‘Post-Modern Philanthropy’ Doesn’t Make the Grade

To the Editor:

No one would contest the fact that philanthropic dollars are enabling “thousands of children to attend private schools,” as Leslie Lenkowsky asserts in his recent column (“The Dawning of ‘Post-Modern Philanthropy,’” Opinion, January 14).

But if the foundations and individual donors that are writing these checks are serious about altogether abandoning the institution of public education in favor of privately owned and operated schools, then they need to address the eventual challenge of placing more than 50 million students who currently attend public schools in private settings.

They also face a host of other questions: Where would funding of that magnitude come from? Assuming public dollars, in the form of vouchers or their equivalent, would make up a significant portion of the funding, how would issues of accountability and equity be addressed? If an independent school receiving public funds is to be publicly accountable and held to public standards of equal access, how independent will it be? Or if the school is not held to public standards of equal access, are we prepared to scrap our national commitment to the education of all children, regardless of disabilities and socioeconomic circumstances?

These issues are, of course, systemic — which raises the question as to whether a call to forsake systemic approaches to philanthropy in favor of individualistic ones is, in fact, a delaying of the inevitable.

There is no denying the murky “bath water” — the ossified bureaucracies, systemic inequities, and a self-perpetuating lowness of morale — that engulfs many urban school districts. But the real challenge is to remove the bath water while preserving the “baby” — the institution of public education, which is simply indispensable to a healthy democratic society. Voucher schemes not only avoid this important work, they also constitute an enervating, large-scale distraction from the task at hand.

The problems we face in education are dynamically complex — multifaceted and ever-changing. A school district’s organization chart, for example, may be static and well-ordered on paper, but it becomes fluid in reality as school and district administrators, board members, teachers, students, parents, and community, business, and union leaders act, react, and interact; as unpredictable events occur; and as the unintended consequences of carefully planned actions unfold.

I am quick to acknowledge that many attempts at reforming public education have fizzled or eventuated in muddled results. But I would also argue that very few of these efforts have been genuinely systemic. Successfully improving our dynamically complex systems of public education may require foundations to act with a degree of strategic wisdom exceeding what has been evident in some previous initiatives.

It could be that “post-modern philanthropy” in education will be characterized by initiatives that are more systemic rather than non-systemic — more savvy about the complexities of whole-system reforms, such as the implementation of performance standards and assessments as an engine for driving the transformation of teaching and learning so that students throughout a public school district can achieve at higher levels.

If, on the other hand, “post-modern philanthropy” as characterized by Mr. Lenkowsky, really is the wave of the future, we will have only ourselves to blame when complex issues requiring systemic solutions are treated symptomatically, leading to the stranding of thousands of children in neglected, dysfunctional schools while their more fortunate neighbors land a spot in a private school across town.

Scott Thompson
Assistant Director
Panasonic Foundation
Secaucus, N.J.