Philanthropic Strategies for School Reform

Abstract

Although support for K-12 education has long been a priority for philanthropic organizations, foundations are increasingly choosing to play a leading role in fostering the development and implementation of new policies designed to reform K-12 education. This article is an effort to understand the strategies and tactics employed by foundations currently engaged in K-12 education policy. In-depth interviews conducted with senior staff members of 20 foundations identified as substantially engaged in education policy and school reform were conducted to examine three fundamental strategic choices: the foundation's decision to engage in education policy, including the specific policy domain within education; the foundation's choice on where to intervene in the policy process and at what level of government; and the foundation's tactics to leverage additional resources. Findings suggest that foundations consciously seek to engage in education policy as an integral ingredient of their philanthropic initiatives and are led by staff and board leadership in these decisions. Most foundation activities in this arena aim to create individual niches of activity within the school reform agenda based on the foundation's informed theory of change. As a group, however, foundation engagement in education policy is collectively cautious and ultimately incremental as foundations attempt to make change at the state and district level primarily through demonstration projects and funding research and development activities.

Roles of local foundations in German community-based initiatives: Devolving criticism of philanthropy to the local?

“…Following this explanatory orientation, they organized thematic inputs for network meetings, engaged in action coordination for the steering committee, and undertook collective project funding. This finding is congruent with reports on the intensified engagement of philanthropy in education policy (Ferris et al, 2007;Reckhow & Snyder, 2014;Saltman, 2010). We propose that explanatory orientations indicate an expertise role, as foundations orient themselves to share expertise with others.…”

“…Although a dichotomous perspective runs the risk of black and white differentiations, previous research has notably pointed towards disruptive elements such as engagements in policy-making. Ferris et al (2007) investigate foundations' motivations for advocacy in education policy and find correlations with their goals and missions, a large scale and scope, as well as a willingness to engage in policy debate. Accordingly, research on foundations' advocacy has so far primarily focused on large investors that are able to pursue their policy-making goals (Kornhaber, Barkauskas, & Griffith, 2016).…”

“…Accordingly, the disruptive phenomenon of philanthropic engagement in education through advocacy that has previously been identified mainly at the national level relocates to the local level. It is not only national operating and financially strong foundations that engage in advocacy (Ferris et al, 2007), but also small and local foundations with potential to develop this role within CBIs. In line with reports that identify orchestrated policy networks and philanthropies as legitimate experts, local foundations take on comparable roles in CBIs (Ball, 2008;Ball & Junemann, 2012;Lubienski et al, 2016;Scott, Lubienski, & DeBray-Pelot, 2009).…”

“…Alongside forprofit firms and businesses, "primacy and legitimacy" are given to non-governmental, voluntary, and philanthropic organizations (Ball, 2016, p. 560). More specifically, the involvement of philanthropists and their foundations is emphasized in the current international literature (Ball & Junemann, 2012;Ferris, Hentschke, & Harmssen, 2007;Kolleck, 2017;Lubienski, 2014;Lubienski, Brewer, & La Londe, 2016;Olmedo, 2013;Reckhow & Snyder, 2014;Scott, 2009;Thümler, 2011). These analyses critically study philanthropic strategies and tactics to influence education policy, prominently engaging in (supra-)national networks.…”

Policy advocacy, inequity, and school fees and fundraising in Ontario, Canada

“…They note the rise of new policy actors, including philanthropic organizations and foundations (e.g., Ferris, Hentschke, & Harmssen, 2008), think tanks (e.g., Lubienski, Brewer, & La Londe, 2016), forprofit companies, and new non-profit organizations (e.g., Bulkley & Burch, 2011); how these new actors interact in policy networks (e.g., Ball & Exley, 2010); and the waning influence and engagement of traditional policy actors in education policy making (DiMartino & Scott, 2013).…”