A viral argument about McGraw Hill starts with a striking set of connections: Robert Maxwell, his daughter Ghislaine Maxwell, billionaire investor Tom Gores, prison-communications company Securus Technologies, Hollywood talent agency Paradigm and one of the largest educational publishers in the United States.
Several of those connections are real.
Robert Maxwell’s Macmillan really did become McGraw-Hill’s 50/50 partner in a major school-publishing business. Tom Gores’s Platinum Equity really did acquire McGraw Hill and, according to the latest ownership disclosure reviewed for this article, still controlled roughly 86% of its voting power in mid-2026. Platinum also really did own Securus Technologies and its parent Aventiv for years. Tom Gores really did invest in Paradigm, the talent agency founded by his brother Sam Gores. Securus really does operate correctional communications systems in which calls, video visits and written communications can be recorded and monitored.
Those are not imaginary relationships.
But several crucial details change what they prove.
Robert Maxwell did not own McGraw-Hill. His company owned half of a school-publishing joint venture with it beginning in 1989. Platinum’s ownership of Securus’s parent ended in July 2026. Paradigm’s North American music business moved to Wasserman in 2021, although contemporary reporting said Tom Gores would remain an equity backer of the new music venture. And none of the records reviewed for this article establish that McGraw Hill received prison-call data, that these businesses coordinated messaging, or that Platinum or Tom Gores personally dictated particular textbook passages.
That does not make the underlying questions frivolous.
McGraw Hill told investors that, as of March 31, 2025, it served approximately 99% of U.S. public K-12 districts and 82% of U.S. higher-education institutions. That does not mean McGraw Hill supplies 99% of every district’s curriculum or controls 99% of what students learn. It means the company had some level of customer or product presence in nearly all public K-12 districts. But it still demonstrates extraordinary reach. McGraw Hill’s SEC registration statement describes the company as a top-two U.S. K-12 provider and a top-two higher-education provider.
The useful question is therefore not simply whether the viral theory is "true" or "false."
It is:
Which connections are real, what power do those relationships actually create, and what evidence would be needed to show that corporate control was used to manipulate educational content?
The viral argument combines three different questions
The theory circulating online effectively moves through three stages:
- Are these people and companies connected?
- Do those connections create the capacity for influence?
- Does that capacity prove coordinated manipulation?
Those questions are not interchangeable.
A corporate relationship can be completely real without establishing what that relationship was used for. Likewise, correcting one false ownership claim does not make every surrounding concern disappear.
The right way to investigate the story is recursively: establish each relationship, ask what it proves, then ask whether the next inference actually follows.
Quick answer: Which McGraw Hill claims are supported?
| Claim | What the evidence actually shows |
|---|---|
| Robert Maxwell owned McGraw-Hill | Incorrect. Maxwell controlled Macmillan, which entered a 50/50 school-publishing joint venture with McGraw-Hill in 1989. |
| Robert Maxwell had no meaningful McGraw-Hill connection | Also incorrect. His company was an equal partner in a substantial school-publishing operation carrying the Macmillan/McGraw-Hill name. |
| Ghislaine Maxwell owned or controls McGraw Hill | No evidence found. The connection being circulated runs through her father Robert Maxwell’s historical Macmillan relationship. |
| Platinum Equity controls McGraw Hill | Verified at the latest dated ownership point reviewed. SEC filings put Platinum-affiliated investment vehicles at about 86% of voting power in mid-2026. |
| Tom Gores personally owns 86% of McGraw Hill | Imprecise. The shares are held through Platinum-affiliated investment vehicles. SEC filings identify Gores at the top of the disclosed control chain. |
| Platinum/Tom Gores owns Securus | Historically true through Platinum, but no longer current. Platinum acquired Securus in 2017; Aventiv transitioned to new ownership on July 2, 2026. |
| Securus records prison and jail communications | Broadly correct. Current Securus terms state that communications are generally recorded and may be monitored, preserved and disclosed, subject to facility rules and special handling for privileged communications. |
| Tom Gores is financially connected to Paradigm | Verified. His investment vehicle took an ownership interest in his brother Sam Gores’s agency in 2020. |
| Billie Eilish, Ed Sheeran and Coldplay prove Paradigm currently represents those artists | Outdated. Paradigm’s North American music business moved to Wasserman in 2021. But contemporary reporting said Tom Gores would financially back the new music venture as an equity partner. |
| These relationships prove coordinated manipulation of textbooks | Not established by the evidence reviewed. That requires evidence connecting corporate control to actual editorial decisions, directives or coordinated conduct. |
The most important pattern is that the viral argument is not built entirely from invented facts.
