In my previous post I recounted how, after a discussion with my wife about Bill Gates, it occurred to me that I really didn’t know where all the Gates Foundation money goes to and if all those projects are “Good Charity” or “Bad Charity”.
I then went to the Gates Foundation website which maintains a list of all the projects they have funded. I cut and pasted information about the 128 “College Ready” projects for 2014 into a spreadsheet (a MicroSoft product) and found that the Foundation had spent $93.3 million. I categorized each of the projects according to the blurb provided on the Foundation’s website (or if that was too vague I went to the project recepient’s website to see what their mission is).
Here are the results:
|Common Core Implementation||$10,413,185||11.2%|
|Strategic Plan Implementation||$7,049,649||7.6%|
|On-line and/or Personalized Learning||$6,057,826||6.5%|
|Provide Classroom Materials||$3,600,000||3.9%|
The categorization process is somewhat subjective. For example, Anthony Cody just completed the same process and came out with different totals based on his interpretation of each project. Given his knowledge of the Gates Foundation (see his excellent book The Educator and the Oligarchy) I would encourage you to read his post as he has some fascinating interpretations about the intent of some of the grants as it relates to R&D and policymaking.
Surprised that Professional Development projects were the top category (26.4% of the funding)? I was too until I realized that if you want to change instructional practices you need to provide professional development to teachers. In 2014 the Gates Foundation issued an RFP (Requests for Proposal) for “The iPD Challenge” and then provided over $24 million in grants to organizations to design new methodologies that met the Foundation’s criteria of what PD should look like. According to the RFP iPD should be, “more personalized and calls for higher levels of teacher engagement and collaboration.” When you dig deeper iPD should include personalized learning technologies, data collection to demonstrate change, and a blend of individual learning with collaborative learning. Before I retired I was in charge of professional development for several school districts and I always struggled on how to bring theory into practice. Perhaps the Foundation will come up with some alternatives to the current way we provide professional development to teachers. I would say this is “Good Charity” with reservations.
Support for charter schools ($17.2 million) continues to be a big priority for the Foundation. Combine that with the $10.1 million funding for School Redesign projects, the Foundation spent over $27 million to find ways to make public schools obsolete. “Bad Charity” with no reservations.
No surprise that third on the list was Common Core Implementation. The Foundation funded the incubation and birth of the Common Core. I believe that the original concept of providing a nation-wide set of curricular expectations was good (compared to 50 different sets of standards). However it has mutated into an uncontrollable beast. “Bad Charity”
Although Strategic Plan Implementation was #5 on the list, it only had 2 grantees, with the bulk of the funding ($6.1 million) going to the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). This group is made up of the people who are in charge of each state’s department of education. I can remember years ago hearing the Illinois State Superintendent Chis Koch enthusing over a new concept – Common Core Standards – after he returned from the annual meeting of the CCSSO. A good place to put your money if you want to change education. “Bad Charity” with reservations.
Number 6 on the list was On-line and/or Personalized Learning ($6 million). Interestingly enough, several of the grants in this category went to public school districts (the vast majority of the 128 grants went to anything but public schools). This shows the Foundation’s believe that technology should take a more prominent role in the instruction of students. If developed properly this area could be a benefit to teachers and students. “Good Charity” with reservations.
Conference Support (#7) is an interesting category. In most cases it appears the Foundation provided funds to organizations to send teachers (and sometimes students) to attend various conferences. It didn’t appear that every conference was about a particular topic (i.e. Common Core). “Good Charity”
I was a bit surprised to see that the category College Ready only had three recipients, of which one (Alliance for Excellent Education, Inc.) received the bulk of the funding. College Ready is the Gates Foundation’s #1 priority for it U.S. Programs, so why not more funding in this area? My only guess is that the Foundation already believes they know what it takes to make kids college ready and doesn’t need to invest more in that area. I’m always suspicious of anyone who has all the answers. “Bad Charity”
The last category I’ll touch on in this post (yes there is one more coming) is Provide Teacher Materials. Most teachers know that DonorsChoose.org is a website they can look to for classroom materials. The Foundation made two grants totaling $3.6 million to support DonorsChoose.org. “Good Charity”
So is the Gates Foundation a “Good Charity” or a “Bad Charity”? The answer is “Yes”. In some cases its philanthropy may actually help public education. In others it definitely hurts public education. What we do know is with over $42.3 billion in assets it will continue to impact education for a long time.
In my next post on this topic I’ll look at why the Foundation might spend funds to support other philanthropic organizations, what are some of the projects funded in the “Other” category, and a look at the organizations that received the most money from the Foundation in 2014.