Opinion Blog


Rick Hess Straight Up

Education policy maven Rick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute think tank offers straight talk on matters of policy, politics, research, and reform. Read more from this blog.

Education Funding Opinion

Does Place-Based Giving Make It Harder for Funders to Get Reliable Feedback?

By Rick Hess — April 19, 2021 3 min read
Image shows a multi-tailed arrow hitting the bullseye of a target.
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

I tend to think philanthropy has a valuable role to play in American education. As I suggest in A Search for Common Ground, unlike those who insist that education giving is “anti-democratic,” I believe philanthropy can make “for a more pluralistic, responsive education system by supporting voices, programs, and organizations that challenge the routines of district and state machinery.” It can offer a lifeline to those otherwise boxed out by teachers’ unions, education bureaucracies, textbook companies, and ed. schools.

Yet, just because philanthropy can play this role doesn’t mean that it will. Indeed, too often, as in the cases of Race to the Top and the Common Core State Standards, philanthropy has lined up alongside powerful interests. In those instances, philanthropy fails to promote a healthy Tocquevillian dynamism and instead morphs into an agent of groupthink and self-deception.

An eternal question in the philanthropic community is how to learn from past missteps. One currently popular tack is to shift toward “place-based philanthropy,” in which funders eschew sweeping policy agendas in favor of working more closely with a given community (ideally allowing them to better understand and address local needs and challenges).

Conceptually, the appeal is obvious. In practice, it can be tough (see Challenge, Annenberg). To help make sense of the challenges, I’ve commissioned a series of scholars and analysts to think through these issues. In the latest, University of Arkansas’s inimitable Jay Greene has penned a bracing piece in which he explains that big donors can be lulled by their financial resources, political capital, and well-educated staff into underestimating the financial, political, and information constraints they face when they turn to place-based philanthropy.

As Greene writes, “Place-based philanthropy may make it easier for foundations to achieve their preferred solutions in particular locations at the cost of identifying whether those solutions were correct to begin with and determining how well their implementation is going.” In other words, place-based giving may help with financial and political constraints (making it easier to get things done) even as it exacerbates information challenges (making it tougher to know if those things are actually helpful).

What does Greene have in mind? Well, when big funders work in particular communities, they immediately become the 800-pound gorilla. It’s easy for donors to inadvertently dominate the space—even when trying to step gingerly. After all, there’s immense pressure on local nonprofits and public agencies not to get left out. They want to be dealt in, which means they don’t want to be seen as critical or difficult. The pressure on everyone to play nice makes it hard for funders to get reliable feedback or independent advice from local actors. As Greene puts it, it may be that “no organized groups are left to force foundations to consider they are mistaken, and no financial reality test reveals lack of support.”

This all poses a number of intriguing challenges for communities, donors, and educators. Greene offered a few thoughts on what donors, in particular, might do about it.

Put simply, he says, “The easier it is for a foundation to win politically, the harder it is for the foundation to learn that what it won was poorly conceived.” An important response, he suggests, is for funders to “subject their efforts to market or reality tests” by seeing whether proposed reforms attract political support from their beneficiaries. Greene argues that “if the reforms can garner enough financial and political backing to survive independently of foundation support, it is a much safer bet that they are serving people’s needs cost-effectively.” In short, rather than be frustrated by budgetary or political realities, Greene urges funders to “embrace those constraints as ways of learning about whether their efforts are faring well and producing success.”

The insights build off of Greene’s invaluable previous scholarship on education giving, especially his iconic “Buckets into the Sea” chapter (from my 2005 Best of Intentions volume). Greene is a savvy, farsighted thinker, and I do hope funders—and community leaders—will ponder what he has to say.

Related Tags:

The opinions expressed in Rick Hess Straight Up are strictly those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinions or endorsement of Editorial Projects in Education, or any of its publications.

Events

Teaching Profession K-12 Essentials Forum New Insights Into the Teaching Profession
Join this free virtual event to get exclusive insights from Education Week's State of Teaching project.
Jobs Virtual Career Fair for Teachers and K-12 Staff
Find teaching jobs and K-12 education jubs at the EdWeek Top School Jobs virtual career fair.
Mathematics K-12 Essentials Forum Helping Students Succeed in Math

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Education Funding Trump Admin. Says California’s K-12 Funding Is at Risk. What Would It Mean?
Title I and IDEA funding could be caught up in the battle between the White House and the largest state, which is led by Democrats.
10 min read
President Donald Trump takes a question from a reporter during an event signing a bill blocking California's rule banning the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035, in the East Room of the White House on June 12, 2025, in Washington.
President Donald Trump takes a question from a reporter during an event where he signed a resolution blocking California's rule banning the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035 in the East Room of the White House on June 12, 2025. Trump's administration has reportedly discussed halting "formula funds" to the state's education department.
Alex Brandon/AP
Education Funding The Trump Budget for K-12 Schools: 5 Key Takeaways
The administration wants to cut roughly $7 billion in annual K-12 funding. Much of it supports vulnerable students.
6 min read
A kindergarten student raises her hand in a dual-language immersion class.
A kindergarten student raises her hand in a dual-language immersion class. Among other changes, President Donald Trump's fiscal 2026 budget would end dedicated federal funding for supplemental services for English learners.
Allison Shelley for All4Ed
Education Funding Trump Wants to Cut More Than 40 Federal K-12 Programs. See Which Ones
The president's detailed budget, released Friday, proposes eliminating dozens of programs as part of a nearly $13 billion cut.
2 min read
Illustration of a budget sheet, pencil, and calculator.
Maxim Basinski/iStock/Getty
Education Funding Trump's Education Budget Calls for Billions in Cuts, Major Policy Changes
The proposal includes a plan to eliminate 18 existing grant programs and replace them with one funding stream.
7 min read
President Donald Trump holds up a signed executive order alongside Secretary of Education Linda McMahon in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Thursday, March 20, 2025.
President Donald Trump holds up a signed executive order alongside Secretary of Education Linda McMahon in the East Room of the White House in Washington on March 20, 2025. The president's budget proposes a 15% cut for the U.S. Department of Education.
Ben Curtis/AP