Outcome-Based Education. No Child Left Behind. Race to the Top. These ambitious government programs aim at making students better at completing tests, holding teachers accountable for classroom performance and (hopefully) producing better educated citizens ready to enter the job market. For the past decade, however, the growth of new K-12 advocacy groups, distinct from grant foundations, has significantly altered the course of education reform, raising questions regarding the ethics of certain funding sources and donor expectations. As various political and private interest players enter the field, education reform has become polarized along business lines. Advocacy groups blur the political agenda of reform, and instead lobby in favor of changes they think will prove most effective: school privatization is one way to profit from shifts in the education sector.
An abundance of advocacy groups has proliferated in education reform’s private and public sectors. Every group has an agenda to promote. Each has a vision of how the education system should change. Many of them exert significant influence on education reform by lobbying for specific policy changes and financing congressional campaigns. One sector of influence in education includes top philanthropic education foundations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation, all of which award grants to specific institutions and causes. Yet another breed of reform groups includes Democrats for Education Reform (DFER), Michelle Rhee’s StudentsFirst, Stand for Children and Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Excellence in Education.
Reformers come from all across the political spectrum. DFER is the only group that supports solely Democrats, deliberately working to build a base of pro-education Democrats without union ties—unions are notorious for blocking any kind of significant school reform. They argue that teacher salaries and tenures need to be protected to ensure quality education, though critics claim that unions do not put “students first.” Recently, researchers have found that most foundation money no longer goes to public schools, but rather to alternate options like charter schools and other private choices. These changes are often in opposition to the agendas of teachers’ unions. Subsequently, new advocacy groups like StudentsFirst and Stand for Children create a new reality of political uncertainty through their bi-partisan tendencies. Instead of consistently backing candidates by party line, these organizations are issue-oriented. Candidates who do not support teacher accountability or cater to teacher’s unions, for instance, will not receive campaign donations.
The world of education advocacy is a messy one not easily parsed. Foundations and advocacy groups that promote implementing teacher accountability measures also lobby for charter bills and support removing teacher union-membership requirements. Although the Gates Foundation is not directly involved with lobby efforts, it donates and pledges money to advocacy groups that do lobbying work. Since 2005, it has given $5.2 million to Stand for Children’s Leadership Center, while the Broad Foundation has donated to StudentsFirst and Education Reform Now. Gates in particular is perceived as exercising disproportionate impact through its ties to the Obama White House. Criticism from within the education sector is difficult to find, as (potential) grant recipients cannot openly criticize the few big money holders for fear of jeopardizing their grants.
Limited public funding means that schools are constantly looking for money elsewhere, and reform groups are sometimes the ideal source. Advocacy groups and foundations are therefore able to push their vision of education reform with funding as an incentive. Because an organization’s mission is sometimes at odds with the ideals of the institution it seeks to change, reform organization involvement in schools creates tension, generally between administrators and teachers suddenly held to different expectations. In Florida, for instance, Jeb Bush has advocated for a public school grading scale of A-F. Since implementation participating schools have experienced grade fluctuations with critics calling into question the relationship between reforms and gains. This is in part due to the numerous changes made to the rating system, case in point Florida’s recent announcement that schools would not drop more than one letter grade this cycle. Still there were a record number of schools receiving F and D scores.
Bush founded his Foundation for Excellence in Education while still governor of Florida to promote his view of education. The Foundation is one example of many neo-advocacy groups that press for increased parent choice within a system that includes vouchers, charters, and private institutions. Bush operates on the metaphor that schools are like milk:
“Go down any supermarket aisle—you’ll find an incredible selection of milk. You can get whole milk, 2% milk, low-fat milk or skim milk. Organic milk, and milk with extra Vitamin D. There’s flavored milk—chocolate, strawberry or vanilla—and it doesn’t even taste like milk. They even make milk for people who can’t drink milk. Shouldn’t parents have that kind of choice in schools?”
Private reform organizations are powerful because they are only accountable to their own standards, although they deal with external backlash to a greater extent than federal or state governments. They face heavy criticism for the pressure they exert on politicians; most are related 501(c)4s, meaning they can dedicate a certain number of hours to lobbying or campaigning and unlike PAC’s do not need to report donor lists. Unions, parents and critics condemn the radical efforts of education reform groups—charters, common standards, school choice and teacher accountability are particular targets—but very few school systems reject funding. Where can we draw the ethical line for taking money for good causes? These groups are radically changing how education is perceived around the country. Previously, the government was the sole actor regarding school improvement standards. Now, much of the discussion is separate from federal authorities or pressed upon it by interest groups.
The new field of education reform is sometimes criticized for its “corporate reformers” who advocate privatizing public education. Private foundations are often self-funded, but newer, smaller groups target big donors (like Wall Street executives or company executives) because the quickest way to raise money is to go to those who have it.
Private interests pushing personal agendas characterize current education reform. There is distinct pressure to move away from collaboration with teachers’ unions, as evidenced by increasingly prevalent representations of the “big bad teachers’ union” in the media and reform rhetoric. Indeed, unions pose a significant obstacle to advocacy groups: any change includes renegotiating contracts, leading to tense debates, walkouts and victimization campaigns. Education is more and more a business. The source of the funds is rarely clear and usually comes from private interests. As private organizations, it is within their prerogative to do with their money as they wish: school districts and politicians are under no obligation to take money from investors they do not agree with.