The expanding role of philanthropy in education politics

Reckhouse, S., & Snyder, J.W. (2014). The expanding role of philanthropy in education politics. Educational Researcher, 43(4), 186-195.


In the end, is everything always about money and power? The research outlined here seems to support that notion. Reckhouse and Snyder show us data that indicate that five things are happening: 1) foundations linked to major corporations are granting more funding than ever before for education, 2) most of that funding is coming from only a handful of entities (about five), fewer than those who funded education even as recently as ten years ago, 3) who those foundations are has changed, with some older foundations dropping out of the top ten list of education funders in recent years, 4) recent funding is tending to go more toward advocacy of national education agendas rather than toward specific projects developed by smaller entities, and 5) the agendas supported often relate to what Reckhouse and Snyder term “jurisdictional challengers in education” (p. 193), that is, school choice and charter schools, as well as alternative routes to teacher certification.

Before anyone jumps in and labels this as a conservative attempt to take over education, I must point out that the figures shown by Reckhouse and Snyder also tell us that large foundations (notably the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) funded the efforts of the group from which the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) originated, and the CCSS Initiative is strongly supported by the current U.S. President, whose agendas are not typically embraced by conservatives. The scenario described here is a complex one that would be oversimplified by linking the trend to either conservative or liberal political agendas.

I was deeply disturbed as I read this article, and I am trying to figure out why. It is not that money and power have not always spoken loudly when it comes to education. In many ways, the fact that so much education funding is flowing from the foundations is an affirmation of just how important education is in the United States. In this country, schooling is tied up with opportunity, and socioeconomic status, and (always) with racial issues and all of the struggles that go with those factors. Schooling is inextricably linked to having (or not having) the American dream.

Schools have traditionally been governed on a state and local level. The idea has been that those who are actually raising and educating children, and making communities for them, should be making decisions about how those children should be educated. The U.S. Constitution deliberately left out any mention of schools, which left the governance of education to the states. The data discussed in this article provide evidence that not only is the tradition of local control quickly eroding, but maybe even federal control is no longer in the hands of the majority of U.S. citizens. A few entities with money to spend can influence education in far-ranging ways. The Common Core State Standards, which are currently being implemented in a majority of states, are reshaping what happens in U.S. classrooms. Arguably, these standards might not have been so quickly adopted or implemented had the initiative to do so not been heavily funded by foundations.

I am not arguing against the CCSS here; those standards are not what bothers me about all of this. As a longtime educator, I have seen sets of standards, both state and national, rise, fall, come, and go. The CCSS are perhaps a little better than what we had before, but not much. As with all of these standards documents, there are things to like, and things not to like, in them. I believe that in many cases these documents are built with good intentions focused on educating children, but I also believe that political agendas and power will always enter in and blur the agendas as well as limiting and blunting the potential effect that the standards could have.

I don’t think I am even arguing against the agendas that Reckhouse and Snyder claim are reaping the benefits of advocacy-based philanthropy these days. For the record, I am a strong supporter of public schools and always have been. However, I live in an area where public schools, particularly in the urban core, have not been educating all children for equal opportunity. I have had experiences with charter schools, and with private schools, and those have varied across a continuum from positive to negative. Some charter schools really are helping make a difference, but others are not. Moreover, I have been a university teacher educator for over 30 years, so obviously I believe that education is a profession that requires training, time, and development. I am uncomfortable with shortcuts for teacher training because I see teachers developing every day in my work, and I know it is not easy to grow a good teacher. That being said, I have also run into individuals with natural talent who were delayed or even prevented from teaching by restrictive pathways to certification.

My feelings of trepidation here are not based on the specific agendas being advocated, but rather on the way the power structure seems to be changing to favor whatever agendas corporate entities decide to support. It looks as if those who have enough money can do anything, including changing long-held and cherished ways we have governed how we educate our own children, and making those changes with blinding rapidity and without going through the channels for change that are part of the U.S. system. These channels may be flawed, and they may not always move efficiently or wisely, but they are based upon the consent of the governed. Who, then, is really governing education in America? Is it the large corporations? This worries me greatly.

As a postscript, reading this article gave me a push to look more deeply at how foundations (and all nonprofits) are regulated in the U.S. system. I recommend a search with the descriptor “501(c)3 vs. 501(c)4”. If you are not well-versed in U.S. tax regulations, this will be informative. The main idea here is that foundations who want to be tax exempt may not directly participate in political activity. The key word there is “directly”. Foundations cannot support a presidential candidate, and in general they cannot lobby for agendas they favor. However, they can fund national projects and organizations that are working on initiatives that are favored by various political groups. The discussion here cannot encompass all that is to be learned by studying how all of this works, but I can tell you that it was a good thing for me to do. While I am no less disturbed by what I read in this article, I am more informed about how philanthropy works in this country.