This was supposed to be a banner year for former publisher and diplomat Walter Annenberg, who turned 90 last month. His $500-million, five-year school reform effort, billed as "the largest single gift ever made to American public education," is due to end this year.
When the gift was announced in December 1993, it fueled the imagination of educators and parents nationwide: After so many years of complaints from education officials and union leaders about an alleged lack of funds, could this be the solution to our public schools' dismal performance? There seemed little doubt that Annenberg had made a great social investment certain to improve children's lives and America's future.
But today, as the Annenberg Challenge proceeds into its fifth and final year, all hopes have diminished. The promised improvements have not been realized.
Does Annenberg realize that the gift that was to be his great legacy has failed to prompt any lasting, significant reform? Instead, his gift has taught other philanthropists where not to invest their fortunes: in the large, unwieldy public school system that favors bureaucracy over the needs of children.
Since 1993, the Annenberg Challenge has distributed grants from the billionaire's family foundation to programs in rural and urban school districts, including Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia and San Francisco.
Observers cite significant problems in several Annenberg-funded programs. These include mismanagement, lack of effective leadership, lack of teacher commitment, staffing difficulties, poor facilities and inflexible curricula--all endemic to the public school system.
But if the Annenberg Challenge has failed to prompt significant school reform, there is one simple reason: Annenberg relies on the power of money to influence change in a government bureaucracy. Only two elements distinguish the Annenberg Challenge from other failed school reform efforts in the past: large grants from the Annenberg Foundation and Annenberg's success in leveraging support by requiring matching contributions.
But money is not the answer. The National Center for Education Statistics estimates that the U.S. spent more than $274 billion on public education last year. Could $500 million over five years, even if tripled by matching contributions, have any significant effect?