Instead, real relationships from different periods are compressed into what looks like one simultaneous network, and the existence of the network is then treated as evidence of what the network supposedly does.
The chronology matters.
Who owns McGraw Hill in 2026?
McGraw Hill is publicly traded, but becoming a public company did not end Platinum Equity’s control.
Platinum completed its acquisition of McGraw Hill in 2021. McGraw Hill’s announcement described the purchase price as approximately $4.5 billion. McGraw Hill announced completion of the Platinum Equity acquisition on August 2, 2021.
McGraw Hill returned to public markets in July 2025.
But its 2026 proxy statement filed with the SEC says that, as of June 4, 2026, Platinum retained ownership and control of approximately 86.4% of the voting power of McGraw Hill’s outstanding common stock.
A later Form S-3 filed with the SEC listed 165,160,216 shares, or 86.3%, as beneficially owned by Platinum-affiliated investment vehicles as of June 30, 2026.
That filing identifies PE Mav Holdings, LLC as the record holder and traces the ownership chain through Platinum entities to Tom Gores, who is identified as manager of Platinum Equity, LLC.
That is more precise than saying "Tom Gores personally owns 86% of McGraw Hill."
The shares are held through investment entities. But the control relationship is not speculative.
Platinum’s corporate control is a documented fact
McGraw Hill has repeatedly described itself in SEC filings as a "controlled company" because Platinum held more than half of its voting power.
This matters because majority voting control is not merely theoretical influence.
Platinum’s voting position gives it the power to determine the election of directors and therefore substantial control over the company’s governance. McGraw Hill’s IPO filings expressly warned investors about risks arising from Platinum’s control and the possibility that Platinum’s interests could differ from those of other shareholders. McGraw Hill’s IPO prospectus discusses its controlled-company status and Platinum’s voting power.
So one part of the debate can be put to rest:
Platinum does not merely have a passive connection to McGraw Hill. It has had documented corporate control.
The unresolved question is narrower:
Does that corporate control reach into particular textbook passages, curricular choices or ideological editorial decisions?
The public ownership records do not answer that.
What about the August 2026 resale registration?
In July and August 2026, McGraw Hill filed registration documents covering up to all 165,160,216 shares held by PE Mav Holdings.
That sounds dramatic, but the filing itself includes an important warning: registering the shares does not mean they were actually offered or sold. The SEC filing states explicitly that registration does not mean the selling stockholder will offer or sell any shares.
The latest ownership disclosure reviewed for this article therefore remains the June 30, 2026 figure.
That figure should be treated as a dated disclosure, not a real-time ownership meter.
What does Ghislaine Maxwell have to do with McGraw Hill?
This is one of the most persistent search variations because online posts often move directly from Robert Maxwell to his daughter Ghislaine Maxwell and then to Jeffrey Epstein.
The documented McGraw-Hill relationship runs through Robert Maxwell, not Ghislaine Maxwell.
Robert Maxwell controlled Macmillan when it entered a major school-publishing partnership with McGraw-Hill in 1989. That relationship was real and substantial.
But the current McGraw Hill ownership records reviewed for this article do not identify Ghislaine Maxwell as an owner, director or controlling party.
So the accurate chain is:
Ghislaine Maxwell → daughter of Robert Maxwell → Robert Maxwell controlled Macmillan → Macmillan became McGraw-Hill’s 50/50 school-publishing partner in 1989.
