The Dark Money Boogeyman

Like many cities, Denver established an ambitious plan to improve student achievement. It worked until it didn't.

If you ever want an example of backward progressive thinking in education that sets me off, look to Jenny Brundin’s Colorado Public Radio piece from last month on Denver school board races. It leads with the tired frame about “dark money” from “out-of-state multimillionaires and billionaires” corrupting local democracy.

It’s a compelling narrative—villains with deep pockets versus teachers protecting neighborhood schools. Given all the weird absurdities coming out of billionaire world, who can resist a swipe at them?

But this simplistic framing, while alluring, obscures more than it teaches about actual challenges facing urban education and the families most affected by catastrophically poor school quality.

I had lunch with a Denver friend around the time Brundin’s article was published, and coincidentally, the topic of that cities education unravelling since an anti-reform school board was elected came up. My question was when will people love achievement more than they hate accountability?

What follows is an attempt to respect you as a reader and to talk about actually happening in Denver’s schools, what the research shows, and why the conversation deserves more nuance than the “dark money” slur with all its Trumpian flair (ala Crooked Hillary) allows.

What the Evidence Actually Shows

Between 2008 and 2019, Denver implemented comprehensive education reforms under what leaders of the time called a “portfolio district model.”

The results were significant and well-documented:

Students gained the equivalent of 9-14 months of additional learning per year
Graduation rates for Black and Latino students jumped from 43% to over 65%
The district closed a 20-point achievement gap with state averages
These gains appeared across demographic groups in both district-run and charter schools

A rigorous 2024 study by University of Colorado Denver researcher Paul Baxter tracked individual student performance using anonymized state data—addressing concerns that improvements might simply reflect changing demographics rather than better education. The study found that opening new schools and closing persistently low-performing ones produced measurable gains. District-led turnarounds, notably, did not.

Since 2019, after teacher union-backed candidates won school board majorities and dismantled many reform policies, Denver has largely maintained those gains. The district recently achieved all-time highs in math and science, outperforming other large urban districts nationally. This matters because it suggests multiple approaches can work when implemented thoughtfully.

The “Dark Money” Frame: What It Reveals and Conceals

Brundin’s article emphasizes that Better Leaders, Stronger Schools raised $718,000, with $600,000 coming from Denver Families Action, which receives funding from The City Fund—backed by billionaires Reed Hastings and John Arnold. She notes contributions from “Republican billionaire Phil Anschutz” and former University of Colorado president Bruce Benson.

This framing invites readers to be suspicious. But consider what it obscures:

First, it ignores comparable spending on the other side. The Denver Classroom Teachers Association’s committee, Students Deserve Better, collected $280,000 by mid-October—funded largely by the Colorado Education Association. While the article acknowledges this, it quotes union president Rob Gould drawing a moral distinction, saying “When it comes to billionaire money versus teacher money, they’re two very different things.”

Are they? Both represent organized interests with specific policy preferences. Teachers unions are among the most powerful political forces in American education, with substantial resources and sophisticated political operations. Characterizing one side’s money as inherently corrupted while the other’s represents authentic grassroots voice is a rhetorical move, not an analytical one.

And, in my opinion, one of those monied groups is betting that systemic changes can lift marginalized students out of academic poverty, while the other want power to make their working conditions comfortable whether kids learn or not.

Second, it conflates funding sources with policy merit. The article implies that because reform-minded groups receive funding from wealthy donors, their positions must be suspect. It’s sad to see people who say they support education stoop to this elementary level of logical fallacy. School policies should be evaluated on their effects on students, not on who funded the campaign for school board candidates.

The evidence shows that some reform-era policies produced measurable improvements in student outcomes. The evidence also shows these reforms generated community opposition and came with real costs to school stability. Both things can be true. The funding sources for advocacy don’t change these facts, especially when I can see reason to see both sides as suspect to self-interest.

Third, it treats all outside funding as equally problematic while ignoring institutional power. Yes, wealthy individuals contribute to education campaigns (and I’m happy that they do it in places where employee unions shout down community voices regularly). They also contribute to campaigns for climate action, civil rights, public health, and countless other causes. The implied standard—that only small donors from within a community should influence local elections—would dramatically constrain advocacy on every issue.

Meanwhile, teachers unions at their worst, represent the institutional status quo in education. They negotiate contracts, influence personnel decisions, and shape working conditions from the inside. This isn’t illegitimate—it’s how labor organizations function. But it’s a form of power that exists whether or not election funding flows. And, unfortunately, it works to veto the voices of parents and students when those parents and students live in districts where the mortgages are out of reach for working people.

What This Framing Does to the Conversation

Here’s what troubles me most about the “dark money” frame as applied to education is how it insults our intelligence. It treats legitimate policy disagreements as corruption stories, bypassing any honest debate of the actual policies being proposed.

There are substantive debates about how to improve urban education:

Should districts close schools that persistently produce poor outcomes, or invest more in turning them around?
How much autonomy should individual schools have versus central district control?
What role should charter schools play in a public education system?
How should we balance teacher job security with accountability for student outcomes?
What level of family choice best serves equity?

These questions don’t have obvious answers. They require struggle and the rigor of sound minds to wrestle with. It can’t be done if a cities most serious education reporters are jingoistic cultist for the status quo.

