Unfortunately even those who may have started out with the most pure motives and ideals, get corrupted by the money.
So many times the original idealistic organization morphs into the typical 501c3 where the most important thing becomes large salaries for the founders, and national recognition from those with even more money, power and influence. 'Cause then they can go to the DC power broker cocktail parties and feel important too.

Mr. Edelman comes off as a typical duplicitous protopolitician. If he wants to try to dent the NEA/OEA that's OK. Just don't hide the agenda from folks (or should that be flocks) by using false packaging.

Let public employees, including teachers, individually opt out of any and all offers by government (or representative unions) to manage their retirement/savings.

This is the single most important structural reform that is needed, in my opinion.

"Corporate" is now an all purpose hate term, outpacing or supplanting the word "facist." For "corporate" to have the sustainability of "facist" we have to support Jonah and Marian Edleman, SfC, and the rotten unions that have worked with diligence to make American education a byword for ignorance, bigotry, hypocrisy, and uselessness.

All of the actors in this story, including the concerned Portland mother who stepped down from Stand for the Children, strike me as contemptable.

"If he wants to try to dent the NEA/OEA that's OK."

Be nice if the NEA/OEA returned the favor - Ask Greg MacPherson.

Sorry, meant to include:

"Just don't hide the agenda from folks"

I'm not a member of SFC, nor do I know much about them. From my outsider's view, I'm sympathetic to the mom/volunteer's concerns, and she does have some valid criticisms, but it's clear she's a "true believer" who got disgruntled when SFC grew up and changed. It's like the people who now hate Stumptown because the owner "sold out" so the company could grow. It's an unpardonable sin in these parts to get "corporate" and cozy up to rich people, even though SFC now arguably has more influence in the education conversation than it ever did before. Instead of just agreeing to disagree and moving on to a group that more closely represents her ideals and preferences (or starting up her own), she publicly bashes an organization whose heart is in the right place and whose volunteers continue to do incredible work. I hope the woman and other folks like her who prefer to keep things "real" and grassroots find (or start) a vehicle that allows them to continue to channel their energy and passion towards improving education.

I dunno. Taking down teacher's unions goes down as a good thing in my opinion. Subterfuge? Well, it ain't as if the teacher's unions are choirboys above using strongarm tactics of their own. Way it is.

I am also not a member of SFC, and never have been involved with the organization. But my read of this is that they're totally in the right place. Education reform of ANY kind is only taking place over the vigorous objection of teachers unions. Furthermore, I found SFC's explanation compelling as to why they pushed for what they did in this last Oregon legislative session: with a bipartisan House, they pushed for a bipartisan bill that included some things they didn't like (capital gains tax cut) for things they did.

As for Mr. Edelman, if we judged every organization by the arrogance of its founder, I'm not sure we would join anything. Far more important to look at the work the organization has done than the personality(ies) at the top.

In the past I volunteered regularly for Stand for Children, and believe it has always kept a bottom-line focus on what is best for children. Which is important. Because one of the biggest problems kids have is that sometimes the people who have the greatest love for children -- teachers or their unions or, yes, even parents -- veer onto agendas that can lose sight of the children.

In that sometimes politically complex reality -- where your biggest and most important stakeholders veer off the map from time to time -- there are not many organizations that strike a better balance than the one Stand for Children has struck, with the positions it takes and in its advocacy.

And so while I agree that "do it for the children" is a tired cliché, that label does not belong on Stand or Jonah Edleman. I haven't seen the video, because unfortunately my employer blocks that kind of stuff. And I therefore assume it is as Bojack advertises. But Stand and Jonah have a large body of work that has helped many children throughout Oregon. On issues that range from getting kids that need it free dental care, to helping give them something productive to do after school, to making sure that resources devoted to our schools are both adequate and well used. If the video is bad, that is unfortunate. But their record for helping children would fair well against anyone.