charter schools must contend with many competing obligations.

To provide for greater oversight of California charter schools, CPD recommends that every charter undergo an annual fraud risk assessment: an evaluation of the pressures, incentives or opportunities to commit fraud. Oversight agencies should publish the results of these assessments, and charters school authorizers should take these findings into account when deciding whether to renew a school’s charter. To aid in this process, CPD recommends the state provide authorizers with full-time staff members whose sole duty is the oversight of charter schools.

CPD also calls for charters to institute protections for whistleblowers and to train employees in how to identify fraud and. Additionally, CPD suggests California’s Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team create a dedicated hotline that charter school staff and board members can call to report abuse.
Charter schools rely on public funds to fulfill their duty to educate California students. When corrupt charter school operators steer those funds into their own pockets, they rob schools of the resources they need to provide kids with a world-class education. It’s time the state take every step necessary to protect California students.

The CPD report on California charter schools is the latest in a series of reports that has also examined Illinois, New York, and Pennsylvania.New report: charter school fraud could be costing CA taxpayers $81 million « Education Votes:

Why Critical Thinking Will Never Be on the Test | Peter Greene

Why Critical Thinking Will Never Be on the Test | Peter Greene:

Why Critical Thinking Will Never Be on the Test

Critical thinking is one of the Great White Whales of education. Every new education reform promises to foster it, and every new generation of Big Standardized Tests promises to measure it.

Everybody working in education has some idea of what it is, and yet it can be hard to put into a few words. There are entire websites devoted to it, and organizations and foundations dedicated to it. Here, for example, is the website of the Foundation for Critical Thinking. They've got a definition of critical thinking from the 1987 National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking that goes on for five paragraphs. One of the shortest definitions I can pull out of their site is this one:

The intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.

Bottom line -- critical thinking is complicated.

So, can we believe test manufacturers when they say that their test measures critical thinking skills? Can a series of questions that can be delivered and scored on a national scale be designed that would actually measure the critical thinking skills of the test takers?

I think the obstacles to creating such a standardized test are huge. Here are the hurdles that test manufacturers would have to leap.

Critical thinking takes time.

Certainly, there are people who can make rapid leaps to a conclusion, who can see patterns and structure of ideas quickly and clearly (though we could argue that's more intuitive thinking than critical thinking, but then, intuition might just be critical thinking that runs below the level of clear consciousness, so, again, complicated). But mostly the kind of analyses and evaluation that we associate with critical thinking takes time.

There's a reason that English teachers rarely give the assignment, "The instant you finish reading the last page of the assigned novel, immediately start writing the assigned paper and complete it within a half hour." Critical thinking is most often applied to complex constructions, and for most people it takes a while to examine, reflect, re-examine and pull apart the pieces of the matter.

If you are asking a question that must be answered right now, this second, you are at the very best asking a question that measures how quickly the student can critically think -- but you're probably not measuring critical thinking at all.

Critical thinking takes place in a personal context.

We do not do our critical thinking in a vacuum. We are all standing in a particular Why Critical Thinking Will Never Be on the Test | Peter Greene:

New Studies Find That, for Teachers, Experience Really Does Matter - Education Week

New Studies Find That, for Teachers, Experience Really Does Matter - Education Week:

New Studies Find That, for Teachers, Experience Really Does Matter

Studies Cite Gains by Veterans

By Stephen Sawchuk

The notion that teachers improve over their first three or so years in the classroom and plateau thereafter is deeply ingrained in K-12 policy discussions, coming up in debate after debate about pay, professional development, and teacher seniority, among other topics.

But findings from a handful of recently released studies are raising questions about that proposition. In fact, they suggest the average teacher's ability to boost student achievement increases for at least the first decade of his or her career—and likely longer.

Moreover, teachers' deepening experience appears to translate into other student benefits as well. One of the new studies, for example, links years on the job to declining rates of student absenteeism.

Although the studies raise numerous questions for follow-up, the researchers say it may be time to retire the received—and somewhat counterintuitive—wisdom that teachers can't or don't improve much after their first few years on the job.

