The picture we have assembled above is only a rough sketch, and we cannot claim it is sufficient to answer our beginning questions, but it has given us a basis for dialogue and consideration of some suggestions for our audiences.

Philanthropy is increasingly available to public schools, but it is not clear how much is available to support comprehensive reform approaches. It is clear that schools with a coherent vision can secure philanthropic gifts to support reform efforts, especially if they invest in staff resources to pursue such gifts in systematic, professional ways and if they are located proximate to foundations or corporations actively seeking to support reform programs. When both the schools and the grant makers have a clear vision of their goals and a carefully considered strategy for reaching them, and when those visions and strategies from both sides can be melded in local initiatives, then success seems much more likely.

It is less clear whether schools with strong visions but lacking fund-raising capabilities and proximity can reasonably hope to fund their ambitions through philanthropy. We sense, however, that many -- perhaps most -- cannot within the present circumstances. If they cannot, there are serious policy implications for states and districts that pressure schools to embark on comprehensive school reforms. Comprehensive reforms will cost money that must be gained, if not with supplements from philanthropy, either through increased flexibility for the use of existing funds or through increases in the public funding of schools. Policy that merely hopes philanthropy will make up important differences without basing that hope on an understanding of the capacity or inclinations of givers is an invitation to failure. It may also be that policies that encourage competition from an expanded circle of education providers, be they charter or private schools, can have unintended effects of diluting philanthropic resources, with the result that even more schools wishing to adopt systemic changes will not be able to find start-up funding.

While philanthropy may not provide the magic elixir that many schools seek, our study does encourage us to believe that philanthropy has an important role to play in public school reform. We are particularly encouraged by the sense of community in several efforts, where local philanthropies have chosen to invest heavily in local schools that commit to well-planned approaches that meet specific criteria consistent with research and informed thinking about comprehensive reform. Unfortunately there are only a few such examples. We are particularly concerned that there are communities with limited tax bases and schools with high poverty indicators and poor academic performance that, for whatever reason, lack the capacity to attract philanthropic support for critical reform initiatives. We believe that SEDL should help schools build "friend-raising" and fund-raising capabilities and we would like to offer help as well to grant makers to enable them to better promote and support research-based strategies for reform.

In discussing our findings and our concerns with a panel of foundation and school representatives, we assembled a list of "suggestions" for our three audiences to consider as steps toward a more productive partnership of public schools and private philanthropy.

• Both educators and grant makers should focus on larger, systemic school reform rather than marginal strategies. Smaller, local grant makers should find ways to complement systemic, comprehensive reform approaches, even if they are not able to provide funds at a level sufficient to underwrite whole initiatives.

• Successful school improvement programs come out of a clear vision based on commonly held knowledge and beliefs and requires leadership that instills confidence in the ability to succeed, inspires courage to take chances, and has endurance to go the distance. Grant making in support of comprehensive school reform is not about money per se. It is about the executing a strategy to achieve a vision -- a strategy and vision for the school and for the grant maker. Everything that is done by either side should be congruent with and should advance their strategy and vision.

• Either grant makers or the schools can take the initiative in a local comprehensive reform effort, but decisions for action should be based on a clear understanding and agreement between the two about what the schools need to accomplish and what the strategy is for getting there. Grant makers may need initially to support data-based studies and planning with the schools before moving to strategic decisions.

• Often schools with the greatest need for philanthropic assistance have the least capacity to seek and secure it. Grant makers seeking to have substantial impact on some of the most intractable problems in public education should consider taking the initiative to help such schools and districts define their needs and build a capacity to secure and effectively use financial gifts.

• Grant makers' governing boards should examine the possibilities of unintended consequences when making grant decisions for public education. For example, foundations should be cautious about doing the work of schools and school leaders. They should not put themselves in the position to taking responsibility away from the community and from school officials as it is very hard to transfer such responsibility back once taken away.

• Philanthropic resources invested in efforts that change policy and budget priorities for schools and districts are the most substantial and stand the best chance of promoting lasting effects.

• Smaller grant-making organizations seeking to make a substantive contribution to public education should seek out and take advantage of networking opportunities among other grant makers in order to expand their knowledge base, benefit from the experiences of others, explore collaborations, and avoid strategies known to be ineffective.

• Districts should report annually to the public on gifts received, for what purposes, and what has been accomplished. The seeds of philanthropy for schools will grow best in the light of public examination.

• A fully realized systemic reform initiative should have one or more full-time, salaried professionals to develop relationships with grant makers and write proposals for funding strategic elements of the effort. In smaller communities this may be a position shared in a collaborative arrangement with other schools or districts. Local school leaders should consider encouraging the development of local education funds in accordance with the principles described in this report.

• Grant makers, grant seekers, and policy makers all need better information about what philanthropy is going into public education, who is receiving it, for what purposes, and with what results. State-level policies and reporting procedures should be studied and revised to ensure that philanthropic funds received by or benefiting schools are reported in consistent ways and at a useful level of detail.

• It is important for policy makers to understand that reliance on philanthropic dollars to fund critical reform initiatives is a "challenging" public policy stance. Such reliance should be a considered strategy, made on the basis of a complete examination of its practicalities and consequences. Philanthropy should not be counted on for school funding as an unexamined assumption.

• If schools are to depend on relationships with philanthropic organizations in order to accomplish innovations and reform, they must be able to invest in a capacity for that kind of work. State and local policies must encourage and support such investments.