Saturday, October 25, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
An Insightful Primer on the Importance of our NSF ITEST Grant role as liaison to Industry, Business and Government
Create the right skill sets through professional co-op
“It’s been a topic of interest for some time,” says Kettering University Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs Michael Harris.
The results of a national survey of employers’ ratings of the abilities of recent grads in 12 specific skill areas indicated that employers are not giving high marks to the skills of graduates either. The survey, conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates for the American Association of College and Universities, asked employers to rate new hires in the skills that represent a growing consensus regarding the abilities necessary to succeed in the 21st Century workforce.
Harris said of the employers surveyed in the AACU survey, 83 percent said that they would like to see evidence of graduates’ ability to apply college to a “real-world setting” through faculty assessments of internship projects and community-based work. The Accrediting Board for Engineering and Technology has recognized this challenge and has begun to take steps in addressing this need for change. The new ABET standards, known as EC2000, ask programs to set clear educational objectives, to collaborate with industry, to conduct outcomes assessment and feed data from these assessments back into the program for continuous improvement.
“The challenge we face is further increased as a result of the downsizing of manufacturing operations in some of our largest corporations, coupled with the offshore movement of low-skilled jobs,” Harris said. “This has created a public misconception that technical fields like engineering, and even the sciences, are no longer good areas for intellectual and career pursuit thus contributing to the very real decline in students seeking engineering degrees. Ironically, the same corporations that are downsizing are also experiencing unprecedented shortages of the workforce skills necessary to carry out their product strategies globally.”
“Kettering University offers a learning model that combines two distinct learning environments -- an on-campus academic experience and a cooperative education work experience -- where students gain knowledge and skills relevant to working and living in a complex world," Harris said. "A Kettering education combines cutting-edge theory and practical application. The co-op experience is a transformative process through which students become increasingly acclimated and socialized to the corporate environment as they increase their knowledge-base and theoretical understanding of their discipline.”
Co-op education at Kettering, with more than 600 co-op sponsors, provides the opportunity for employers to take part in that transformative process and create the new hires they seek. “We can do so by increasing the cooperation and coalition building between higher education and industry, working together toward a common goal,” Harris added.
To read more about Kettering’s co-op program, visit www.kettering.edu.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
GOVERNOR CALLS for EDUCATIONAL REVOLUTIONARIES (EDULUTIONARIES)
Goal: Ways to keep students in school
LORI HIGGINS • FREE PRESS EDUCATION WRITER • October 21, 2008
LANSING -- As economist Andrew Sum pointed out the wide gap between lifetime earnings for high school dropouts and those who've received a diploma or college degree, he told the audience the numbers should be sobering.
"When you look at these results, you ought to tremble," said Sum, professor of economics and director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston.
But any of the statistics Sum displayed on an overhead projector during a half-hour talk at Monday's Michigan Dropout Prevention Summit in Lansing could have caused a similar reaction. Dropouts, he said, are more likely to live in poverty, earn substantially lower pay and be incarcerated.
And Michigan, he said, is harder hit by the nation's dropout crisis because of the deindustrialization of the state and the disappearance of the kinds of jobs that years ago allowed dropouts to still make good money.
"Michigan used to have among the most well-paid dropouts," Sum said.
The all-day summit was organized by a cadre of organizations to tackle the state's dropout crisis, in which more than 20,000 high school students abandon their education each year.
The summit is a culmination of about six months of work, including 11 hearings held across the state in which parents, educators, students and others discussed the crisis. The summit goal: come up with solutions that work for keeping kids in school.
Early in the day, Gov. Jennifer Granholm urged participants to become "educational revolutionaries."
"For those kids that drop out, that's a 100% failure. There is no question ... we have to be committed to changing the status quo."
She encouraged participants to be willing to "rewrite the rules for those kids," which the current system is not working for.
But Granholm said she doesn't want to see the state's tough new graduation requirements -- which some say could lead to more dropouts -- softened in response.
