is there a role for philanthropy in education?

[mopinko]

listening to the interim superintendent of chicago schools on npr. an interesting conversation.
there was a brief discussion of gates, annenburg challenge, etc. it caused me to wonder what people thought about the broader subject of philanthropy in the school system.

[geckosfeet]

1. If municiplaities are not willing to fund their own school systems, then private

concerns will step in. It may look like philanthropy and charter schools at first. But sooner or later I would expect the program to morph into business sponsored drone factories. And once the corporate sponsors get in and get what they want, I don't know how you get them out.

Call me cynical if you want. But if people can't decide what and how to educate their children, someone else will make the decision for them.

[adnelson60087]

6. not cynical at all. Reality is a harsh mistress.

[Reader Rabbit]

2. Philanthropy too often seems to have strings attached.

A public education system which agrees to accept donations and charity to stay afloat isn't really public education, is it? It's the poor being educated at the sufferance of the wealthy. When people contribute money, they expect to have a say in how it is used. One has to ask oneself if it is in the best interests of the general populace—on whose backs the rich amassed their wealth—to have those same billionaires determining how their children will be educated.

Education is a potential game-changer and field-leveler in any society. To put it, even partially, under the control of those who already have inordinate amounts of wealth and power creates the potential for exploitation of society's most vulnerable, at the very least.


Below is a paraphrase of a blog comment made when Facebook billionaire Zuckerman (?) donated a huge chunk of change to public ed (sadly, I didn't bookmark the blog):

We should be concerned and skeptical when a small elite group uses its wealth to buy substantive change to public policy. Is it really democracy when this elite group pays to alter the structure of local and state government?

[freshwest]

3. You described it perfectly. And they can pick and choose on a whim.

What happens to those deemed unworthy or not likely to be productive in the manner they consider important?

It's just crumbs being tossed to the dogs, their philanthropy.

[LWolf]

4. I don't think so.

It seems okay, on the surface. Really, though, that the system would need philanthropy indicates that it's not getting the government support necessary to sustain itself, let alone to thrive. Taking outside money to fill the gaps means that the system will NEVER be fully funded; it leads to dependence, and that dependence then becomes a weapon in the privatization agenda.

[YvonneCa]

5. Great answers to this question...

...so far. :) I would just add that, if there is a role for philanthropy...and I think some philanthropists genuinely want to do good things...that role should be AT THE MINIMUM equally balanced by a role for REAL educators, including teachers. ;)

[adnelson60087]

7. Philanthropy is giving money to a problem,

and trusting the managing professionals to use the resources to address the problem. These people are not practicing philanthropy, as much as meddling.

[mopinko]

8. a follow up-

there is a substantial role in higher education for such philanthropy, apparently, as there are oceans of such money.
does it harm higher education? or is there something different about higher education that protects it from the harms that would manifest in the common schools?

[tortoise1956]

9. If it's good for one system,

then it should be good for the other. As far as I can tell, Harvard, Stanford, Yale and others are not being corrupted by outside donations.

I think a lot of you are missing the point. If it is true philanthropy, then the donation is made to those in charge of things for them to spend. If it doesn't meet that definition, then it isn't philanthropic. (If only my schoolteacher mom was still around to see me use THAT word in a sentence!)

[Hannah Bell]

10. harvard, stanford & yale = private universities. originally to educate the ruling classes.

they can do whatever they want to support their own agendas in their own schools.

that the big money donors to those institutions try to do the best for THEIR OWN CHILDREN & THEIR OWN SCHOOLS goes without saying.

[tortoise1956]

11. And your point is?

Surely you aren't saying that a Harvard education is worthless? My original assertion still stands - philanthroy hasn't ruined those schools.

If you're hung up on the elitist meme, maybe you should consider other schools such as Tufts, Howard, or Brown. they receive substantial donations, and yet they don't seem to suffer damage...

[Hannah Bell]

12. I guess you didn't get it. No use continuing as you're not going to get it.

I mean, private ruling class universities v. public primary & secondary schools for the lower classes.

No difference at all in the "philanthropists'" motivations there.

and you will please point me to the place where i said or implied a harvard education is "worthless"?

it is worth a great deal. which is to be expected, as that is one of the schools where the ruling class educates ITS OWN CHILDREN.

but if you think that has anything to do with what the "philanthropists" have in mind for the lower orders, you're mistaken.

[tortoise1956]

13. So you don't want to touch Howard University?

Not exactly elitist.

