Q and A: Bill Porter | Philanthropy in Ed. Reform

Q & A: Bill Porter

Winter 2003

Bill Porter is executive director of Grantmakers for Education, a national organization for foundation and corporate giving and individual donors. From his Portland, Oregon, office, Porter spoke with Northwest Education coeditor Denise Jarrett Weeks.

What is businesses' best role in education? There are camps that say business has no place in education and there are other camps that say, of course business has a role to play.

There are three ways that businesses can be involved with schools. One is that business leaders can help provide political cover for schools to get the work done, the reform work that is often very messy and very difficult. Politicians come and go. The business community can really help provide stability for the reform agenda and help keep it on track and moving forward.

Second thing, I think business people can often bring some perspective from their own experience about organizational change and organizational accountability, which I think is really useful in today's context.

And third, through their philanthropy [they] provide dollars that help schools do the innovative work.

Those are some of the best roles businesses can take. What are some of the worst roles?

One danger may be if a business tries to say, "It's our way or the highway." I say that cautiously, though, because I do think that often those from the outside can see what needs to change clearer than those on the inside.

Is there a danger that, because of lack of funding, schools will feel they must sign on for any kind of deal a business might offer them?

I think people worry about that. Especially now, when you've seen such an erosion of public funding for schools, there is a fear that schools are just desperate to fill gaps.

The best example of when businesses are poor partners is when they are merely interested in branding or their community relation, and it has absolutely no bearing to the overall reform agenda. I think it's especially bad when corporations that have branding interests say, "We want our own unique little project," and maybe it suits [their own] interests better than it suits the school's interest.

In your view, can public education reform without the help of business?

Well, sure. I think you've got examples of school districts that, through a talented superintendent or a cohesive school board or talented principal and teachers, have done some amazing things. What business adds is the political cover to make sure it's not just one classroom or one school or one school district that is doing this, but that it is many schools and many school districts and that the change is sustained over time. So I think it's value-added. It's not either/or.

What feels most at stake to you?

Are any of these investments to improve schools really making a difference? During the last 20 years there has been this incredible focus on improving schools. On the other hand, we have been working real hard on it and what do we have to show for it?

My sense is that we've probably learned a great deal. That there were a lot of assumptions going into it that were maybe inaccurate. We've learned a lot about how complicated school systems are and how it's not an overnight change. That's all well and good, and we've learned a lot, but again, is anything changing and is it changing quickly enough? Are folks—the business community, elected officials, parents—going to throw up their arms in disgust or despair before we can get it all figured out?

Philanthropic organizations seem to be really concerned about scaling up.

I think that's a new thing. I think a lot of foundation leaders have focused on a topic or a program or a project for 3 or 4 or 5 years and then said, 'okay let's try something new.' A lot of people argue that's one of the key things that we ought to do. But then it creates this dilemma that once you fund the innovation and create the innovation—who is going to pay to take the innovation to scale?

So you've got a lot more grantmakers thinking about that dilemma of—now that we've identified the good ideas—how can we do a better job of taking those programs in those schools to scale in more places?

You mentioned the big questions: Is it working? Are we getting anywhere? Is philanthropy building evaluation into their work and also relying more on research?

I think foundations have always had some sort of evaluation put into them. I think what's different is... some foundations are asking tougher questions about how do we know that any of our grantmaking has made a difference. What might we put in place to better gauge whether it's making a difference? Some say we need to think of it in terms of a corporate model of ROI: return our investment. I know a number of foundations are really trying to think a lot more deeply and be a lot harder on themselves and their grantees.

It seems like the playing field changed a little bit with No Child Left Behind. Schools are now being told: you must use scientifically-based research practices. Is that driving the philanthropic programs? Are schools saying to philanthropists, "Look, this has got to align with No Child Left Behind"?

Anecdotally, I would say, not yet. I think that No Child Left Behind, in terms of its real impact in the school or in a school district, hasn't really happened yet. But it will. I know a lot of foundations are already asking the question: How can we be more responsive to those needs?

Certainly the emphasis on scientifically-based or evidence-based research that would show promising practices will impact some things the foundations are or aren't able to support. But I think foundations that are interested in moving towards more evidence, more performance measurements, and greater return on investment measurements, were doing so before No Child Left Behind. I think that has just been a trend in the field.

Are there any dangers schools are being turned into corporations? Do we need to worry about the character of school becoming too corporate?

