The rise in the influence of and spending by educational philanthropists and foundations over the past two decades, especially in the area of market-based reforms, such as charter schools, vouchers, and merit pay, is evident across the United States. Largely due to philanthropic investments, relatively new educational intermediary organizations (IOs) have also been growing in size, scope, and influence. These new IOs have sought to implement market-based reforms in key urban school districts, frequently based on ideological stances and/or evidence of their efficacy. As yet, researchers have not conceptualized the unique position of foundations in the landscape of intermediary organizations, market-based reforms, and evidence production and utilization. Drawing from a 3-year (2011-2014) study of IOs, research utilization, and policymaking in the case of “incentivist” reforms, we find that foundations are uniquely situated in the reform landscape as a central actor, at the “hub” of intermediary activity as a funder of IOs, but also as a “spoke” in the wheel that helps to mobilize and, in many ways, direct the activities of the IOs. We discuss the implications of the role of foundations in research production, promotion, and utilization for research and policymaking.
AndersonB. (2004). A donors guide to school choice. Washington, DC: The Philanthropy Roundtable.
2.
AndersonJ. (1988). The education of blacks in the south, 1860-1935. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press.
3.
BallS. J. (2007). Education plc: Understanding private sector participation in public sector education. London, England: Routledge.
4.
BallS. J.JuemannC. (2012). Networks, new governance and education. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.
5.
BurasK. (2012). “It’s all about the dollars”: Charter schools, educational policy, and the racial market in New Orleans. In WatkinsW. H. (Ed.), The assault on public education: Conronting the politics of corporate school reform (pp. 160-188). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
6.
CohenR. (2007). Strategic grantmaking: Foundations and the school privatization movement. Washington, DC: National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.
7.
CunninghamD.WyckoffJ. (2013). Policy makers and researchers schooling each other: Lessons in educational policy from New York. Association for Education Finance and Policy, 8, 275-286.
8.
DeBray-PelotE. (2006). Politics, ideology and education: Federal policy during the Clinton and Bush Administrations. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
9.
DemarraisK. (2006). “The haves and the have mores”: Fueling a conservative ideological war on public education (or tracking the money). Educational Studies, 39, 203-242.
10.
EisenhardtK. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14, 532-550.
11.
FerrisJ. M.HentschkeG. C.HarmssenH. J. (2008). Philanthropic strategies for school reform: An analysis of foundation choices. Educational Policy, 22, 705-730.
HenigJ. (2013). The end of exceptionalism: The changing politics of school reform. Cambridge, UK: Harvard Education Press.
14.
HerszenhornD. M. (2007, April25). Billionaires start $60 million schools effort. The New York Times, p. A21.
15.
HessF. (Ed.). (2005). With the best of intentions: How philanthropy is reshaping K-12 education. Cambridge, UK: Harvard Education Press.
16.
JacobsenR.SaultzA.SnyderJ. (2013). When accountability strategies collide: Do policy changes that raise accountability standards also erode public satisfaction?Educational Policy, 27, 360-389.
17.
KumashiroK. (2008). The seduction of common sense: How the Right has framed the debate on America’s schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
18.
LagemannE. C. (1992). The politics of knowledge: The Carnegie Corporation, philanthropy, and public policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
19.
LubienskiC.ScottJ.DeBrayE. (2011, July22).The rise of intermediary organizations in knowledge production, advocacy, and educational policy (ID Number: 16487). Teachers College Record. Available from http://www.tcrecord.org
20.
LubienskiC.WeitzelP.LubienskiS. T. (2009). Is there a “consensus” on school choice and achievement? Advocacy research and the emerging political economy of knowledge production. Educational Policy, 23, 161-193
21.
MarshJ.SpringerM.McCaffreyD.YuanK.EpsteinS.KoppichJ. . . . PengA. (2011). A big apple for educators: New York City’s experiment with schoolwide performance bonuses. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
22.
McGuinnP. (2006). No Child Left Behind and the transformation of federal education policy, 1965-2005. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
23.
McGuinnP. (2012). Fight club: Are advocacy organizations changing the politics of education?Education Next, 12, 25-31.
ReckhowS. (2010). Disseminating and legitimating a new approach: The role of foundations. In BulkleyK.HenigJ.LevinH. (Eds.), Politics, governance, and the new portfolio models for urban school reform (pp. 277-304). Cambridge, UK: Harvard Education Press.
30.
ReckhowS. (2013). Follow the money: How foundation dollars change public school politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
31.
RichA. (2001, Winter). U.S. think tanks and the intersection of ideology, advocacy, and influence. NIRA Review, pp. 54-59.
32.
RichA. (2004). Think tanks, public policy, and the politics of expertise. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
SaltmanK. (2012). The failure of corporate school reform. Bulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
35.
ScottJ. (2009). The politics of venture philanthropy in charter school policy and advocacy. Educational Policy, 23, 106-136.
36.
ScottJ.JabbarH. (2013). Money and measures: Foundations as knowledge brokers. In AnagnostopoulosD.RutledgeS.JacobsenR. (Eds.), The infrastructure of accountability: Mapping data use and its consequences across the American education system (pp. 75-92). Cambridge, UK: Harvard Education Press.
37.
SmithJ. A. (1991). The idea brokers: Think tanks and the rise of the new policy elite. New York, NY: The Free Press.
38.
StanfieldJ. H. (1985). Philanthropy and Jim Crow in American social science. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
39.
TochT. (2011). Educational entrepreneurs on the Potomac. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(7), 68-69.
40.
TsengV. (2012). The uses of research in policy and practice (Social Policy Report, Vol. 26, No. 2). Ann Arbor, MI: Society for Research on Child Development.
41.
WeissC. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39, 426-431.
42.
WohlstetterP.SmithJ.FarrellC.HentschkeG.HirmanJ. (2011). How funding shapes the growth of charter management organizations: Is the tail wagging the dog?Journal of Education Finance, 37, 150-174.