That is a real historical connection.
It is not the same as Ghislaine Maxwell owning or controlling McGraw Hill.
Did Robert Maxwell own McGraw-Hill?
No.
But saying only "no" would conceal the more interesting history.
Robert Maxwell controlled publishing giant Macmillan. In 1989, Macmillan and McGraw-Hill agreed to combine their elementary, secondary and vocational educational publishing units into the Macmillan/McGraw-Hill School Publishing Company.
Education Week’s contemporaneous 1989 report says the new venture operated as a general partnership with each partner owning 50%.
That is not a trivial association.
Maxwell’s company was half-owner of a major school-publishing company bearing the McGraw-Hill name.
But the same transaction contains strong evidence against the claim that Maxwell owned McGraw-Hill itself.
The deal specifically restricted Maxwell from taking over McGraw-Hill
As part of the 1989 arrangement, Maxwell entered a 15-year standstill agreement limiting purchases of McGraw-Hill stock.
Education Week reported that analysts viewed the agreement as reducing the possibility of a Maxwell takeover. The Los Angeles Times reported at the time that Maxwell Communications had agreed not to attempt to acquire McGraw-Hill for 15 years.
That chronology matters.
If McGraw-Hill were already "Robert Maxwell’s company," an agreement specifically designed to keep Maxwell from acquiring McGraw-Hill would make little sense.
The strongest supported conclusion is:
Robert Maxwell did not own McGraw-Hill. He controlled a company that became McGraw-Hill’s equal partner in a major school-publishing business.
Both parts matter.
What happened to Maxwell’s 50% school-publishing stake?
Robert Maxwell died in 1991.
In 1993, McGraw-Hill purchased Macmillan’s remaining half of the joint venture for $337.5 million in cash.
UPI’s contemporaneous report described the transaction directly: McGraw-Hill acquired its partner’s 50% interest in Macmillan/McGraw-Hill School Publishing Company from Macmillan, then a subsidiary of Maxwell Communication Corporation.
So there is no continuous ownership line from Robert Maxwell through Macmillan to today’s Platinum-controlled McGraw Hill.
There is a meaningful historical relationship.
There is not evidence of continuous Maxwell-family ownership.
The modern McGraw Hill also changed corporate hands several times
Another source of confusion is that "McGraw-Hill" has referred to different corporate structures across different periods.
In 2013, The McGraw-Hill Companies sold McGraw-Hill Education to investment funds affiliated with Apollo Global Management for $2.4 billion in cash. S&P Global’s corporate record of the 2013 transaction documents the separation.
Platinum then acquired McGraw Hill from Apollo-backed ownership in 2021.
That means references to McGraw-Hill in 1989, McGraw-Hill Education in 2013 and McGraw Hill under Platinum after 2021 cannot simply be treated as one unchanged ownership structure.
Did Platinum Equity also own Securus Technologies?
Yes.
This is one of the strongest factual connections in the viral argument.
Securus’s own corporate history states that Platinum Equity acquired Securus Technologies in 2017.
Platinum later described Aventiv Technologies as the parent structure over Securus and related correctional-services businesses.
That means that after Platinum acquired McGraw Hill in 2021, there really was a period of several years in which the same private-equity organization controlled both:
- one of the dominant educational publishers in the United States; and
- the parent of a major correctional communications provider.
That overlap is real.
It is fair to notice it.
It is fair to scrutinize it.
But the next question is what, if anything, traveled across that corporate overlap.
Platinum’s Securus/Aventiv ownership ended in July 2026
Platinum began publicly describing a planned divestiture of Aventiv in 2025.
In an April 2025 statement, Platinum said the proposed debt-for-equity restructuring would "facilitate Platinum’s long-anticipated divestiture" as Aventiv transitioned to new ownership.
On July 2, 2026, Aventiv announced completion of the recapitalization and ownership transition, saying the company was moving forward under new ownership.
So this statement:
"The same company owns McGraw Hill and Securus."
describes a genuine historical overlap during part of the 2021-2026 period.
