The Logic of Investment: A Cross-Case Analysis of Funding Models at New Graduate Schools of Education

• In Event: Teacher Preparation at New Graduate Schools of Education: Findings From a National Study

Abstract

Objectives
Behind the proliferation of initiatives to promote competition between universities and alternate routes (Lincove, et al., 2015) lies a powerful coalition of education philanthropists (Hess, 2005; Zeichner & Pena-Sandoval, 2015) who have enabled the increase of philanthropically-backed independent teacher education programs (Zeichner & Pena-Sandoval, 2014; Zeichner, 2015; Holland, 2013), including nGSEs. As nGSEs have proliferated, a new set of tuition and funding models have emerged to meet the demand for more efficient or cost-effective programs. However, there has been little empirical research on the funding models developed by nGSEs (Carney, 2019) or the philanthropies upon which they depend.

Therefore, this paper presents cross-case findings about the tuition and funding models at nGSEs by examining policy contexts, innerworkings of tuition models, and implications for the field of teacher education. The purpose of the paper is to define a critical aspect of the institutional reorganization of teacher preparation at nGSEs.

Theoretical Frameworks
This analysis draws on neo-institutional theory, which addresses the possibility of transformation within institutions by examining the effects of different institutional logics (Friedland and Alford, 1991; Thornton and Ocasio, 1999, 2008). Institutional logic is the central idea that guides key organizing principles, or “patterns of material practices, assumptions, values, beliefs and rules by which individuals produce and reproduce their material subsistence” (Thornton and Ocasio, 1999, p. 804). This paper is concerned with the assumptions, beliefs, and rules underlying nGSE funding.

Data Sources
This paper uses nGSE case data enumerated in the overview, particularly interviews and documents. It also draws on publicly-available non-profit tax returns and grant-related disclosures filed by foundations with transparency databases.

Methods
This analysis uses thematic qualitative methods for cross-case analysis (Stake, 2006) to look for patterns and draw assertions based on multiple sources of evidence (Erickson, 1986). Case data were recoded for funding sources, business models, and tuition. The paper also draws on network analysis to discuss the web of funders and patterns of techniques used by nGSEs (Reckhow & Snyder, 2014; Au & Ferrare, 2014).

Findings
This paper highlights two major findings. First, the evidence shows that nGSEs distinguish themselves from “traditional” teacher preparation programs by capitalizing on the logic and appeal of disruption. They do so by offering simplified funding models to teacher candidates while rejecting the complex web of aid and loans that have historically supported access to teacher preparation programs. Instead, nGSEs tend to favor cut-the-middle-man approaches that make for easy transactions between the candidate and the organization. Second, nGSEs offer funding arrangements that differ from traditional tuition. But the new models are hardly isomorphic. What nGSEs have in common is a push to provide ‘innovative’ cost-efficient funding to candidates with the backing of major philanthropic foundations, but they are as different from one another as they are from universities and reflect diverse logics. These logics range from public service to profit.

Significance
This analysis contributes to the literature about teacher education reform, particularly the influence of a new educational philanthropy that supports market-based alternatives to improve the strength of America’s teachers, students, and, in turn, economy.

Authors

• Reid Jewett Smith, Boston College

• Juan Gabriel Sanchez, Phillips Academy, Andover