Competitive, Innovative, and Efficient? An Analysis of Economic Reasoning in Federal Education Grant-Making

• In Event: Philanthropy and Education Reform: New Models and Persisting Challenges

Abstract

Purpose
Research on philanthropy and education reform has long investigated the power and influence that wealthy foundations and individuals wield within the field. Scholars have explored the impacts of various models of grantmaking (Tompkins-Stange, 2016); as well as how philanthropy has influenced policy ranging from charter school development to school board elections (Scott, 2009; Henig, Jacobsen, & Reckhow, 2019). This paper contributes to this body of work by examining the influence of philanthropic foundations and advocacy organizations in advancing a particular “economic style of reasoning” through their roles in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the U.S. Department of Education’s Race to the Top (R2T) and Investing in Innovation (i3) grant programs (Popp Berman, 2022).

Context/Framework
Implemented under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, R2T and i3 sought to spur innovative practices within education that would improve an array of indicators, including student achievement, graduation rates, and college enrollment (OESE, 2020). The i3 program also included an explicit aim of increasing partnership between the public, private, and philanthropic sectors.

This paper draws upon two key frameworks: The first, Popp-Berman’s (2022) “economic style of reasoning,” a policymaking approach that prioritizes efficiency and choice and uses economic models to quantify costs and benefits. The second, Scott and Jabbar’s (2014) “hub and spokes” model, in which philanthropic foundations operate as “hubs” that fund the activities of various intermediary organizations, as well as “spokes” who influence their activities. Taken together, I examine how through their funding of R2T and i3, foundations and advocacy organizations acted as the hubs and spokes that spread economic approaches within the reform environment.

Data/Methods
This paper takes the R2T and i3 grants as two cases through which to explore the role of philanthropic and advocacy entities in advancing economic reasoning within education reform (Merriam, 1988). In developing this argument, I draw upon a range of data including government documents, policy and research reports, and news articles. In my analysis, I employ critical discourse analysis, which approaches language as a mechanism through which power, inequality, and social practices are constructed and reinforced (Fairclough, 1995).

Findings
Preliminary findings indicate that philanthropic and advocacy organizations made use of a wide range of economic language when speaking about and evaluating R2T and i3, framing the programs in terms of cost-effectiveness, competition, their ability to create a supply and demand system for money and innovation within educational marketplaces. Emerging analysis shows how these framings were often presented alongside those of equity and a universal right to education, as well as how, when, and with what audiences they were most often employed.

Significance
Much research has focused on varying conceptions of success of the R2T and i3 programs. Some evaluates their success at spurring innovation and increasing student achievement (e.g., Howell, 2015), other streams analyze the political dynamics that influenced their implementation (e.g., McGuinn, 2012). This paper offers a third layer of discussion to provide insight on how these actors infused and advanced a particular set of ideals throughout the policy process.

Author

• Abigail Orrick, Harvard University
  Presenting Author