"For some reason, you hear this all the time, from all sorts of people, Bill Gates on down," said John P. Papay, an assistant professor of education and economics at Brown University, in Providence, R.I. He is the co-author of one of two new studies on the topic. "But teacher quality is not something that's fixed. It does develop, and if you're making a decision about a teacher's career, you should be looking at that dynamic."

Better With Age

Investigating the connection between a teacher's experience and his or her teaching quality has long proved methodologically challenging, largely because of the difficulty in comparing cohorts of students taught by teachers of varied experience levels with different training and backgrounds. Studies based on such cross-sectional comparisons have tended to find few performance differences between early- and later-career teachers.

Beginning in the early 2000s, scholars began to track the same teachers over time, linking them to their students' test scores. But there are pitfalls to that type of statistical modeling, too. For one, it requires researchers to make assumptions about a typical teacher's growth trajectory over time in order to disentangle the effects of each year of experience from other possible influences, such as a change in class size or curriculum New Studies Find That, for Teachers, Experience Really Does Matter - Education Week:

For Pearson, Common Core Is Private Profit | Al Jazeera America

For Pearson, Common Core Is Private Profit | Al Jazeera America:

For Pearson, Common Core is private profit

Who stands to gain from education reforms such as the controversial Common Core standards?

One big winner is the British publishing company Pearson, which delivered 9 million high stakes tests to students across the United States in 2014, including the PARCC Common Core assessments. Pearson has an especially tight hold on New York’s education system, which one critic has compared to the grip of an octopus. Pearson runs theedTPA program, which certifies New York teachers, and the company has a $32 million contract to administer the state’s end-of-year tests. And it offers a wide variety of services to implement the Common Core, including curriculum models and tools to measure student understanding.

The company is expanding its brand into the United Kingdom, Australia, Italy, South Africa, Brazil, India and Saudi Arabia. Pearson earns over $8 billion in annual global sales, with much more to come if countries continue to use standardized tests to rate students, teachers and schools.

We can learn more about Pearson and its sweeping vision for the future by turning to a 2011 book by the company’s chief academic officer, Michael Barber. In “Deliverology 101: A Field Guide for Educational Leaders,” he lays out his philosophy and, unintentionally, reveals why parents, teachers and politicians must do everything they can to break Pearson’s stranglehold on education policy around the world.

Barber has worked on education policy for British Prime Minister Tony Blair as well as for McKinsey & Co. “Deliverology,” written with assistance from two other McKinsey experts, is clearly inflected by the worldview of management consulting.

The authors define “deliverology” as “the emerging science of getting things done” and “a systematic process for driving progress and delivering results in government and the public sector.” The book targets systems leaders, politicians who support education reform and delivery leaders, employees responsible for the day-to-day implementation of structural change.

Deliverology alternates between painting a big picture of what needs to be done and offering maxims such as “To aspire means to lead from the front” and “Endless public debate will create problems that could potentially derail your delivery effort.”

Pearson just happens to be one of the world’s largest vendors of the products Barber recommends for building education systems.

Barber believes in the “alchemy of relationships,” or the power of a small group of people working together to enact structural change. For example, Barber applauds Barack Obama’s Race to the Top program for providing a “once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform public education in America,” including through the Common Core. Barber’s book offers leaders advice on how to implement the Common Corestandards that Pearsonemployees helped write.

Taking inspiration from Margaret Thatcher’s motto “Don’t tell me what, tell me how,” Barber rarely discusses what For Pearson, Common Core Is Private Profit | Al Jazeera America:

Big Education Ape: People Are Pissed at Pearson | Alan Singer http://bit.ly/1xsO6CT

Dr. Gary Thompson’s $100,000 Reward For SAGE Common Core Test Validity Reports | COMMON CORE

Dr. Gary Thompson’s $100,000 Reward For SAGE Common Core Test Validity Reports | COMMON CORE:

Dr. Gary Thompson’s $100,000 Reward For SAGE Common Core Test Validity Reports

Last year, on Behalf of Early Life Child Psychology and Education Center, Dr. Gary Thompson offered $100,000.00 to the Utah State Office of Education (USOE) for validity reports for Utah’s SAGE Common Core test.

