The concept of accountability continues to rank high on the list of discussion topics in educational circles. Some parent and community groups demand that schools be accountable to them rather than to the Board of Education. Others insist that teachers be held accountable to supervisors, supervisors to their community boards, and the latter, like other public agencies, accountable to the citizenry. The more ambitious plans even include proposals to hold students and parents accountable for adequate performance of their respective roles. While the demand for some system of accountability comes from many directions, one of the chief supporters of the movement have been large tax-exempt foundations. The financial support they have given to groups demanding accountability in the schools raises the serious question of whether the major philanthropic foundations concerned with education should not themselves be held accountable to the public.
The foundations are today responsible neither to elected public officials nor to stockholders interested in the efficiency of the enterprise. Legally they are responsible only to their self-perpetuating boards of trustees. Given their vast wealth and the strategic position they occupy in our society, it is indeed strange that the matter of their accountability has until now virtually been ignored.
The American tax structure, with its heavy emphasis on the progressive income tax and on large inheritance taxes, is based on the assumption that since money brings with it political power, the amassing of huge fortunes must be counteracted in order to preserve political democracy. Tax favors have been granted to foundations because they have been viewed as philanthropic and non-political bodies, engaged in educational, scientific and charitable projects. But even a quick glance at the record of recent foundation activities reveals clearly that the line between what is "educational" and what is "political" is a very thin line indeed. A clear case in point is the role played by the Ford Foundation in the controversy over school decentralization.
When the Ford Foundation granted funds to certain community groups for the purpose of advancing what the Foundation believed to be a good educational idea, the advantages thus given went considerably beyond the area of education. The granting of money often has the effect of changing power relationships -- and this is precisely what happened in the decentralization battle. There can be no doubt that, as a result of these grants, the individuals and groups who received them were in a different political position, in school board elections in their communities, than those who had no such financial aid. Nor can there be any question that the school decentralization legislation was heavily influenced by foundation supported reports.
Foundation Grants as Silencers
A further measure of the influence of foundation grants is to be seen in the virtual non-existence of debate in academic circles, in professional ranks, on the school decentralization question. All the argument there appeared to be on one side. Is it unreasonable to ask whether this seeming unanimity on a controversial idea might have been due in some part to a reluctance on the part of universities and their professors to lock horns with the Ford Foundation, for fear of jeopardizing financial support for other projects? Democracy depends, for its very existence, on competition in a free marketplace of ideas. Throughout our nation's history, new ideas have stirred controversy, with colleges in the thick of it. Can it be that foundation grants are in some instances impeding such involvement?
While it is a fact that many good causes and organizations have become dependent upon financial support from foundations, the basic principle of democratic checks and balances must not be abandoned because of that fact. While liberals normally fight strenuously against the use of private wealth to influence political outcomes, they have withheld criticism of foundations when the cause aided by foundation grants was, in their opinion, a worthy one. For them, the issue of accountability now poses an important challenge.
This issue has to be settled, not on the basis of whether or not one likes the particular causes helped by these funds, but on the principled basis of opposition to the use of tax-exempt private wealth in politics.