Society

, Volume 52, Issue 6, pp 552–558 | Cite as

Beyond Blueprints: Questioning the Replication Model in Education Philanthropy

Symposium: The New Philanthropy: What Do We Know Now?

Abstract

Major new foundations, such as the Gates Foundation, Broad Foundation, and Walton Family Foundation, developed strategies for education philanthropy that drew on lessons from the Annenberg Challenge in the 1990s. Rather than funding locally initiated plans for reform, these new funders share a similar set of strategies, such as charter school expansion and teacher evaluation, and promote these strategies for national replication. Foundation dollars have played a role in enabling significant transformations of some urban districts, such as Los Angeles, Newark, New Orleans, and Washington, D.C. Based on analysis of foundation grant distribution to urban districts since 2000 and the political consequences of these grants, I argue that the pendulum of philanthropic strategy may have moved too far in response to the Annenberg Challenge. Where funders saw too much adaptation to local circumstances with Annenberg, they have responded with an overemphasis on national models. Where funders saw too much geographic dispersion of resources with Annenberg, they have responded with significant coordinated investments in certain districts where Blacks and Latinos find themselves disempowered by outside interests. Where funders saw too many attempts to cooperate and collaborate with traditional school districts, they have responded with a strategy that financially weakens some urban districts. In the conclusion, I highlight new lessons for foundations based on weaknesses in the national replication strategy.

Keywords

Education policy Philanthropy Urban politics Markets 

Further Reading

  1. Anderson, C. 2015. “Response to Information Request from the Joint Committee on the Public Schools.” http://assets.njspotlight.com/assets/15/0309/2320; Accessed on September 13, 2015.
  2. Bifulco, R., Randall, R. 2011. “Fiscal Impacts of Charter Schools: Lessons from New York.” Report to the New York State Department of Education. http://www.columbia.edu/~rr2165/pdfs/nycharterfiscal.pdf; Accessed on September 13, 2015.
  3. Blume, H. 2015. “More Charter Expansion in the Works for L.A. Unified Students.” Los Angeles Times. August 7.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, E. 2014. “D.C. Mayoral Primary has Schools Chancellor Kaya Henderson’s Future Up in the Air.” The Washington Post. April 3.Google Scholar
  5. Chait, J. 2015. "How New Orleans Proved Urban-Education Reform Can Work." New York Magazine. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/08/how-new-orleans-proved-education-reform-can-work.html; Accessed on October 15, 2015. 
  6. CREDO. 2015. “Urban Charter School Study: Report on 41 Regions.” The Center For Research on Educational Outcomes. Stanford University.Google Scholar
  7. Dahl, R. 1961. Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Desai, R. M., & Kharas, H. 2008. The California Consensus: Can Private Aid End Global Poverty?”. Survival, 50(4), 155–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Domanico, R. 2000. Introduction: An Unprecedented Challenge. In R. Domanico (Ed.), Can philanthropy Fix Our Schools? Appraising Walter Annenberg’s $500 Million Gift to Public Education. Washington: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.Google Scholar
  10. Fleishman, J. L. 2009. The Foundation: How Private Wealth is Changing the World. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  11. Harris, D. 2015. "Good News for New Orleans." Education Nexthttp://educationnext.org/good-news-new-orleans-evidence-reform-student-achievement/; Accessed on October 15, 2015.
  12. Levin, H.M., Daschbach, J., Perry, A. 2010. “A Diverse Education Provider.” In Bulkley K. E., Henig, J. R., Levin, H. M. Eds. Between Public and Private: Politics, Governance, and the New Portfolio Models for Urban School Reform. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  13. Marris, P., Martin R. 1983. Dilemmas of Social Reform: Poverty and Community Action in the United States. Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Mehta, J., & Teles, S. 2012. Jurisdictional Politics: A New Federal Role in Education. In F. M. Hess & A. P. Kelly (Eds.), Carrots, Sticks, and the Bully Pulpit: Lessons From a Half-Century of Federal Efforts to Improve America’s Schools. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  15. O’Connor, A. 2001. Poverty Knowledge: Social Science, Social Policy and the Poor in Twentieth-Century U.S. History. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Reckhow, S. 2013. Follow the Money: How Foundation Dollars Change Public School Politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Reckhow, S., & Snyder, J. 2014. The Expanding Role of Philanthropy in Education Politics. Educational Researcher. 43(4), 186–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rusakoff, D. 2015. The Prize: Who’s in Charge of America’s Schools? New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
  19. Schwartzman, P., Jenkins, C. L. 2010. “How D.C. Mayor Fenty Lost the Black Vote—and His Job.” The Washington Post. September 18.Google Scholar
  20. Scott, J. 2009. The Politics of Venture Philanthropy in Charter School Policy and Advocacy. Educational Policy, 23(1), 106–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Snyder, J., Reckhow S. 2015. “Political Determinants of K-12 Education Philanthropic Funds for Urban Schools.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Political Science Association. Chicago.Google Scholar
  22. Welch, S. 2010. “Absent No More: School Reform Attracting Once-Reluctant Foundations.” Crain's Detroit Business. March 19. http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20100319/BRIGHTSIDE/303199985/1084; Accessed on September 13, 2015.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations