The stage is packed up, the nametags put away, and the cameras back in their casings. The real work, however, is just beginning.
Last week, NCRP hosted its first Philamplify Debate to explore whether market-based approaches can lead to equity and empowerment in education. This question is fundamental to understanding the state of education in the United States today, as I argued in a post before the debate.
The question also covers a lot of ground, so here’s what we mean by those terms:
- Market-based reform: Approaches that use public funding to create alternatives to traditional public schools, with tools like charter schools, school vouchers and educational management organizations.
- Education equity: Ensuring that every child, regardless of identity or background, has equal opportunity to fulfill their educational potential, and that all children receive a sound basic education at minimum.
- Empowerment: A process that fosters in people the capacity to effectively influence issues that they define as important, in their own lives, their communities, and in their society.
With more and more philanthropic dollars devoted towards charters, vouchers and other such choice-oriented reforms, understanding what strategies lead to fair, vibrant outcomes for the most marginalized is crucial for our communities’ future.
In the debate, the Chicago Teachers Union’s Brandon Johnson defended traditional public schools, and the Thomas B. Fordham Institute’s Robert Pondiscio made the case for publicly funded charters, moderated by the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation’s Sherece West-Scantlebury. Our panelists, the Edward W. Hazen Foundation’s Lori Bezahler, the New Schools Venture Fund’s Deborah McGriff and the Texas Education Grantmakers Advocacy Consortium’s Jennifer Esterline, weighed in on the remarks with their own perspectives.
Our in-person audience and online viewers joined the conversation, too. Tweets ran the gamut, including:
"This is not a market of schools that parents choose, but a market of students that schools choose." @LoriBezahler #PhilamplifyDebate
— Yeshi (@YESHICAN) September 29, 2015
https://twitter.com/audreyhkim/status/648946993591554048
Building consensus is not only ingredient for Ed reform and empowerment, but @TEGACTX has 34 Fdns at table for progress! #philamplifydebate
— Christine Reeves S (@CReevesStrigaro) September 29, 2015
The dialogue was respectful, but passionate. Those in the philanthropic sector rarely debate each other face to face, especially when we hold powerfully differing views. When we do, it’s even easier to fall prey to cognitive dissonance and ignore evidence that falls outside our worldview, as my colleague wrote before the event. NCRP wants to commend all our participants for taking on this challenge.
The conversation, however, is far from over. At NCRP, we’re committed to asking challenging questions of philanthropy, especially when the answers can lead to long-term change. The public deserves no less.
Watch the debate recording, and take a moment to tell us your thoughts: What are you taking away from the program? Should NCRP host more Philamplify Debates? We want to hear from you.
And stay tuned! New Philamplify assessments will be released later this fall.
Ben Barge is a Field Associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). Follow @NCRP on Twitter and join the #PhilamplifyDebate conversation!
Leave a Reply