He made the offer after Associate Superintendent Judy Park made a public statement regarding the validity of SAGE which Dr. Thompson knew to be false. He knew that test makers such as American Institutes for Research (AIR) or Pearson routinely provide validity reports to psychologists in the private sector, because by law and ethics, they know the tests can’t be used otherwise.

Dr. Thompson gave the USOE a 24-hour deadline to forward to his clinic some certified copies of industry-standard validity reports prepared by AIR. Such reports would show the test’s construct validity, criterion validity, content validity, concurrent validity, and predictive validity.

In exchange for copies of the reports, Early Life Corp would donate $50,000.00 to a public school of USOE’s choice, plus an additional $50,000.00 to the 2014-15 Utah Public School Teacher of the Year. He sent the offer directly to Dr. Judy Park and to some of the Utah State School Board members; he also posted the offer on his personal Facebook page, the clinic’s Facebook page, and on the Utahns Against Common Core Facebook page.

The offer was quickly big news among those who follow the Common Core Initiative’s unfolding saga nationwide. Six clinicians and partners of Early Life, including the CEO who happens to be Dr. Thompson’s wife, were not happy about the offer. That night was a sleepless one for them and Dr. Thompson was consigned to the couch for the night by the CEO. Still, Dr. Thompson slept like a baby. Why?

Here’s a little bit of history:

Right after his appearance on the Glenn Beck TV show, where Dr. Thompson had exposed the Common Core/SAGE test’s assault on student privacy and its unanswered validity questions, Dr. Thompson had been summoned to the offices of then-Superintendent Dr. Martell Menlove and Associate Superintendent Brenda Hales. He accepted the invitation, bringing along his clinic’s lawyer and his best friend, Edward D. Flint.

During the two and a half hour meeting, Dr. Thompson and Ed Flint first sat and listened to “Brenda Hales’ hour-long lecture about ‘the Standards'”. Dr. Thompson finally explained, when she was finished speaking, that academic standards were not Thompson/Flint’s area of expertise and that the subject was of no interest to them on any level.

Next, Menlove/Hales listened to Thompson/Flint. The doctor and the lawyer explained the fundamentals of test validity issues and data gathering, and expressed their concerns about privacy and testing issues, laying out a careful analysis of how easily potential violations could occur under Common Core’s tests.

Menlove/Hales dismissed their concerns as “conspiracy theories” and requested that Thompson/Flint “stop bringing fear into our community via social media”. Thompson and Flint promised to cease speaking of their concerns if Menlove and Hales would agree to contact AIR to provide documentation that the concerns were unwarranted.

Dr. Menlove agreed.

Weeks later, still having seen no validity reports, Dr. Thompson finally received a phone call –from a parent, who had noticed an AIR letter posted on the USOE webpage. The letter was directed to Dr. Menlove from AIR Vice President Jon Cohen; it purported to address the concerns of Mr. Flint and Dr. Thompson, using their names.

AIR Vice President Jon Cohen failed to actually respond to the pointed, specific concerns that had been submitted in writing to Dr. Menlove. (Read those here.)

What he did do is attempt to give AIR a pat on the back by sharing a link to what was meant to go to a national nonprofit disabilities organization, one that would Dr. Gary Thompson’s $100,000 Reward For SAGE Common Core Test Validity Reports | COMMON CORE:

Why the left hates this man: Rahm Emanuel’s sins against the progressive movement ‪#‎Chuy2015

Why the left hates this man: Rahm Emanuel’s sins against the progressive movement - Salon.com:

Why the left hates this man: Rahm Emanuel’s sins against the progressive movement

With big election coming up, liberal groups have declared public enemy #1 -- but it's not a Republican. Here's why

HEATHER DIGBY PARTON

Despite the beltway’s belief in the Tea Party as fearsome giant slayers who terrify the otherwise sensible Republican grown-ups to such an extent they dare not defy them, the truth isn’t quite as dramatic as all that. The Tea Party did manage to unseat some incumbents in primaries, even one as powerful as former House majority leader Eric Cantor, which hit GOP insiders like a category 5 hurricane. But the fact is that the grassroots activists in both parties have been working to make their respective caucuses reflect the wishes of their constituents and both parties have had some success.