It is not an accurate description of the ownership structure after July 2, 2026.
Dating the relationship correctly does not erase it.
It tells us what claims the relationship can support.
Does Securus really record and monitor prison and jail communications?
Yes.
This part of the viral account is substantially grounded in Securus’s own current terms.
Securus’s Friends and Family Terms and Conditions, effective June 8, 2026, state that accepting the customer agreement means agreeing that Securus records data associated with use of its products, including the contents of phone, video and written communications.
The terms further state that, unless otherwise specified, communications using Securus products will be recorded and may be read, viewed, listened to, monitored, preserved and disclosed to correctional agencies, law enforcement or as otherwise required by legal process.
Written communications are always recorded under those terms.
There are important exceptions and facility-specific rules. Phone calls or video visits may be configured not to record at a correctional facility’s direction. Lawyers are instructed to arrange privatization for applicable communications, and the terms warn that absent those steps, lawyer-client communications can be recorded and monitored.
So there is no reason to soften this part:
Securus operates communications systems in which recording and monitoring are built into the ordinary terms of service.
That is established.
Does that mean Tom Gores personally had access to prison calls?
That does not automatically follow.
The documented chain is:
- Securus records and facilitates monitoring of many correctional communications.
- Platinum acquired Securus in 2017.
- Tom Gores controls Platinum.
- Platinum also acquired McGraw Hill in 2021.
Those are supportable statements.
A different set of claims would require different evidence:
- that Gores personally accessed individual communications;
- that Platinum employees accessed recordings for unrelated purposes;
- that correctional communications data was shared with McGraw Hill;
- that information from Securus influenced educational or entertainment businesses;
- or that different Platinum portfolio companies coordinated around such data.
The records reviewed for this article do not establish those things.
The surveillance capability is real.
The ownership overlap was real.
The alleged cross-company use remains unproven.
What is the Tom Gores and Paradigm connection?
That connection is real too.
Paradigm was founded by Sam Gores, Tom Gores’s brother.
In 2020, Tom Gores stepped in financially as Paradigm faced severe pandemic-era disruption. Contemporary entertainment reporting documented that Tom Gores’s investment vehicle took an ownership interest in the agency.
The relationship matters because the viral theory points to Paradigm’s celebrity clients as another branch of Gores-family influence.
But the timeline becomes important again.
What happened to Billie Eilish, Ed Sheeran, Coldplay and Paradigm?
Paradigm had a major North American live-music representation business with prominent artists.
In 2021, Wasserman agreed to acquire those North American music assets.
That means using Billie Eilish, Ed Sheeran or Coldplay in 2026 as examples of Paradigm’s current music roster is stale.
But the story does not end there.
Pollstar’s contemporaneous account of the 2021 transaction reported that, as part of Paradigm’s restructuring, Tom Gores had provided financial backing and strategic assistance and would provide financial backing to the new music venture as an equity partner.
That changes the conclusion.
The artists ceased being straightforward evidence of Paradigm’s present-day roster, but the 2021 restructuring did not necessarily sever Tom Gores’s financial relationship with the music business at that time.
We did not locate sufficiently current public documentation to state confidently whether Gores still holds that equity interest in 2026.
So the careful conclusion is:
The viral version is outdated about which agency represented the artists, but it would also be too strong to say the Gores financial connection simply disappeared when the music assets moved to Wasserman.
That is why chronology has to be followed all the way through rather than used selectively.
What does Tom Gores being born in Israel establish?
Tom Gores was born in Nazareth and moved with his family to Michigan when he was four, according to the Detroit Pistons’ official biography.
That is a biographical fact.
By itself, it does not explain why Platinum acquired McGraw Hill, why it acquired Securus or how educational material is edited.
The evidentiary question is simple:
Is there a documented government, organizational, financial or decision-making relationship connecting Gores’s national background to a particular McGraw Hill editorial decision?
If evidence of such a relationship exists, it can be investigated on its merits.
Birthplace by itself is not evidence of corporate motive.
