April 21, 2014 | Read Time: 6 minutes
Criticizing philanthropy (or philanthropists) of any kind is tricky. To most people, a negative appraisal sounds off-base and churlish—yet another instance of “No good deed goes unpunished.”
Criticizing the immense private foundations that finance and shape the market-model “reform” of public education in the United States produces the same incredulity and indignation. “You’re going after Bill Gates?” I’ve been asked many times. “He’s doing good work in Africa. Leave him alone.”
Actually, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s work in Africa has some serious critics, but suppose, for the sake of argument, that the foundation does much good there. Suppose that Bloomberg Philanthropies announces tomorrow that it will spend $1-billion over the next five years to promote gun control in the United States. Would those of us who oppose market-model education reform but support mosquito nets and gun control still criticize the megafoundations? Would we do it in the same way?
There are at least three approaches to evaluating the role of big philanthropy in public education. Understanding how they differ makes for a more effective analysis and clearer arguments. These three approaches are:
Focusing on the failure of specific policies pushed by the foundations and the harm they do to teaching and learning. For example, a critique of using value-added modeling (mathematical models based on student standardized test scores) to measure the effectiveness of individual teachers would deal with the inherent unreliability of the calculations, the nonsensical use of faulty formulas to measure growth in learning, and the negative consequences of rating teachers with such a flawed tool.
Examining how big philanthropy’s activity undermines the democratic control of public education, an institution that is central to a functioning democracy. The questions to ask are these: Has the public’s voice in the governance of public education been strengthened or weakened? Are politicians more or less responsive to the public? Are the news media more or less free to inform people?
This approach pinpoints certain types of foundation activity:
- Paying the salaries of high-level personnel to do education-reform work within government departments.
- Stipulating that grants money will be paid only while specific politicians remain in office.
- Promoting mayoral control and state control of school districts instead of control by elected school boards.
- Financing scores of education-reform nonprofits to adopt and advocate for the foundations’ pet policies—activity that has undermined the autonomy and creativity of education nonprofits.
- Making grants to (and thus influencing) national professional associations of government officials, including the National Conference of State Legislatures, the United States Conference of Mayors, and the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices.
- Making grants to media organizations that cover education and co-producing programs with them.
Analyzing how large private foundations are peculiar and problematic institutions in a democracy. This approach considers big philanthropy in general and uses education reform as one example of how megafoundations undermine democratic governance and civil society. The objections to wealthy private corporations dedicated to doing good (as they see it) have remained the same since the early 20th century, when the first megafoundations were created: They intervene in public life but aren’t accountable to the public; they are privately governed but publicly subsidized by being tax exempt; and in a country where money translates into political power, they reinforce the problem of plutocracy—the exercise of power derived from wealth.
Of course, all three approaches to criticizing big philanthropy can be part of the same discussion, but the distinctions help to create a more coherent point of view. They make answering the inevitable challenges easier. Here are some of those challenges and possible responses.
Challenge: You seem to believe that education-reform philanthropy is some sort of nefarious conspiracy. Here we go again with conspiracy theories.
Response: By definition, conspiracies are secret and illegal. The education-reform movement isn’t a conspiracy. When people or organizations work together politically in a democracy, it’s a coalition or movement. This is true even when—as is the case with education—huge amounts of money are being spent by megafoundations and private meetings take place.
Challenge: You wrongly depict the education-reform movement as homogeneous, with everyone marching in lockstep. The movement is actually rife with disagreements.
Response: Coalitions are rarely, if ever, completely homogeneous. Yet their members generally agree on basic principles and goals. That’s how they make progress. The education-reform movement is no different. Both critics and supporters agree that the most significant policy difference among foundations is on vouchers—the per-pupil funds that parents can transfer from a district public school to a private school. For example, the Walton Family Foundation supports vouchers; the Gates and Broad foundations do not. Over all, however, education-reform supporters tend to play down the general agreement on broad policy questions that makes their movement possible.
Challenge: You constantly impugn the motives of the megafoundations. Do you really think Melinda Gates or Eli Broad wants to hurt children?
Response: Of course the philanthropists aim to do good, but they define “good” for themselves and others.
Walton’s directors, for example, believe that school vouchers will improve education. By supporting vouchers, they believe and claim they are doing good. So it’s not productive to question their motives. But that doesn’t mean that their positions and activity are above reproach. When philanthropists enter the public-policy fray, they—like everyone else—legitimately become fair game for criticism and opposition. Tax-exempt status shouldn’t create sacred cows.
Challenge: Grant makers spend $1.5-billion or $2-billion annually on elementary and secondary education in America. That’s minuscule compared to the more than $525-billion that government spends every year. You exaggerate the influence that foundations exert with their donations.
Response: Government spending on public education goes to basic and fixed expenses. Most states and urban school districts can’t cover their costs—they run deficits or cut outlays. Sociologists have shown that discretionary spending—spending beyond what covers ordinary running costs—is where policy is shaped and changed. The megafoundations use their grants as leverage: They give money to grantees that agree to adopt the foundations’ pet policies. Resource-starved states and school districts feel compelled to say yes to millions of dollars even when many strings are attached or they consider the policies unwise.
Challenge: Private foundations don’t weaken democracy; they add another voice to the democratic debate. This increases pluralism and actually strengthens democracy.
Response: Money translates too easily into political power in the United States, and the country is becoming increasingly plutocratic. Megafoundations exacerbate this tendency. In the realm of public-education policy, they have too much influence, and this undermines democracy.
