The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) sees itself as an “independent watchdog of foundations.” But is clearly an organization with a strong “social justice” bent. It should surprise no one that this report from its Philamplify unit looks largely askance at the Walton Family Foundation’s grant making in education. WFF and NCRP may both get out of bed each morning resolved to advance the cause of social justice, but they operate on very different theories of action. Everything that follows is a function of these differences.
For example, the report criticizes WFF’s “overreliance” on market-based reform vehicles. This is a bit like criticizing a fish for its overreliance on water. Walton’s support of charter schools and choice does not “hinder the transformative potential of the foundation’s education program”; it is the transformative potential of its program. Similarly, the report holds that the expansion of high-quality charter schools and related advocacy have created “meaningful benefits for individual students and families, but have not achieved far-reaching, sustainable and equitable system-wide improvement”—a finding that is a mere two or three generations premature (and elides the utter failure of much longer-standing democratic institutions to bring about those same ends).
Affluent Americans, by dint of their ability to pay tuition or move to communities with excellent schools, have always enjoyed a substantial degree of choice when it comes to educating their children. It seems lost upon Gita Gulati-Partee, author of the Philamplify report, that increasing choice in disadvantaged communities might be the very definition of “prioritizing equity as part of sustainable social change” or “maximizing social justice outcomes with greater strategic thinking, transparency and accountability,” two of Philamplify’s recommendations. Walton will be forgiven for wondering if that’s not precisely what they’ve long been doing.
The evaluation is not hostile or dismissive, merely obtuse. Its criticisms are earnest and unfailingly polite, rendered in respectful, collegial tones that only occasionally veer into condescension. “WFF expresses a genuine concern for and commitment to opportunity for people living in poverty,” the report notes. That the authors felt compelled to say so explicitly says much about how their audience views Walton and its grant making.
There are many other particulars I’d take exception to. A long section of the report insists that, “on the whole, charters do no better than traditional public schools and many do worse.” This is a claim that is becoming increasingly difficult to support in light of the 2015 CREDO report (also funded by Walton), which found that urban charters are making real, measurable differences for low-income kids of color. This information somehow leads Philamplify to make the claim that “charters only perform less badly than traditional district schools without actively changing conditions for the affected communities.”
Ah. I see.
The bottom line is that Walton’s vision of market-driven change is not NCRP’s. This report tells us more about NCRP’s preferred social justice means that Walton’s social justice ends.
SOURCE: Gita Gulati-Partee, “How can this market-oriented grantmaker advance community-led solutions for greater equity,” Philamplify (May 2015).
