Paying for Preparation: Innovative Funding Models at New Graduate Schools of Education

• In Event: 43.029 - Teacher Preparation at New Graduate Schools of Education: Capturing a Changing Field

Abstract

Theoretical Framework/Related Literature
The persistent failure narrative attached to university-based teacher preparation (Author, 2018) paired with rising tuition costs (Liu, 2013) has allowed “education entrepreneurs” (Hollar, 2017, p. 62) and “entrepreneurial” teacher preparation programs (Zeichner & Pena-Sandoval, 2015) to challenge the decades-long dominance of university-based teacher preparation (Labaree, 2008). Specifically, the relatively recent entrance of philanthropic foundations (Baltodano, 2012; Gates Foundation, 2015; Zeichner & Pena-Sandoval, 2015) as well as for-profit companies (Liu, 2013; Zeichner, 2010) into the alternative teacher preparation arena has reshaped the market with a particular impact on program costs and funding (Liu, 2013; Zeichner & Pena-Sandoval, 2015). Informed by literature regarding the influence of neoliberalism and corporatization on teacher education (e.g., Author, 2018; Baltodano, 2012; Hollar, 2017; Zeichner, 2010; Zeichner & Pena-Sandoval, 2015), this paper analyzes innovative funding models across nGSEs.

Data Sources/Analysis
Data sources for this paper included interviews with program participants, proprietary institutional documents, and publicly available program materials from three case study sites. Data sources were initially coded for three key areas related to program funding: tuition, entrepreneurship, and philanthropy. Further analysis utilizing a series of related sub-codes revealed themes and patterns within and across cases (Ayres, Kavanaugh, & Knafl, 2003; Stake, 2006).

Findings/Interpretations
This paper reports two key findings. First, nGSEs employ low-cost and flexible tuition models, which may increase access to pre-professional preparation for prospective teachers unable or unwilling to pay for typically more high-cost university preparation. For example, TEACH-NOW describes its business model as “unique” (TEACH-NOW, 2018a, p. 2) and markets its $6000 tuition fee as “cost effective” (TEACH-NOW, 2018b, para. 5), while Sposato claims that its $12,000 student-provided tuition fee only covers “a fraction of total training costs” (Sposato GSE, 2015, para. 2) with the remaining cost covered by donors and the schools that hire the program’s graduates. Second, nGSEs rely on private funding to support program initiation, growth, and/or continuation. Interestingly, all three case study sites have received financial backing from the NewSchools Venture Fund (NewSchools Venture Fund, 2018a), a venture philanthropy firm and undisputed champion of charter schools focused on “investing in education entrepreneurs” (NewSchools Venture Fund, 2018b, para. 2). While TEACH-NOW currently utilizes a for-profit funding model, the other two continue to depend on major philanthropic investors. Specifically, Sposato receives support from the Gates Foundation via the TeachersSquared initiative (Gates Foundation, 2015), and High Tech High GSE is supported by the Walton Family Foundation along with a number of other high-profile philanthropies (HTHGSE, 2018.). This reliance on private money reflects what Zeichner and Pena-Sandoval (2015) call “a new wave of philanthropy” (p. 7), which centers on market-based reform intended to support “new entrants” (p. 7) into the field of teacher education.

Significance
This paper raises questions about the implications and consequences of entrepreneurialism and privatization in teacher preparation funding. While innovative funding models may help to offer teacher preparation options to a wider population of prospective teachers, dependence on outside funding raises concerns about sustainability and replicability.

Author

• Molly Cummings Carney, Boston College