Reasonable people examining the same evidence reach different conclusions. Dedicated educators and concerned parents line up on different sides. At the center of it all should be neutral information and shared facts.

But when we frame these debates primarily through funding sources rather than policy substance, we lose the ability to think clearly. We’re encouraged to choose sides based on who’s paying rather than what works.

The Missing Voices: Families Seeking Options

The most glaring omission in Brundin’s article is the perspective of families—particularly Black, Latino, and working-class families—who have been most actively seeking educational alternatives.

And no, I don’t mean the carefully curated parents that teachers unions recruit to level grievances in support of whatever contract negotiation agenda the teachers are pursuing.

Recent polling shows that 67.8% of Black parents and 63% of Latino parents in Denver considered new schools in the last year. This isn’t because they’ve been manipulated by billionaire-funded advertising. It’s because many neighborhood schools aren’t offering what they want.

When Black parents express 68% support for charter schools and 62% support for school choice, when Latino families choose public charter schools at rates exceeding other demographics, these preferences deserve to be taken seriously—not dismissed as the result of misleading campaigns.

The research document I’ve seen repeatedly shows that across the country, families of color prioritize:

Physical and psychological safety in schools
High-quality instruction that closes learning gaps
Culturally responsive education that affirms their children’s identities
Practical access to schools that work
And education systems that lead to respectable jobs and gainful lives

For many of these families, school options represents not an ideological position but a pragmatic response to schools that aren’t lifting their children up to their aspirations. Some find what they’re looking for in charter schools. Others prefer traditional public schools with better resources. Still others want something else entirely.

The conversation shouldn’t be about validating or dismissing these preferences—it should be about how to ensure all schools serve all children well.

The Union Perspective Deserves Better, Too

Union president Rob Gould makes important points in the article that deserve more than the “dark money” frame allows. He argues that reform-era policies “eroded teacher voice, caused burnout, and led to a 20 percent turnover rate year after year.”

This matters. Teacher working conditions are in fact student learning conditions. It’s taken a long time to get there on this one, but having seen schools where teachers are highly supported succeed wildly makes me a believer. High turnover disrupts schools, particularly in high-needs communities. Performance pay systems can create incentives, but some of them are perverse. Top-down mandates can demoralize educators whose expertise should inform decisions.

We shouldn’t sugar the plums about shortcomings of reforms, especially when they ironically aren’t accountable for their own failures.

There are legitimate concerns about implementation, not reflexive opposition to accountability. They suggest reforms need to be designed and executed with more attention to how they affect the people doing the daily work of education.

But the article frames Gould’s position primarily as opposition to “billionaire money” rather than as a substantive critique of specific policies. This does a disservice to the union’s arguments and to readers trying to understand the real tradeoffs involved.

What We Actually Need to Debate

Rather than “dark money” versus “grassroots teachers,” we should grow up a little and use adult vocabularies. When it comes to voters, if they care about children from all backgrounds, they need to mature to the point where they ask better questions.

Such as…

On student outcomes:

How do you explain the significant achievement gains during the reform era?
How do we maintain those gains while addressing legitimate concerns about implementation?
What specific strategies will close persistent gaps for low-income students and English learners?

On school quality:

Should the district intervene in schools that consistently produce poor outcomes? How?
What accountability should charter schools face, and is it equivalent to district-run schools?
How do we ensure families have genuine access to high-quality options?

On community voice:

How do we balance community input with the need for district-wide coordination?
Who speaks for families when there are competing visions within neighborhoods?
How do we ensure school decisions reflect the priorities of families actually served by schools?

On resources:

With enrollment declining, how should the district manage facilities and budgets?
What investments would most improve outcomes for struggling students?
How do we attract and retain excellent teachers while maintaining fiscal sustainability?

Sure, it’s easier to ask “whose money is corrupting democracy?” But these questions create the gravitational law that 84,000 students and their families must be burdened by.

Moving Beyond Lazy Frames

I don’t doubt Jenny Brundin’s sincere concern for Denver’s students. Like Mariah Carey said about J-Lo, “I don’t know her.” But the “dark money” frame is cheap and unworthy of serious people, especially those who write for the public. College-educated progressives covering urban education need to level up rather than leave their readers less informed.

We can’t evaluate policies based on funding sources rather than effects. We can’t pretend that teacher unions inherently represent students’ interests while treating other advocacy groups as inherently suspect. We can’t sides step the reality that families of color are often the most dissatisfied and the most interested in alternatives.

And please, stop framing genuine policy disagreements as corruption stories, making compromise and learning from evidence nearly impossible.

Denver’s education story is complicated. Reforms produced measurable gains while generating justified opposition. The district has maintained progress while changing course. Significant equity gaps persist under both approaches. Charter schools make notable gains for students, but should close when they don’t. Teacher morale matters. Family choice matters. Resource constraints are real.

All of these things are true simultaneously, and complicated.

The conversation Denver deserves should grapple with this complexity, not reduce it to heroes and villains based on who funds school board campaigns.

The families whose children attend Denver schools—disproportionately Black, Latino, and from working-class backgrounds—deserve a debate focused on what will actually help their children learn and thrive. Not which donors backed which candidates, but which policies produce results.

Denver’s students deserve better than slogans. They deserve schools that work.

What do you think? Are school board elections uniquely vulnerable to outside spending, or is this a distraction from substantive policy debates? How should we evaluate competing claims about what’s best for students?