This article explores the impact of grantseeking on urban public school teachers. It first analyzes how grantseeking, primarily but not exclusively promoted by numerous private and corporate foundations, has introduced urban teachers to and fostered among them some of the central tenets of the movement to privatize education—to “market” one's teaching as a product and oneself as a valuable commodity; to embrace competition and the creation of self-selected communities; and to replace a commitment to a broad-based democracy in which the needs of all are met with fulfilling the needs of the “deserving” few.
The article next discusses the ways in which specific assumptions about urban teachers have influenced the development of such grant competitions. It also discusses the ways these assumptions promote the ability of a very limited number of high status urban teachers to successfully compete in such competitions while working to exclude others, particularly teachers of color and those whose native language is not English.
The article then presents a case history of one grantseeker to illustrate the contradictory effects of teachers’ participation in privately funded grant programs. It ends by raising questions about the purpose and effect of grantseeking in education and its potential role in changing the dominant means of educating children in the United States from a public school system subject to community wide support and governance—in theory if not in practice—to an increasingly privatized one.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Federation of Labor. (1994). The private management of public schools: An analysis of the EAI experience in Baltimore.Washington, DC: American Federation of Labor.
2.
AnzalduaG. (1987). Borderlands/La frontera: The new mestiza.San Francisco: Spinters/Aunt Lute.
3.
AppleM. (1996). Introduction. In Research in education, 22.Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
4.
AppleboneP. (1995, May 31). New breed of teachers become entrepreneurs and roving innovators. New York Times, p. B8.
5.
AscherC., FrucherN., & BerneR. (1996). Hard lessons: Public schools and privatization.New York: Twentieth Century Fund.
6.
BarnicleM. (1996, Sept. 5). Urban teacher's plea. Boston Globe, p. B1.
7.
BauerD. (1993). Grantseeking primer for classroom leaders.New York: Scholastic, Inc.
8.
BealesJ. (1995). Teachers, Inc.: A private-practice option for educators.Midland, MI: Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
9.
BeanJ., & LoarR. (1994, Dec. 16). Funds raised for schools to buy extras may be used for basics. Los Angeles Times. p. A27.
10.
BernsB., LibbyB., & O'ConnorK. (1991). A teacher's guide to fellowships and awards.Department of Education [Northbridge].
11.
BiklenS. (1995). School work.New York: Teachers College Press.
12.
BlackmoreJ. (1997). Doing “emotional labor” in the education market place: Stories from the field of women in management. Discourse17 (3), 337–349.
13.
Board of Education [Northbridge]. (1991). Summary and interpretations of 1990 census data.Author.
14.
BourdieuP. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice.New York: Cambridge University Press.
15.
BranchE. (1991). Can business save schools?Black Enterprise, 13 (3), 39–43.
16.
Business, and the Public Schools Committee for Economic Development. (1985). Investing in our schools.New York: New York Research and Policy Committee.
17.
Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century.New York: Carnegie Corporation
18.
CaseyC. (1995). Work, self and society.London and New York: Routledge
19.
CelisW. (1991, May 22). Educators press for end to corporate tax breaks. New York Times, pp. A1, B6.
20.
ChubbJ., & MoeT. (1990). Politics, markets, and America's schools.Washington, DC: Brookings Institute
21.
CohenM. (1990, May 8). Layoff notices are sent to 8,949 teachers, Boston Globe, pp. A1, 10.
22.
CollinsP. (1991). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment.New York: Routledge.
23.
CooksonP. (1994). School choice: The struggle for the soul of American education.New Haven: Yale University Press.
24.
Council for Aid to Education. (1993). Corporate support of education, 1992.New York: Council for Aid to Education.
25.
CrossC. (1995, June 7). The downsizing of corporate philanthropy: Who will pick up the slack in an age of leaner government?Education Week, p. 55.
26.
CruickshankD. (1987). Reflective teaching.Reston, VA: Association of Teacher Educators.
27.
DaleyB. (1998). $600,000 gift to target dropouts. Boston Globe, pp. B1, B3.
28.
DavidM. (1992). Education reform in Britain and the United States. In ArnoveR., AltbachP., & KellyG. (Eds.), Emergent issues in education: Comparative perspectives, Albany: State University of New York Press.
29.
DelpitL. (1995). Other people's children: Cultural conflicts in the classroom.New York: New Press.
30.
Division of Research and Evaluation. (1994). School profiles.Public Schools [Northbridge].
31.
Division of Research and Evaluation. (1996). School profiles.Public Schools [Northbridge].
FarrarE., & CipolloneA. (1988). The business community and school reform: The compact at five years.Buffalo: State University of New York at Buffalo.
37.
FineM. (Ed.). (1994). Chartering urban schools: Reflections on public high schools in the midst of change.New York: Teachers College Press.
38.
FosterM. (1992). The politics of race. In WeilerK., & MitchellC. (Eds.), What schools can do: Critical pedagogy and practices.New York: State University of New York Press.