I tend not to agree with [that]. I don't think that's what the corporate community is advocating. I think, instead, the issue is that our school systems serve too few kids well. You can have the most creative classroom in the world, but if kids aren't learning to read, aren't learning to do math, aren't learning to think, then we haven't really done very well by them. I guess you could argue with whether having clearer standards and more rigorous testing systems in place is the way to accomplish that.

I think what folks often forget is that we have an education system that is... it's essentially screwing a whole lot of kids. Its sort of an unconscionable view to say our system is fine as is; our system doesn't need to be fixed. My own sense is that there is an urgency to this work.

Can you talk to me some more about that urgency?

I think there have been some people who say, "Look, ultimately our education system doesn't really matter at all. We've had a high functioning economy, [because] our higher education system saves our butt." I guess my read of the research is that, given the way the world is changing, you really have two types of workers: you have knowledge-based workers and you've got workers who will be paid a minimum wage for assembly line work. In the big picture, do we have the right school systems to support the economy and the sort of society we want to have?

I think [another] point of urgency is that we've learned a lot more about just how big the gap is between the kids that are doing well in school, that tend to be well off, and the kids who are not doing well, that tend to be poor, African-American, new immigrants, Hispanic, or other minorities. That gap has become a lot more apparent. The fact that we haven't really closed the gap in the last 20 years has become a lot more apparent, and that's really an urgency.

How much influence should businesses, as change agents, have on what gets taught on the curriculum?

I think business should be a stakeholder like any other community stakeholder. I think business can offer insights as to what really are the skills that kids need coming out of high school or coming out of college. They can provide insights about what's needed in a manufacturing plant or in an office today. Just as higher education officials can offer insights as to what are the kinds of skills kids are going to need to succeed in college. Just as parents probably have opinions about what kids ought to be learning. So, I would say business people ought to be a voice at the table, along with other voices in the community, that help provide some input into what educators are teaching.

Is there also something else to be considered beyond competition in the global market, beyond just finding your place in the domestic workplace? Is there something to be said for learning, in K-12, as much as you can learn about the fund of human knowledge, whether it is applicable, whether it will be a direct means to a paycheck?

I think that is a really good point, because there ought to be a shared history, a shared sense of 'these are things everybody ought to know regardless of what you end up doing with your life.'

Part of the dilemma is, increasingly it seems that some higher education is part of a basic education—that kids who simply use their high school diploma as a stepping stone to getting a job aren't going to go very far. And there's an incredible income gap between those with just a high school diploma versus those with some college. Probably some of the learning you talked about also takes place on college campuses.

Too often business leaders who are advocating for educational change get sort of pigeonholed or stereotyped as [though] all they care about are jobs, and I don't think that's necessarily true. Just like other members of a community, they're concerned about the quality of the public school system as members of our society, America, our democracy.

What is the best way for businesses and schools to approach one another when they are beginning a relationship? Do you have any bits of wisdom to pass on to either camp about how to ensure that this becomes a positive relationship, one that benefits kids?

The first question that ought to be on the table is: What are we trying to accomplish at the school? What are our goals, what is our vision for what our kids ought to be learning, how are we structured, and how are we working to accomplish that goal? That ought to drive the conversation about where do we need extra help.

Will there be businesses starting up their own schools?

It's sort of an intriguing idea. Clearly you have some for-profit companies, like Edison, trying to provide whole schools that are pretty well-conceived in terms of, 'Here is the instruction, here is the assessment, here is the professional development for teachers, and here is the instructional program we are delivering.' And that sort of sophistication probably requires a team of people that the average company isn't going to have or doesn't want to buy.

Is there a danger of the business community giving up on us? If the business community is moving a lot of their work and their marketing overseas, are they just going to say "whatever"?

I think that could happen. I think the danger is the public giving up on its public schools. By the public I mean, collectively, people say we worked at this and it's just not working. We invested all of this time and money in fixing things and they're only marginally better than they were when we started.

What alternative do we have?

Well, some people think we need to look at putting more market forces in the schools, and that gets into the whole voucher debate. Which, I know some business people think that that's a parallel that makes sense from their business [experience]—that organizations respond to market pressures and if there were more market pressures in the public education system then there would be better schools. But I suppose you're ultimately right, we've got so many kids in the public school system that we probably don't realistically have a whole lot of options to serve those kids besides the system that we have now.

Respond to this article