Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

What’s the Bottom Line? Corporate Involvement in an Early Childhood Initiative

  • Published:
The Urban Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Using data from a qualitative case study of a statewide early childhood initiative, this article critically examines the budding relationship between one state’s early childhood initiative and the corporate community. The analysis is situated within assumptions about the benefits of public–private partnerships and early childhood and childcare as vital to the nation’s current and future workforce. Early childhood stakeholders courted the business sector to gain support for the program, and their actions resulted in unintended consequences, including privileging the perspectives of businesspersons above those of parents, service providers, and other stakeholders.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Apple, M. W. (1995). Remembering capital: On the connection between French fries and education. JCT: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Curriculum Studies 11(1):113-128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J., and McCaffrey, A. (2002). Business leadership coalitions and public-private partnerships in American cities: A business perspective on regime theory. Journal of Urban Affairs 24(1):35-54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjorklund, G. (1994). County government and local business collaborate for quality child care. Young Children 49(4):82-83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broder, D. S. (2001, July 25). Dividends of early learning. The Washington Post, p. A21.

  • Burke, M. A. (1986). School-business partnerships: Trojan horse or manna from heaven? NASSP Bulletin 70(493):45-46, 48-49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Business Roundtable. (2003, May 7). Early childhood education: A call to action from the business community. Retrieved May 24, 2003, from http://www.brtable.org/document.cfm/901.

  • Callahan, R. E. (1964). Education and the Cult of Efficiency: A Study of the Social Forces that have Shaped the Administration of the Public Schools. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chubb, J. C., and Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, Markets, and America's Schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee for Economic Development. (2002). Preschool for All: Investing in a Just and Productive Society. New York: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Common Sense Foundation. (1999, January). Tax fairness. Common Sense Says... 2(1). Retrieved May 26, 2004, from http://www.common-sense.org/?fnoc=./common_sense_says/ 99_january.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., and Pence, A. (1999). Beyond Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care: Postmodern Perspectives. London: Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Democracy South. (2001). Tax-breaks for North Carolina's big campaign contributors. Retrieved May 26, 2004, from http://www.democracysouth.org/nc/bigmoneyinpolitics/specialinteresttaxbreaks. htm.

  • Education Commission of the States. (2001). Starting Early, Starting Now: A Policymaker's Guide to Early Care and Education and School Success. Denver, CO: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, W. (1986). Paradigms and Promises: New Approaches to Educational administration. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, D. (1994). Business and early childhood education reform. Theory Into Practice 33(4):235-241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P. D. (1987). Abandoning the rhetoric of independence: Reflections on the non-profit sector in the post-liberal era. In S. A. Ostrander and S. Langton (Eds.), Shifting the Debate: Public/Private Sector Relations in the Modern Welfare State (pp. 11-28). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harty, S. (1994). Pied piper revisited. In D. Bridges and T. H. McLaughlin (Eds.), Education and the Marketplace (pp. 89-102). ondon: Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollenbeck, K. (1996). Bridging the gap. The American School Board Journal 183(12):35.

  • House, E. R. (1998). Schools For Sale: Why Free Market Policies Won't Improve America's Schools, and What Will. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karier, C. J. (1973). Business values and the educational state. In C. J. Karier, P. Violas and J. Spring (Eds.), Roots of Crisis. Chicago: Rand-McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kisner, M. J., Mazza, M. J., and Liggett, D. R. (1997). Building partnerships. New Directions for Community Colleges 25(1), 23-28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohn, A. (2002). The 500-pound gorilla. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(2):113-119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mickelson, R. A. (1999). International Business Machines: A case study of corporate involvement in local educational reform. Teachers College Record, 100(3):476-512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molnar, A. (1996). Giving Kids the Business: The Commercialization of America's Schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Association of Partners in Education. (2001). Partnerships 2000: A decade of growth and change. Alexandria, VA: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (Expanded ed.). Washington DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, D., and Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. New York: Plume.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenau, P. V. (1999). The strengths and weaknesses of public-private policy partnerships. American Behavioral Scientist 43(1):10-34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P. M., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., and Kleiner, A. (2000). Schools that Learn: A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Educators, Parents, and Everyone who Cares about Education. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spring, J. (2002). Conflict of Interest: The Politics of American Education (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timpane, M. P., and McNeil, L. M. (1991). Business impact on education and child development reform: A study prepared for the Committee for Economic Development. Washington, DC: Committee for Economic Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trachtman, R. (1989). The partnerships in education movement and the nation's education agenda. In S. D. Otterbourg and D. Adams (Eds.), Partnerships in Education: Measuring their Success. Largo, FL: Paul Snodgrass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyack, D., and Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering Toward Utopia: A Century of Public School Reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind: A Desktop Reference. Washington, DC: Secondary Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wettenhall, R. (2003). The rhetoric and reality of public-private partnerships. Public Organization Review 3:77-107.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Patterson, J.A. What’s the Bottom Line? Corporate Involvement in an Early Childhood Initiative. The Urban Review 36, 147–168 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-004-0617-z

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-004-0617-z

Navigation