The timeline changes the story
| Year | What happened | What it actually establishes |
|---|---|---|
| 1988 | Robert Maxwell acquires Macmillan | Maxwell becomes a major U.S. publishing owner |
| 1989 | Macmillan and McGraw-Hill create a 50/50 school-publishing venture | A genuine Maxwell-controlled-company/McGraw-Hill relationship |
| 1989 | Maxwell accepts a 15-year standstill restricting McGraw-Hill stock purchases | Strong evidence that Maxwell did not own McGraw-Hill itself |
| 1991 | Robert Maxwell dies | Ends Maxwell’s personal involvement |
| 1993 | McGraw-Hill purchases Macmillan’s remaining 50% stake | Macmillan exits the joint venture |
| 2013 | McGraw-Hill Education is sold to Apollo-affiliated funds | Education business separates from the old McGraw-Hill corporate structure |
| 2017 | Platinum acquires Securus | Beginning of Platinum’s correctional-communications ownership |
| 2020 | Tom Gores financially backs Paradigm | Real Gores-family entertainment connection |
| 2021 | Paradigm’s North American music business moves to Wasserman | The cited artists cease being a straightforward Paradigm roster connection; Gores was reported as an equity backer of the new music venture |
| 2021 | Platinum acquires McGraw Hill | Beginning of modern Platinum/McGraw Hill control |
| 2025 | McGraw Hill returns to public markets | Public trading begins, but Platinum remains the controlling shareholder |
| June 2026 | SEC filings show Platinum at roughly 86% of voting power | Latest dated ownership position reviewed for this article |
| July 2, 2026 | Aventiv completes ownership transition | Platinum’s Securus/Aventiv ownership ends |
The viral argument effectively compresses relationships spanning almost four decades into a single present-day network.
Chronology does not make those connections meaningless.
It determines which conclusions they can support.
Does common ownership prove coordinated control?
No.
But common ownership is not meaningless either.
Suppose we grant the strongest verified premises:
- Tom Gores controls Platinum.
- Platinum has documented corporate control of McGraw Hill.
- Platinum previously controlled Securus’s parent while also controlling McGraw Hill.
- Tom Gores financially backed his brother’s talent agency.
- Securus records and facilitates monitoring of correctional communications.
- McGraw Hill has extraordinary reach across U.S. education.
What follows?
It establishes concentrated corporate power
One investment organization had significant control across businesses touching education and correctional communications, while Gores also had financial interests in entertainment.
That is a legitimate subject for scrutiny.
It establishes capacity for influence
Corporate control matters because boards choose management, approve strategy and oversee major decisions.
It establishes a reason to investigate boundaries between businesses
When one owner controls multiple sensitive businesses, questions about governance, information barriers and conflicts are reasonable.
But those premises do not by themselves establish:
- cross-company data sharing;
- coordinated political or cultural messaging;
- owner-directed textbook ideology;
- personal access by Gores to incarcerated people’s calls;
- or a unified influence operation.
To establish those stronger claims, the evidence must move from relationship to conduct.
That means looking for internal documents, directives, access records, contractual arrangements, communications, whistleblower testimony, board decisions or measurable changes tied to ownership.
A network diagram proves relationships, not what traveled across them
This is where many "rabbit hole" investigations fail.
A researcher discovers:
- Person A controls Company B.
- Company B owns Company C.
- Person A’s relative owns Company D.
- Company D represents famous people.
- Company C handles sensitive information.
Every individual line may be accurate.
But the diagram still does not tell us:
- whether information moved from C to B;
- whether B directed D;
- whether A personally intervened;
- whether the businesses coordinated;
- or whether the relationship changed any disputed outcome.
The next evidentiary step is indispensable.
A network diagram can establish who is connected. It cannot, by itself, establish what traveled across those connections.
That does not mean stop investigating.
It tells us where the investigation actually begins.
Who really decides what goes into a McGraw Hill textbook?
This is the most important question once the ownership map is established.
Corporate owners matter.
But the route from shareholder control to what a student reads contains multiple layers.