Way back in the day (a decade ago) when the Progressive Netroots were just starting to organize, the first “scalp” any of the left leaning movement activists took was that of a Democratic hack from Maryland named Al Wynn when they backed a progressive challenger by the name of Donna Edwards. Edwards defeated Wynn in 2008 and is now running to replace Senator Barbara Mikulski who recently announced her retirement. In each congressional cycle Netroots progressives have fought a number of hard-fought primaries, losing more often than they won (just like the Tea Party) but slowly managing to make the House of Representatives a bit more progressive than it was before. Congressional representatives like Matt Cartwright, Beto O’Rourke and Senators like Jon Tester were backed strongly by the grassroots of the party and managed to unseat incumbents. Nobody in the beltway noticed or cared, of course. (Progressives always forget to order their tri-corner hats and Betsy Ross wigs…)

But over time, it’s had an effect and not just because of the “scalps” they took, but because all of those hard fought races, whether won or lost, showed the incumbents that there was a restive group of activists out there who could challenge the status quo. And aside from primary challenges, progressives in congress from Keith Ellison and Alan Grayson in the House to Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Baldwin in the Senate were enthusiastically supported by Netroots groups like, Move On, DFA, PCCC and Blue America (disclosure: I am a principal in that group) among a number of others, a support which translates into small donor involvement, campaign volunteering and strategic advice as well as engaged in grassroots activism for progressive congressional initiatives. It’s made a difference. The House and Senate today have progressive wings that are active and vocal in a way they did not a decade ago.

Back in 2006 when all this really started to come together there was one Democrat who quickly determined that this nascent progressive movement was a major threat to the status quo. His name was Rahm Emanuel who was, at the time, an Illinois congressman in charge of candidate recruitment for the congressional Democrats. If there’s anyone who can take credit for being the catalyst for this long term Netroots commitment to elect progressives to congress it is him. His crude dismissal of grassroots concerns was blatant. His contempt for anyone who disagreed with his centrist Blue Dog/New Democrat philosophy was palpable. While his wholehearted support for big money interests was seen as the ultimate in strategic brilliance by the beltway elites, it repelled Democratic activists everywhere.

Despite the fact that lame-duck George W. Bush and the war in Iraq were so unpopular that virtually anyone who could draw a breath who had a D after his or her name could have won, the conventional wisdom said that Emanuel’s DCCC win in the off year election of 2006 was a validation of his political savvy. (In case you were wondering, Emanuel wasn’t elected to congress until after the Iraq war resolution but was on record supporting it, saying that the U.S. needed a “muscular projection of force” there. You can let the shrinks sort out just what that language says about him …)

When the newly elected President Obama tapped him as chief-of-staff, you could hear progressives screaming “nooooooo” across the land. And when he departed to run for Why the left hates this man: Rahm Emanuel’s sins against the progressive movement - Salon.com:

501 (c) 4 Social Welfare Organization or Social Disease

What is the difference between a private foundation and a public charity?

Private foundations

Foundation Center defines a private foundation as a nongovernmental, nonprofit organization having a principal fund managed by its own trustees or directors. Private foundations maintain or aid charitable, educational, religious, or other activities serving the public good, primarily through the making of grants to other nonprofit organizations.

Every U.S. and foreign charity that qualifies under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Service Code as tax-exempt is a "private foundation" unless it demonstrates to the IRS that it has met the public support test. Broadly speaking, organizations that are not private foundations are public charities as described in the Internal Revenue Service Code.

Public charities

Public charities generally derive their funding or support primarily from the general public, receiving grants from individuals, government, and private foundations. Although some public charities engage in grantmaking activities, most conduct direct service or other tax-exempt activities. A private foundation, on the other hand, usually derives its principal fund from a single source, such as an individual, family, or corporation, and more often than not is a grantmaker. A private foundation does not solicit funds from the public.

Why should grantseekers know the difference?