What I get from your response is that you don't think someone who has the money to donate, and believes (rightly in my opinion) that our children are being cheated by the current public school system, shouldn't be allowed to donate that money to try to fix things. Do you really believe that all these rich prople have deceitful ulterior motives?

Sounds kinda far-fetched to me, but hey-whatever floats your boat...

[Hannah Bell]

14. Why, because Howard is a historical black university, you think it's not elitist, or doesn't serve

elite ends?

Howard was established immediately after the Civil War to educate black clergy -- the "elites" of the black community of the time.

The role of the clergy is to control the masses. Black, white, or whoever.

The "philanthropic" class donates to such institutions in part for the same reasons they donate to educate the leadership of third world countries.

The historic role of historically black colleges was to educate the "talented tenth" as leaders to steer the "untalented 90%".

The role of universities *in general* is to indoctrinate & co-opt potential leaders & dissidents to the ruling class agenda.

Two-semester undergrad tuition at Howard is about $16,000.

9-month undergrad tuition at the (public) University of Washington = $8701.

i.e. Howard is more expensive than a highly-rated public university.

[mopinko]

15. pretty sure that harvard alone educates a lot more

kids than those of the "ruling elites". i happen to have a senior in chicago public schools, and "elite" schools are all over her, promising huge scholarships because they are reaching out to kids who are NOT in the "elite" system. and doing it with pots of money specifically targeted to reaching out to public school kids. philanthropic pots of money.

[Hannah Bell]

16. yes, it does. recruits from the same "talented tenth" of the general population.

so what?

they are a minority of harvard students, & a minority of the general population.

the ruling classes have always sought to recruit talent from the lower orders.

imperial egypt did it, imperial rome did it, imperial china did it, the holy roman empire did it, byzantium did it.

that fact doesn't constitute an argument that they provided a good education to the masses, or desired to.

[mopinko]

17. 'so what' is that your previous statement is therefore

inaccurate. they do reach out to those that are not a part of the ruling elite.
within the entire college system as it stands today, few college exist without philanthropy. the "elites", by definition, are a small percentage of the population, even of the smaller pool of the college bound. the rest are not elites, but are able to get a college education, in many cases a very stellar education, in part because higher education has financial support of philanthropists.
so, how bad can that sort of philanthropy harm the common schools?

[Hannah Bell]

18. no, it's not. & "few colleges exist without philanthropy" doesn't mean "few colleges could exist

without philanthropy"

the "philanthropists" started moving heavily into public universities for the same reasons they spend money anywhere: to corrupt institutions to their purposes, to co-opt, to indoctrinate.

"reach out to those that are not part of the ruling elite" = so what? They have always "reached out" in that sense. They couldn't control the country without "reaching out," through propaganda, corruption & co-option. That includes paying off a fraction of the non-connected -- through high-paying jobs & cushy administrative/research/religious/political/media positions -- to support their agenda.

That doesn't mean their plans for education have anything to do with providing a good education for the masses. Or jobs to make use of education, for that matter.


The Imperial examination was an examination system in Imperial China designed to select the best administrative officials for the state's bureaucracy. This system had a huge influence on both society and culture in Imperial China and was directly responsible for the creation of a class of scholar-bureaucrats irrespective of their family pedigree. Neighboring Asian countries such as Japan, Vietnam and Korea also implemented similar systems to draw in their top national talent.<1><2>

Theoretically, any male adult in China, regardless of his wealth or social status, could become a high-ranking government official by passing the imperial examination, although under some dynasties members of the merchant class were excluded, and it was not until the Song dynasty that a majority of civil servants came into their positions via the examination system. Moreover, since the process of studying for the examination tended to be time-consuming and costly (if tutors were hired), most of the candidates came from the numerically small but relatively wealthy land-owning gentry.

However, there are vast numbers of examples in Chinese history in which individuals moved from a low social status to political prominence through success in imperial examination.

In late imperial China, the examination system and associated methods of recruitment to the central bureaucracy were major mechanisms by which the central government captured and held the loyalty of local-level elites. Their loyalty, in turn, ensured the integration of the Chinese state, and countered tendencies toward regional autonomy and the breakup of the centralized system.

The examination system distributed its prizes according to provincial and prefectural quotas, which meant that imperial officials were recruited from the whole country, in numbers roughly proportional to each province's population. Elite individuals all over China, even in the disadvantaged peripheral regions, had a chance at succeeding in the examinations and achieving the rewards and emoluments office brought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination


All large societies have similar mechanisms to indoctrinate, corrupt & co-opt non-elites.