In simplified form:
Controlling shareholder
↓
Board of directors
↓
Corporate management
↓
Publishing, product and editorial leadership
↓
Authors, editors and curriculum-development teams
↓
State standards and review systems where applicable
↓
District, school or professor selection
↓
Student
Influence can potentially enter at several points.
So neither of these statements is adequate:
"The billionaire owner writes what children learn."
or:
"Ownership has nothing to do with educational content."
The real question is how far documented governance power travels into editorial decisions.
K-12 textbooks are shaped by more than the publisher
There is no single national textbook-selection system.
States and districts use different processes.
Texas is an especially useful example because its review structure is formal and public.
The Texas Education Agency’s 2026 Instructional Materials Review and Approval process requires reviewed materials to undergo factual-accuracy review. Reviewers report errors, publishers must propose corrections or contest findings with evidence, and identified errors must be corrected as a condition of approval.
The process also includes public review and comment.
The Texas State Board of Education describes the IMRA process as reviewing materials for standards alignment, factual accuracy, suitability, quality and other requirements.
California uses a more locally centered model.
The California Department of Education’s current guidance states that district boards must provide for substantial teacher involvement in the selection of instructional materials and promote parent and community participation.
None of this makes publishers passive.
Publishers choose which products to develop, hire or contract authors and editors, decide how much money to invest, determine how material is presented and decide how products are revised.
But government standards, approval processes, districts and educators create additional points of influence between the corporate owner and the student.
McGraw Hill’s own filings show how much state standards matter
McGraw Hill tells investors that changes in state curriculum standards require instructional materials to be revised or replaced.
Its filings also say that states with large K-12 populations such as California, Florida and Texas can have an outsized effect on sales opportunities because of their procurement cycles. McGraw Hill’s SEC filing discusses state standards and procurement patterns.
That is important because it shows influence traveling in more than one direction.
McGraw Hill creates educational products.
But large states can create strong financial incentives for McGraw Hill to adapt those products to standards and approval requirements.
The system is not simply:
owner → textbook → child.
It is a negotiated environment involving corporate, governmental, district and educator power.
College textbooks work differently
This distinction matters because the viral speaker says her concern began with books she encountered while studying for a college degree.
College and K-12 materials are not selected through the same process.
McGraw Hill’s SEC filings say that in higher education, although students are the end users, the instructor often makes the ultimate decision regarding materials for the course. McGraw Hill’s SEC registration statement explains higher-education course-material selection.
So an inaccurate or objectionable college textbook can raise legitimate questions about:
- its authors;
- its editors;
- McGraw Hill’s editorial process;
- the professor or department that selected it;
- and the evidence supporting the disputed passage.
But it cannot automatically be generalized into:
"This is what the entire public K-12 education system teaches children."
That is a different system and a different factual claim.
Could Platinum influence McGraw Hill’s educational output?
Yes, potentially.
It would be artificial to pretend ownership does not matter.
Platinum has documented corporate control. Corporate control can affect:
- board composition;
- executive appointments;
- budgets;
- acquisitions;
- staffing;
- product priorities;
- technology investments;
- which markets receive resources;
- which products are expanded or discontinued;
- and the incentives under which executives operate.
Those decisions can affect educational output without an owner personally editing a sentence.
But that is still different from proving that Tom Gores or Platinum ordered a specific historical, scientific, political or cultural claim inserted into a textbook.
What evidence would show direct editorial interference?
A serious investigation should look for progressively stronger evidence.
Ownership alone: establishes authority and capacity.
Governance documents: show whether owners or board members formally participate in editorial or product decisions.
Editorial policies: show what safeguards or escalation procedures exist.
Repeated content changes after ownership changes: can support an inference if alternative explanations do not fit.
Internal communications: can show executives directing or pressuring editors.
Board records or management directives: can establish direct intervention.
Corroborated employee testimony: can show how formal policy operated in practice.
Specific documentary links between an owner directive and a changed textbook passage: would be especially strong.
A literal movie-style smoking gun is not always required before a reasonable inference becomes possible.