Examining a funder's giving history is an important part of researching foundation prospects. Past grants can reveal the funder's preferred subjects, organization types, and ranges of grant amounts.

This data is easier to get from a private foundation, which must disclose all grantees and grant amounts in its IRS Form 990-PF. However, a grantmaking public charity isn't subject to this disclosure requirement, so access to its grants data will depend on how much the funder is willing to share with the public, via its Form 990, website, or other communication channels.

If a grantmaking public charity doesn't provide a grants list in its Form 990, explore its website or search the Internet for the funder's name to find any related news or press releases, some of which may be about grants that it made.

A word about "foundation"

Don't assume that an organization with "foundation" in its name is a grantmaker. (Example: Foundation Center.) The word "foundation" has no legal definition.

Selected resources below might also be helpful.

Web Sites

* indicates staff pick

* Exempt Organization Select Check | IRS
Online search tool that allows users to select an exempt organization and check information re: its eligibility to receive tax-deductible charitable contributions; automatic revocation of tax-exempt status for not filing 990s; whether it has filed a Form 990-N.
InfoTax | Tax Analysts
Tax Analysts' Exempt Organization Master List (EOML) provides information on all exempt organizations required to file with the IRS applications for recognition of exemption and annual information returns. Check your nearest Foundation Center library for free access to this database.
* GuideStar
GuideStar works to improve public access to information about nonprofit organizations by providing Forms 990 and other data through their searchable online database. Users can search organizations by name, keyword, location, or EIN. Free site registration is required in order to access Forms 990 and 990-PF.
Foundation Center | 990 Finder
Foundation Finder is a free tool allowing users to access basic information on U.S. grantmakers, including names, addresses, web sites, and key financial data. Grantmakers can be searched by name, location, or EIN.
* Frequently Asked Questions | National Center For Charitable Statistics
Provides answers to many frequently asked questions about the nonprofit sector, such as: Are all nonprofit organizations public charities?
* idealist.org | Should we incorporate a 'private' or a 'public' nonprofit?
Summary states "[I]n general, it is probably better to be a 'public charity' than a 'private foundation.'"
* National Center for Charitable Statistics | Should we incorporate a 'private' or a 'public' nonprofit?
Summary states "[I]n general, it is probably better to be a 'public charity' than a 'private foundation.'"

Types of Organizations Exempt under Section 501(c)(4)

Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(4) provides for the exemption of two very different types of organizations with their own distinct qualification requirements. They are:

Social welfare organizations: Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, and
Local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of designated person(s) in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.

Homeowners associations and volunteer fire companies may be recognized as exempt as social welfare organizations if they meet the requirements for exemption. Organizations that engage in substantial lobbying activities sometimes also are classified as social welfare organizations.

Additional information

Social welfare organization - Examples

Return to Life Cycle of a Social Welfare Organization

Social Welfare Organizations - Examples

Some nonprofit organizations that qualify as social welfare organizations include:

An organization operating an airport that serves the general public in an area with no other airport and that is on land owned by a local government, which supervises the airport’s operation,
A community association that works to improve public services, housing and residential parking; publishes a free community newspaper; sponsors a community sports league, holiday programs and meetings; and contracts with a private security service to patrol the community,
A community association devoted to preserving the community’s traditions, architecture and appearance by representing it before the local legislature and administrative agencies in zoning, traffic and parking matters,
An organization that tries to encourage industrial development and relieve unemployment in an area by making loans to businesses so they will relocate to the area and
An organization that holds an annual festival of regional customs and traditions.

Action Organizations

Seeking legislation germane to the organization's programs is a permissible means of attaining social welfare purposes. Thus, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may further its exempt purposes through lobbying as its sole or primary activity without jeopardizing its exempt status. An organization that has lost its section 501(c)(3) status due to substantial attempts to influence legislation may not thereafter qualify as a section 501(c)(4) organization. In addition, a section 501(c)(4) organization that engages in lobbying may be required to either provide notice to its members regarding the percentage of dues paid that are applicable to lobbying activities or pay aproxy tax . For more information, see Lobbying Issues .