In my last post I described a method for understanding what ed reform foundations are really pursuing by examining the content of Tweets issued by their grantees. When some assistants and I conducted this analysis we found that ed reform foundation grantees devote significantly more energy to promoting diversity than promoting school choice. In the prior post I wondered whether this strategy of emphasizing diversity relative to choice is wise given Republican dominance of state governments, where most education policy is formulated and implemented.
The grantees of major ed reform foundations not only give a lower priority to advocating for school choice — both charters and private school choice — but they also seem to prefer top-down accountability approaches over parental empowerment. It was too difficult for non-expert research assistants to judge whether Tweets championed accountability to regulators as opposed to accountability to parents, but they could reliably count the number of Tweets that mentioned the words accountability, quality, and equity. When Tweets are advocating top-down accountability they tend to use these words since they typically do not envision having to answer to parents as accountability and because they often argue that quality and equity are the goals of their top-down regulatory efforts. Of course, some Tweets that use these words are not advocating top-down accountability, but it is also the case that one does not need to specifically mention the words accountability, quality, or equity to be arguing for top-down accountability. While obviously imprecise, I think the number of Tweets talking about accountability, quality, or equity is a reasonable proxy for support of top-down accountability approaches.
If we compare the number of Tweets using any of these three words to the number of Tweets advocating school choice, we find far greater emphasis on top-down accountability than choice. Among grantees of the Gates Foundation, Tweets mentioned accountability, quality, or equity 6.7 times as often as they advocated school choice. Among Broad Foundation grantees the ratio was 3.1. Arnold Foundation grantees mentioned accountability, quality, or equity 1.9 times as often as they advocated choice. And at the Walton Foundation the figure was 1.0, representing a relatively even emphasis on top-down accountability and choice.
Another indication of how much foundation grantees favored top-down accountability relative to parental empowerment could be found in how they reacted to Betsy DeVos’ nomination for Secretary of Education. Keep in mind that the time-period we examined was October 1 to December 15 of 2016, so DeVos had just been nominated toward the end of that period. In addition, she had not yet testified, so support or opposition of her nomination was a reaction to her perceived position on issues rather than her command (or lack thereof) of the details of education policy. Much more opposition to DeVos was mobilized and expressed after her confirmation hearings, which was after the time period we examined. Lastly, it is important to consider that DeVos is a relatively centrist Republican reformer. Her supporters included moderate advocates of top-down accountability, while opposition to her was marked by hostility to parental empowerment or support for choice only if it was accompanied by fairly strong top-down accountability measures.
When my assistants coded Tweets as supporting or opposing DeVos they found that grantees of the Broad Foundation opposed her 2 to 1, although this was based on a small number of Tweets. Given that Eli Broad ultimately wrote a public letter opposing DeVos, this result is not surprising but does provide some validation for the method of analyzing Tweets as a window into foundation strategy. Gates Foundation grantees had slightly more Tweets against DeVos than favoring her. But among the Arnold and Walton foundation grantees, support for DeVos was much stronger, with Tweets 2.9 and 5.9 times more likely to support than oppose her, respectively.
Foundations can, of course, support whatever causes they prefer. The major education reform foundations do not have to be enamored with school choice, can devote the bulk of their energy to promoting diversity, and can take whatever positions they like with respect to top-down accountability and Betsy DeVos. My point in reporting these results is simply that the causes being championed by the grantees of these major education reform foundations may differ significantly in some ways from what many people think ed reform foundations support. These causes being championed may even differ significantly from what the foundation staffs or boards think they are supporting. The evidence suggests that major ed reform foundation grantees give far higher priority to advocating for diversity than for school choice, seem to favor top-down accountability more than parental empowerment, and sometimes only offer tepid support or even opposition to moderate Republican reformers.
Again, I think you err in drawing apples to apples comparisons between vague moral terms and specific policies. Advocating “accountability,” “quality” and “equity” is, like advocating diversity, a substantively empty social ritual establishing their status as education reformers. The same rhetoric could be used to advocate choice, top-down standards and testing, or other reforms with barely any change.
Did you count mentions of standards and tests? That’s what I think we need to know here to draw any conclusions.
As I replied to your other comment, my point here is that it is worth noting that reformers feel the need to bow to top-down accountability, even if it is largely an empty and intellectually incoherent gesture.
But they’re not bowing to top-down accountability unless they use words like “standards,” “testing,” etc. I’d like to see those terms measured before we draw any conclusions about what they’re advocating, because as long as we’re still in the realm of vague moral uplift they’re actually not advocating anything.
Jason is constantly making the accountability case for choice and Matt is constantly making the equity case for choice. “What’s so funny ’bout peace, Rawls and understanding?”
[…] In the next post I’ll provide a few more results. None of this should be news to close observers of trends in education advocacy, but it might be useful to have some evidence that documents the shifting focus of ed reform efforts. […]
Make no mistake, this is important research! I’m not dismissing it, I’m trying to push this infant research line toward maturity.
a. My impression –
1. Walton has always been anchored in choice, remains so.
2. Broad specifically was created to “improve urban districts” – was anchored essentially (with quibbles) against choice. Over time, as their funds to districts kept having no effect, reluctantly embraced some choice.
3. Gates mostly like Broad. District heavy. Small high schools, then teacher quality, with choice at the margins. Now unclear, seems to be waiting for new clear direction, probably figuring it out.
4. Arnold. New Orleans model, choice as a key part but not only part. Not sure if that’s in flux.
b. Agree with your larger point. Mostly staffed by Blue Tribe, signaling to Blue Tribe, missing out on benefits of connection to Red Tribe governors etc.
As a next project, your assistants might map Twitter or LinkedIn relationships of key foundation staff by Tribe. I could even imagine that result productively being discussed by foundation staff themselves: “hey, we have to build some new relationships.” And if they add more Red Tribe, they’ll read more Red Tribe, open worldview a bit.
c. One quibble.
You write “state gov’ts, where most education policy is formulated and implemented.”
True. But local/mayors matter as well in ed policy. And all 4 foundations are mostly* trying to influence urban education, which is mostly blue at city level, even in red state.