Amid the search for John Boehner’s replacement as Speaker of the House and the ever-mounting frenzy of the 2016 presidential election, it can be easy for the public to overlook other important items on the Congressional agenda. One of the more pressing issues is the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). This piece of educational legislation was one of the mainstays of President George W. Bush’s domestic policy legacy and was due for reauthorization in 2007. It’s now 2015, and while the House and the Senate each passed its own NCLB bill in July, Congress has not yet formed a conference committee to draft a complete bill that reconciles both versions.
It’s unclear when a cohesive bill will cross President Obama’s desk — or even if reauthorization will occur under this administration. What is even more uncertain is how the cast of actors involved in education policy — from leaders in the Department of Education to large urban school district superintendents, to individual teachers in classrooms – will implement the policy.
Outside of these players, another strong force is emerging in education policy: philanthropies. Nonprofits such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and the Annenberg Foundation as well as individuals like Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg have made education a top grant-making priority. Philanthropy only makes up about 1 percent of total spending on education – the BMGF, the primary foundation funding education, gave $209 million in 2010, compared to the US government’s total of $600 billion. These organizations are minor players compared to the larger American educational system, but they are not inconsequential. For one, their smaller size, more flexible spending, and access to the political capital of top donors and policymakers could give foundations an advantage over traditional policymaking. As NCLB is currently eight years out of date, Congress must acknowledge how their inaction has lead foundations to promote their own education policy implementation tactics. But ultimately, foundations have limited monetary and political resources, and can only make small gains in education reform. Their successes are also tempered by the controversy that philanthropies are not democratically held accountable to the communities they serve. Therefore, when giving becomes policymaking, foundations demonstrate the limitations and hazards of legislating outside government bounds.
Philanthropic involvement in education is not new. Andrew Carnegie, seen by many as the father of modern philanthropy, founded 2,509 libraries in the early 20th century as well as the Carnegie Corporation of New York, whose mission was (and continues to be) a dedication to education and international peace. While a century has passed, the philanthropic link between education and world safety has remained strong: The BMGF allocates only about one-seventh of its investments in education while two-thirds go to international development, such as the distribution of malaria vaccines and mosquito netting.
Another tie between the robber baron philanthropists of the past and the foundations of the present is their role as extra-governmental representatives of the communities they seek to serve. In The Gospel of Wealth, Carnegie describes the proper role of the millionaire as “a trustee for the community, administering [funds] far better than it could or would have done for itself.”
If Carnegie’s groundbreaking text has defined the expansive role of foundations for the past century, a new book, Dale Rusakoff’s The Prize, provides modern philanthropies with a sobering look at the hubris in education policy. Rusakoff examines Mark Zuckerberg’s 2010 effort to reform the New Jersey city of Newark’s public schools through a $100 million donation and an understanding of another $100 million in matching funds from other sources. The Facebook founder partnered with then-Newark mayor and now-New Jersey Senator Cory Booker and Governor Chris Christie. Yet, despite the best intentions of this philanthropist-politician coalition, Zuckerberg’s push for a school choice model fell through. In theory, allowing parents to pick from a database of schools in the city and select to attend those best suiting their children’s needs sounds like a promising reform. Yet in effect, the deviation from the neighborhood-school structure led to a transportation upheaval and parental concerns about the safety of unknown neighborhoods. Support also faltered because the philanthropists heading the project did not consult with parents or community leaders when crafting policy — many Newark residents first learned of the overhaul of their city’s school system when it was announced on Oprah.
Carnegie’s belief in the superiority of the nonprofit to administer funds may have been true in the era when educational grants focused more on inputs than outputs. In the past, philanthropists were concerned with providing a grant that would fund a certain number of students at a particular high school or would go toward the building of a new gymnasium. The newer movement in education giving values policy implementation over providing certain tangible services. Eli Broad, founder of the Broad Foundation, recently announced an initiative to expand Los Angeles charter schools to make up 50 percent of the district — currently, 16 percent of students in the LA Unified School District attend charters, the biggest percentage in the country. The BMGF is closely tied to the expansion of the Common Core State Standards, a national set of guidelines for what should be taught in K-12 public schools. Instead of how many students can benefit off a single donor, the question now, according to Cantrell, is “what’s the most powerful thing we can do to improve teaching?” For the BMGF, it is the implementation of the Common Core that will ensure :“What happens within the school walls should be happening with great quality.” Through investment in teacher development and evaluation programs aligned with national standards, the BMGF’s hope is to create a system in which a student’s ability to attend a top college or compete in the global marketplace does not depend on the state where he or she grew up.
The power of education policy is that anyone can get behind kids. The opportunity for political backlash is small; the prospect of positive feedback is great. While the Newark education reforms were unsuccessful, their attention to the city’s schoolchildren undoubtedly helped Cory Booker in his rise from Newark mayor to senator and Chris Christie in attaining support as a Republican presidential candidate. Yet with so many interests mixed up in the education policy circus, it is paramount that the voice of the local community, the historical basis of the American school system, does not disappear. Under their Measures of Effective Teaching program, the BMGF does not enter a district without the support of the teacher’s union and the superintendent, according to Cantrell.
Perhaps what is needed in these communities is in fact teacher development and aid in adopting Common Core state standards. But, if the primary focus as a whole is on using funding to better the public education our children receive, then sometimes foundations must leave policymaking to the legislators. Ultimately, whether Common Core or school choice vouchers are included in the NCLB reauthorization – whenever it occurs — is up to Congress. Meanwhile, poverty, hunger, and inadequate resources plague American schoolchildren, just as malaria prevents billions of children worldwide from learning. Sometimes, what a community truly requires is a vaccine. Sometimes, extra fruit at lunch, sporting goods at recess, a library of textbooks – whether they align with the Common Core Standards or not – are what children truly need in order to learn.