39.
Foundation Center. (1996). Foundation grant index.New York: Foundation Center.
40.
FreedmanS. (1989). Evaluation report on IMPACT II.Globe Foundation.
41.
FreedmanS. (1993). Evaluation report on the Academy for Teachers.Institute for Teaching and Learning [Northbridge].
42.
FreedmanS. (1994). Teachers as grantseekers: Urban women teachers’ perceptions of competitive grant programs for individual teachers. Unpublished dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
43.
FreedmanS. (1996, December). The lure of privatization: Public school teachers seeking private funds. Discourse, 17, 225–242.
44.
FreedmanS. (1999). To market, to market: Privatizing public education. Educational Policy, 13 (3), 440–454.
45.
FreedmanS., JacksonJ., & BolesK. (1983). Teaching: An imperilled profession. In ShulmanL., & SykesG. (Eds.), Handbook on teaching and policy.New York: Longman.
46.
FultonM., & LongD. (1993). School finance litigation: A historical summary.Denver: Education Commission of the States.
47.
GoertzM. (1990). Education politics for a new century: Introduction and review. In MitchellD., & GoertzM. (Eds.), Education politics for a new century: The twentieth anniversary politics of education yearbook.London: Falmer Press.
48.
GoldbergC. (1997, July 6). Millionaires of Microsoft redefine philanthropy. New York Times, pp. D1–2.
49.
GoodmanB. (1997, May). Grab these four tax breaks while you still can. Money, 26, 23.
50.
GormleyW. (1991). Privatization and its alternatives.Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
51.
HakimS., SeidenstatP., & BowmanG. (Eds.). (1994). Privatizing education and educational choice: Concepts, plans and experience.Westport, CT: Praeger.
52.
HartJ. (1992, January 5). In Massachusetts, teachers fantasize about the basics. Boston Globe, pp. A53, A56.
53.
HenigJ. (1994). Rethinking school choice: Limits of the market metaphor.Princeton: Princeton University Press.
54.
HillD. (1993a, November/December). California dreamer. Teacher Magazine, 28–33.
55.
HillD. (1993b, March). Overnight sensation: Kay Toliver. Teacher Magazine, 21–23.
56.
HillP., PierceL., & GuthrieJ. (1997). Reinventing public education: How contracting can transform America's schools.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
57.
Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow's teachers: A report of the Holmes Group.East Lansing, MI: Holmes Group, Inc.
58.
HooksB. (1995). Teaching to transgress.New York: Routledge.
59.
HunterR. (1995). Privatization of instruction in public education, Education and Urban Society, 27, 154–167.
60.
IMPACT II. (1989). Meet IMPACT II. Impact II National Network.New York: IMPACT II.
61.
IMPACT II. (1994). How teachers are changing schools.New York: IMPACT II.
62.
Instructor. (1997). Win those grants. Instructor, 106, 65.
63.
JohnsonM. (1997, April 25). Tax reform proposal killed; House rejects bill as doubts, time takes toll. Denver Post, p. B1.
64.
JohnstonR. (1997, July 9). Booming U.S. economy translates into mixed dividend for education. Education Week, p. 16.
65.
KantorH. (1996). Equal opportunity and the federal role in education. Rethinking Schools, 11, 1–5.
66.
KanterR. (1992). The challenge of organizational change.New York: Free Press.
67.
KantrowitzJ. (1993, April 4). Students travel south. Boston Globe, p. A55.
KarpS., LoweR., MinerB., & PetersonB. (1997). Funding for justice: Money, equity, and the future of public education.Milwaukee: Rethinking Schools.
70.
KaufmannL., RobinsonB., & RosenthalM. (1991). Post-Fordism: Flexible politics in the age of just-in-time production. Socialist Review, 21, 53–56.
71.
KennedyM. (1991). An agenda for research on teacher learning.East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning.
72.
KenwayJ. (1995, September). The marketisation of education: Mapping the contours of a feminist perspective. Paper presented at Feminist Perspectives on the Marketisation of Education Symposium, London Institute of Education.
73.
KerrD. (1983). Teaching competence and teacher education in the United States. In ShulmanL., & SykesG. (Eds.), Handbook of teaching and policy (pp. 126–149). New York: Longman.
74.
KingA. (1997, April). Who benefits from the suspension of Sec. 4980A's excise tax?Trusts and Estates, 136, 14–18.
75.
KingJ. (1991). Dysconscious racism: Ideology, identity, and the miseducation of teachers. Journal of Negro Education, 60 (2), 133–146.
76.
Ladson-BillingsG. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
77.
LeonardM. (1992). The response of the private sector: Foundations and entrepreneurs. Teachers College Record, 93, 376–381.
LykesM. B., & MallonaA. (1997). Surfacing ourselves: Gringa, white-mestiza, brown? In FineM., WeisL., PowellL., & WongL. (Eds.), Off white: Readings on race, power, and society.New York: Routledge.
85.
