Sarah Reckhow, Ph.D.
reckhow@msu.edu
Michigan State University
About Me:
Sarah Reckhow is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Michigan State University. She was awarded a fellowship from the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study for 2018-2019. In her first book, Follow the Money: How Foundation Dollars Change Public School Politics (2012), Reckhow examines the role of major foundations, such as the Gates Foundation, in urban school reform. Her most recent book, co-authored with Jeffrey Henig and Rebecca Jacobsen, is Outside Money in School Board Elections: The Nationalization of Education Politics (2019). She has recently published articles in Educational Researcher, Journal of Urban Affairs, Urban Affairs Review, Policy Studies Journal, and Planning Theory. She received her Ph.D. in political science from the University of California, Berkeley in 2009. Sarah was a high school teacher in the Baltimore City Public Schools from 2002 to 2004.
Research Interests
Nonprofits
State and Local Politics
Public Policy
Campaign Finance
Urban Politics
Countries of Interest
United States
Publications:
Journal Articles:
Scholars across the social sciences have shown how economic, social, and political changes are weakening local governments and contributing to rising nonprofit activity in urban politics. But these trends could now add up to a new form of decision-making in some American cities. The convergence of public sector austerity and a burgeoning philanthropic and nonprofit sector have created space for what we call “nonprofit governance.” In some cities, nonprofit leaders can guide urban policy, sometimes with limited input from elected officials or citizens. First, we apply insights from studies in comparative politics to demonstrate how nonprofit leadership can expand, particularly in the context of a weak state. Next, we assess trends in public sector capacity, based on local government employment in Midwestern U.S. cities. We closely examine Detroit and Flint due to dramatic declines in local government capacity and recent public sector crises in both cities, focusing on the role of nonprofits in each. These leading-edge cases allow us to trace the development of nonprofit governance and explore different forms of nonprofit and local government relationships.
Recent election cycles have seen growing attention to the role of “outside” money in urban school board elections. Using an original data set of more than 16,000 contributions covering election cycles from 2008 to 2013 in four school districts (Los Angeles, CA; New Orleans, LA; Denver, CO; Bridgeport, CT), we show how large national donors play a significant role. Our study links two dynamic fields that are rarely studied together: (1) the behavior of wealthy donors in a changing national campaign finance system and (2) the evolving politics of urban education. By examining donor networks, we illuminate the mechanisms behind the nationalization of education politics and national donor involvement in local campaigns. We show that shared affiliations through education organizations are significantly associated with school board campaign contributions.
Based on recent developments in education policy, I show that foundations have stepped well beyond the role of interest group patrons. Foundations have engaged in policy advocacy around a shared agenda supporting Common Core, teacher evaluation reforms, and charter schools. Using an original dataset of philanthropic grants combined with analysis of congressional hearings, I show how major foundations support aligned objectives to reform education. I also examine philanthropic involvement in partnerships with the federal Department of Education in support of federal policy initiatives. The alignment of private philanthropic advocacy efforts with leadership from the federal Department of Education produced rapid changes in state adoption of Common Core standards and teacher evaluation. Yet I also find that there have been costs to this more expansive role for philanthropy. The longevity of policy changes supported by major philanthropies may be challenged by the consequences of pursuing change via elite consensus and unelected leadership.
Philanthropic involvement in education politics has become bolder and more visible. Have foundations changed funding strategies to enhance their political influence? Using data from 2000, 2005, and 2010, we investigate giving patterns among the 15 largest education foundations. Our analyses show growing support for national-level advocacy organizations. Furthermore, we find that foundations increasingly fund organizations that operate as “jurisdictional challengers” by competing with traditional public sector institutions. We apply social network analysis to demonstrate the growing prevalence of convergent grant-making—multiple foundations supporting the same organizations. These results suggest that a sector once criticized for not leveraging its investments now increasingly seeks to maximize its impact by supporting alternative providers, investing concurrently, and supporting grantees to engage in policy debates.
Studies of minority political incorporation have demonstrated that advocacy organizations are critical for advancing minority electoral success and policy change. Drawing on an original data set of 30 midsized U.S. cities, the author evaluates the extent of organized representation of racial and ethnic groups and the effect of organized representation on elected representation. Latinos and Asian-Americans both have greater numbers of local advocacy organizations as the groups’ proportion of the population increases. Yet many cities with sizable African-American populations have a lower density of advocacy organizations than cities with fewer African-Americans. A smaller field of organizations increases elected representation for African-Americans but not for Latinos.
Books Written:
Winner of the 2020 Dennis Judd Best Book Award, American Political Science Association Outside Money in School Board Elections documents and analyzes the injection of external funding into local elections. Local school board contests have recently become flashpoints of national donor interest. Some observers see this engagement as a needed boost for complacent school districts while others view it as a threat to local democracy. Drawing on a detailed study of elections in five districts (Bridgeport, Connecticut, Denver, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, and New Orleans), the authors explore what happens when national issues percolate downward into local politics. They suggest that the involvement of wealthy individuals and national organizations in local school board elections are signs of the nationalization of local education politics that potentially have significant implications for equity and democracy. Outside Money in School Board Elections brings attention back to local participation and the diversity of players at that level, and highlights the national trend of increasing wealth inequality and its impact on the politics of education. This cross-case investigation demonstrates that local and national education politics are not separate fields but closely intertwined areas of political advocacy with complex interactions.
Media Appearances:
Newspaper Quotes:
Article: "Parents are Worried About Schools. Are the Candidates?" by Abby Goodnough "Mr. Biden has a more difficult needle to thread. Some of his strongest support comes from teachers’ unions, which generally have opposed efforts to reopen schools. And in the Democratic cities and swing-district suburbs where schools are more likely to remain closed, and where Mr. Biden’s support is based, many parents also remain resistant to reopening as public health concerns persist and data on the safety of school reopenings is sparse. “In my district, everybody has their Biden yard signs but it’s about a 50-50 split as to who wants their kids back in school,” said Sarah Reckhow, an associate professor of political science at Michigan State University who studies education politics. “It’s a tricky calculus for him.”