But inference still needs evidence.
Common ownership cannot substitute for the missing causal steps.
What does the evidence support right now?
Verified: Robert Maxwell had a significant McGraw-Hill publishing relationship
His Macmillan company owned half of the Macmillan/McGraw-Hill school-publishing joint venture beginning in 1989.
Verified: Robert Maxwell did not own McGraw-Hill
The same 1989 agreement restricted Maxwell’s ability to acquire McGraw-Hill stock, and McGraw-Hill bought Macmillan’s half of the joint venture in 1993.
No evidence found: Ghislaine Maxwell owns or controls McGraw Hill
The relevant historical relationship runs through her father.
Verified: Platinum had documented corporate control of McGraw Hill
The latest dated ownership disclosure reviewed for this article put Platinum-affiliated vehicles at roughly 86% of voting power in June 2026.
Verified: Platinum simultaneously controlled McGraw Hill and Securus’s parent for several years
Platinum acquired Securus in 2017, McGraw Hill in 2021 and completed its Aventiv divestiture in July 2026.
Verified: Securus records and facilitates monitoring of many correctional communications
Its current terms say so explicitly.
Verified: Tom Gores financially backed Paradigm
He became financially involved in his brother Sam Gores’s agency during its 2020 restructuring.
More complicated than the viral version: the music-industry connection
Paradigm’s North American music business moved to Wasserman in 2021, so citing those artists as current Paradigm clients is outdated. But contemporary reporting said Gores would remain an equity backer of the new music venture.
Reasonable concern: concentrated ownership deserves scrutiny
A controlling shareholder of a dominant educational publisher possesses real governance power. That power should not be treated as irrelevant simply because a viral theory overreaches.
Not established: a coordinated education, entertainment and prison-communications influence system
The sources reviewed for this article do not establish cross-company data sharing, coordinated messaging or owner-directed textbook ideology.
That conclusion should change if better evidence emerges.
The strongest investigation now goes one level deeper
If the concern is that educational materials are inaccurate, ideologically manipulated or shaped by ownership, the next step is not another ownership diagram.
It is to identify an actual example.
Take the disputed textbook or digital lesson.
Then:
- Identify the exact passage.
- Identify the edition and publication date.
- Identify the authors and editors.
- Compare prior editions.
- Determine when the disputed wording first appeared.
- Identify the relevant state or academic standards.
- Determine whether different states received different versions.
- Trace the publisher’s stated evidence for the passage.
- Determine who approved revisions.
- Look for internal editorial policies or communications.
- Ask whether the change followed an ownership, management or policy intervention.
- Compare the ownership explanation against other plausible explanations.
That is how an ownership concern becomes a testable investigation.
And it is much harder for anyone to hide behind either side of the argument.
If an owner interfered, the evidence trail should eventually point toward that intervention.
If the material came from authors, academic consensus, state requirements or instructor choice instead, that trail should point somewhere else.
Bottom line
The viral McGraw Hill theory gets something important right before it goes too far:
There really are significant corporate and historical connections here.
Robert Maxwell’s company really was McGraw-Hill’s equal partner in a major school-publishing operation.
Platinum Equity really did acquire and control McGraw Hill.
Platinum really did simultaneously control McGraw Hill and Securus’s parent for several years.
Securus really does operate systems in which correctional communications can be recorded and monitored.
Tom Gores really did financially support his brother’s talent agency, and contemporary reporting indicates his financial connection followed the music business into its 2021 restructuring.
Those facts should not be dismissed simply because they circulate inside a broader conspiracy claim.
But they also do not prove everything attached to them.
Robert Maxwell did not own McGraw-Hill. There is no evidence in the current ownership records reviewed here that Ghislaine Maxwell controls McGraw Hill. Platinum no longer owns Aventiv. The celebrity-agency relationship is more complicated than current social posts suggest. And we have not found evidence that prison communications data was shared with McGraw Hill, that these businesses coordinated messaging, or that Platinum or Tom Gores ordered specific textbook content.