MadlerM. (1996, Sept. 9). Foundations step in for needy school districts. Chicago Tribune, p. 2MC.
86.
MannD. (1983). The impact of IMPACT II. Teachers College Record, 84, 837–740.
87.
Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education. (1990). Status report: March, 1990.Boston: Author.
88.
McDonnellL., & FuhrmanS. (1986). The political context of school reform. In MuellerV., & McKeownM. (Eds.), The fiscal, legal, and political aspects of state reform of elementary and secondary education.Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.
MeierD. (1995). The power of their ideas: Lessons for America from a small school in Harlem.Boston: Beacon Press.
91.
MolnarA. (1997). Giving kids the business: The commercialization of America's schools.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
92.
MorganR. (1970). Sisterhood is powerful: An anthology of writings from the women's liberation movement.New York: Random House.
93.
MunroP. (1998). Subject to fiction: Women teachers’ life history narratives and the cultural politics of resistance.Philadelphia: Open University Press.
94.
MurphyP. (1996). The privatization of schooling: Problems and possibilities.New York: Corwin Press.
95.
MyersS. (1995, June 8). New York official warns of layoffs in schools. New York Times, pp. A1, B8.
96.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (1989). Announcement.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
97.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for school reform.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
98.
National Education Association. (1986). Portrait of a public school teacher.Washington, DC: Author.
99.
NovelliJ. (1994, July–August). You can get grants. Instructor, 104, 33.
ParkerA. (1977). Networks for innovation and problem solving and their use for improving education: A comparative overview. Unpublished manuscript, School Capacity for Problem Solving Group, National Institutes of EducationWashington, DC.
102.
PennellJ., & FirestoneW. (1996). Changing classroom practices through teacher networks: Matching program features with teacher characteristics and circumstances. Teachers College Record, 98 (1), 46–76.
103.
PurkeyS., & SmithM. (1985, January). School reform: The district policy implications of the effective schools literature. Elementary School Journal, 85, 353–389.
104.
RavitchD., & ViterittiJ. (Eds.). (1996). New schools for a new century: The redesign of urban education.New Haven: Yale University Press.
105.
ReedL. (1995, August 20). Allowing teachers to go into private practice could be an ideal way to reform our schools. Detroit News & Free Press, p. G3.
106.
RibadeneiraD. (1991, September 26). Schools office blamed for delays. Boston Globe, pp. A33, 38.
107.
RichardsC., ShoreR., & SawickyM. (1996). Risky business: Private management of public schools.Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
108.
RichardsonJ. (1993, May 5). A little cash helps “IMPACT II” teachers make reform reality. Education Week, 1, 18.
109.
RoblesJ., & EversleyM. (1996, October 26). Schools get huge boost. Detroit News and Free Press, p. A1.
110.
SaksJ. (1995). Scrutinizing Edison. American School Board Journal, 182 (2), 20, 24, 25.
111.
SchmidtP. (1991, November 6). Panel urges emergency aid for troubled districts. Education Week, 11 (10), 17.
112.
SpringJ. (1998). Education and the rise of the global economy.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
113.
SykesG. (1983). Public policy and the problem of teacher quality: The need for screens and magnets. In ShulmanL., & SykesG. (Eds.), Handbook of teaching and policy (pp. 97–125). New York: Longman.
114.
Task Force on Education for Economic Growth. (1983). Action for excellence: A comprehensive plan to improve our nation's schools.Denver: Education Commission of the States.
TroenV., & BolesK. (1992). Teachers’ professional development. Paper presented at Annual Conference of American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
117.
Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Policy. (1983). Making the grade.New York: The Twentieth Century Fund.
118.
VerstegenD. (1994). The new wave of school finance litigation. Phi Delta Kappan, 76 (3), 243–250.
119.
UseemE. (1995, April). Urban teacher curriculum networks and systemic change. Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
120.
WaltersL. (1996, June 5). “School choice” moves ahead despite lack of public funds. Christian Science Monitor, 3.
121.
WeilerK. (1986). Women teaching for change: Gender, class and power.South Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey.
122.
WellsA. S., CooksonP. W.Jr.ChubbJ. E., MoeT. M., & HoweH.II (1991). Politics, markets, and America's schools: A symposium. Teachers College Record, 93 (1), 137–173.
123.
WeismanJ. (1992, January 15). Foundations network seeks to spur systemic reform, Education Week, 15.
124.
WhittyG. (1990). Creeping privatization and its implications for schooling in the inner city. The Urban Review, 22 (2), 101–114.
125.
WhittyG. (1997). Creating quasi-markets in education. In AppleM. (Ed.), Review of research in education.Washington, DC: American Education Research Association.
126.
WinerupM. (1993, September 8). In the inner city: A hungry scramble for a few choice classroom seats. New York Times, p. B13.
127.
YoungI. (1990). The ideal of community and the politics of difference. In NicolsonL. (Ed.), Feminism/postmodernism.New York: Routledge.
