Outcome-Based, Collaborative, Non-Sexy Philanthropy

What would you do if you had $2 billion to invest in education? The New York Times Magazine asked a group of experts involved in education philanthropy. Their responses indicate how education philanthropy is changing—for the better. But the panel brushed over some important questions that any philanthropist should consider when making education investments. We drew three key take-aways from the panel’s discussion.

Outcome-Based Accountability

All five participants agreed on the importance of making philanthropic investments more outcome-focused. In the past, philanthropists spent money less strategically, without requiring recipients to demonstrate that they used money effectively. Now, it’s all about results. Most funders require concrete progress from their investments.

We agree that all education funding—from both public and philanthropic sources—must become more outcome-focused. But how funders measure outcomes is equally important—and the NYT roundtable barely touched on that issue. Philanthropic funders should measure progress using multiple measures, because there are multiple outcomes that indicate education success. Plus philanthropists need to bear in mind that many assessment tools are still blunt and in the process of refinement. In addition, they must give investments enough time to have an effect. Short-term accountability requiring quick results isn’t going to lead to meaningful, systemic changes.

Collaboration Between Insiders and Outsiders

The roundtable also discussed the perceived dichotomy between “inside-the-system, top-down” vs. “outside-the-system, bottom-up” investments. Inside-the-system investments support reform-minded school systems and superintendents working within public school districts, while outside-the-system investments identify “disruptive forces” operating outside the traditional public school system, such as charter schools, that can experiment more freely and leverage grassroots energy.

The article shouldn’t have presented these two types of investments as a dichtomy, though. The roundtable eventually arrived at this position, but in the real world there often isn’t enough interaction and collaboration between the two sectors. It’s counterproductive for “insiders” and “outsiders” to work at unrelated, sometimes even contradictory, purposes. Each side brings its own knowledge base, skills, and constituencies. Successful investments meld the strengths of both and encourage the exchange of lessons learned.

“Non-Sexy” Human Capital

The hardest, but potentially most productive and valuable, investment is in human infrastructure. Schools need talented, committed personnel in the classroom, in the principal’s office, and in district administration. Philanthropists should get down in the trenches and commit to searching for, recruiting, and training teachers and administrators. But this kind of work is what the panelists termed a “non-sexy” investment.

We agree that human capital is a critical education need, and that philanthropists must focus on it in order to have an impact. But it’s extremely difficult for philanthropy alone to sustain expensive, time-consuming, long-term investments in infrastructure initiatives. As Joel Klein, the chancellor of NYC public schools, mentioned, philanthropy can be incredibly valuable in getting human infrastructure initiatives “off the ground.” But these initiatives will succeed in the long-term only if philanthropists figure out how to leverage taxpayer money to expand successful pilot programs. Government buy-in is key.

Education philanthropy may be a sexy topic now, but it’s important to understand that, as Rick Hess notes in the NYT piece, philanthropy is only a drop in the bucket of total education expenditures, which total more than $500 billion per year. That’s why our Federal Education Budget Project focuses on reforming the distribution of taxpayer money—not just because we’re penny-pinchers, but because that’s where we can have the most impact. To get the most bang for their buck, philanthropists will have to not only fund good investments with their own dollars, but also invest in strategies that change how taxpayer dollars for public education are spent.