The strongest conclusion is therefore neither:
"The conspiracy is proven."
nor:
"Nothing to see here."
It is this:
The ownership concentration is real. The historical relationships are real. The surveillance capability is real. Corporate control is real. Some of the viral chronology is wrong, and the causal claims go beyond the evidence currently available.
That does not end the investigation.
It tells us exactly where the investigation has to go next: away from names connected by lines and toward specific editorial decisions, governance records, information flows and documentable interventions.
That is where a theory about power becomes a testable claim about what power actually did.
References and Further Reading
McGraw Hill Ownership and Corporate Control
McGraw Hill 2026 Proxy Statement — U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Primary ownership disclosure stating that Platinum retained approximately 86.4% of McGraw Hill’s voting power as of June 4, 2026.
McGraw Hill Form S-3 — U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Reports approximately 86.3% beneficial ownership by Platinum-affiliated investment vehicles as of June 30, 2026 and explains that registration for potential resale does not mean the shares were actually sold.
McGraw Hill IPO Prospectus — U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Explains McGraw Hill’s controlled-company status and Platinum’s post-IPO voting control.
McGraw Hill Registration Statement — U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Provides McGraw Hill’s description of its K-12 and higher-education reach, state purchasing dynamics and higher-education instructor selection.
Platinum Equity Completes Acquisition of McGraw Hill for $4.5 Billion — McGraw Hill
Corporate announcement documenting the 2021 acquisition.
Robert Maxwell, Macmillan and McGraw-Hill
McGraw-Hill, Macmillan Agree to Combine Precollegiate Units — Education Week, May 1989
Contemporaneous reporting documenting the 50/50 school-publishing joint venture and the 15-year standstill limiting Maxwell’s McGraw-Hill stock purchases.
McGraw-Hill Gets Maxwell OK on 15-Year Reprieve — Los Angeles Times, May 1989
Contemporaneous reporting explaining that Maxwell agreed not to attempt to acquire McGraw-Hill for 15 years.
McGraw-Hill Acquires Macmillan’s Interest in Joint Venture — UPI, October 1993
Documents McGraw-Hill’s $337.5 million purchase of Macmillan’s remaining 50% interest.
The McGraw-Hill Companies Completes Sale of McGraw-Hill Education to Apollo — S&P Global, March 2013
Documents the 2013 sale of the education business to Apollo-affiliated funds for $2.4 billion.
Securus and Aventiv
Securus Technologies Corporate History
Securus’s own history states that Platinum Equity acquired the company in 2017.
Securus Friends and Family Terms and Conditions
Current primary terms describing the recording, monitoring, preservation and disclosure of communications through Securus products.
Platinum Equity Supports Proposed Recapitalization Agreement at Aventiv Technologies
Platinum’s own 2025 statement describes the transaction as facilitating its divestiture of Aventiv.
Aventiv Technologies Completes Recapitalization and Ownership Transition — July 2, 2026
Primary company announcement establishing the transition to new ownership.
Paradigm and the Gores Family
Paradigm Selling Music Division to Wasserman — Pollstar, March 2021
Contemporaneous report on the transfer of Paradigm’s North American music business and the statement that Tom Gores would financially back the new music venture as an equity partner.
Educational-Materials Selection
Texas Education Agency — IMRA Process Overview
Explains Texas’s 2026 process for accuracy review, public review and publisher responses.
Texas State Board of Education — Instructional Materials Review and Approval
Describes state review for standards alignment, factual accuracy, suitability and quality.
California Department of Education — Local Instructional Materials Adoptions
Explains California’s requirement for substantial teacher involvement and promoted parent/community participation in local instructional-material selection.
Biographical Context
Detroit Pistons — Tom Gores Ownership Biography
Official biography establishing that Gores was born in Nazareth and moved to Michigan at age four.
Editorial currency note: Corporate ownership, investment holdings, company portfolios and instructional-material policies can change. Ownership statements in this article are tied to the dates of the underlying filings and records. Sources and current corporate records were rechecked through September 30, 2026.