Participants heard from a panel of students, most of whom had dropped out of school at one point. Among them was Robert Olivarez, 16, of Lansing, who described growing up with a mother who was in and out of jail. He experimented with drugs and alcohol, dropped out of school and found himself going down the wrong path until he talked to a cousin who had enrolled in the Michigan Youth Challenge Academy, a military-type school in Battle Creek that helps kids get caught up while focusing on infusing discipline and structure in their lives.
Before he entered the program, he had a 0.2 grade point average. Now, his GPA is up to 3.7.
"They helped me get my education," Robert said.
The students were asked, in one word, what youth like them need.
Responses ranged from "respect" to "love" to being noticed.
"Support is key," Robert said.
Contact LORI HIGGINS at 248-351-3694 or lhiggins@freepress.com.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Michigan Drop-Out Summit
Programs see success with fresh approaches
BY LORI HIGGINS • FREE PRESS EDUCATION WRITER • October 18, 2008
For a couple of hundred students in Michigan each year, the only path to a diploma runs through a residential military-style school in Battle Creek run by the Michigan National Guard.
For dozens in Westwood Community Schools in Dearborn Heights, the key to graduating last year was an alternative program that let them make up lost credits in exchange for signing pledges that they would get the work done.
These turnarounds don't happen enough in a state where more than 20,000 students -- enough to fill 20 average-size high schools -- abandon their education every year.
Some critics say too little attention had been paid to the crisis. But schools have become more aggressive than ever in finding solutions, and one of the largest efforts to address it culminates in a summit Monday in Lansing, where more than 500 people are to share ideas on keeping kids in school.
The summit builds on the findings of 11 hearings held over the past six months. Organizers of those hearings -- including the Michigan Education Association, Michigan's Children and Michigan's Charter Schools -- found common themes in the testimony: Adults need to build better relationships with teens; schools must intervene before kids reach high school; schools need a variety of approaches to helping kids, and community groups must be more involved.
The conversations about the crisis couldn't be happening at a more important time. Michigan is suffering economically and counting on public schools to produce graduates who will be ready to take on the jobs of the future.
"The schools that should be addressing this issue seriously are not," said Sharif Shakrani, codirector of the Education Policy Center at Michigan State University. "And the schools that do not have a problem with graduation rates and dropout rates are paying more attention."
James Heffelbower, 17, a senior at Belleville High School, could have been one of the statistics. He failed nearly every class he took as a high school freshman. But the adults in his life believed in his potential, enough to keep him from spiraling toward life as a dropout.
"Without that motivation, I wouldn't be where I am," said James, who now expects to graduate on time.
"Kids need positive role models. They need to feel worthwhile and that they are cared about," said Erin Radtka, a guidance counselor at Belleville High whom James credits with getting him on track academically and helping him find a stable home after bouncing through the foster care system.
Students held accountable
In just about every hearing held in advance of Monday's summit, organizers heard from previously frustrated parents who had nearly given up on their teens until they heard about the Michigan Youth Challenge Academy.
Since 1999, the program in Battle Creek has succeeded by using a strict military-type approach in which students wear uniforms, take a demanding course load and receive a heavy dose of discipline, structure and routine -- things sorely lacking in many of their lives.
Vicki Lashuay of Ash Township in Monroe County was a frustrated parent. After her daughter found success in the program, she made it her mission to educate other parents about the option.
"The kids we have now ... they need a chance. One less dropout is one less person that will turn to crime," Lashuay said.
The academy, one of 30 operating nationwide, puts youths ages 16 to 19 through a 22-week residential program during which they earn 4.5 academic credits and some college credit. Some of the students leave the program and return to their traditional high schools. Most receive general equivalency diplomas.
The academy monitors the students for a year after they graduate from the program, and the statistics show that after that year, nine out of 10 are either working, in school or in the military.
Retired Army Col. John Wemlinger, commandant of cadets, said the program works for two reasons: Students volunteer to enroll, and it's so disciplined.
"Our students are held to a strict standard of accountability," Wemlinger said.
Fund hoped to boost graduation
One of the more ambitious plans to turn around metro Detroit schools with low graduation rates is to gain momentum this month when up to a half dozen schools are selected to receive planning grants from the Greater Detroit Venture Fund.
The months-old campaign, created by the United Way of Southeast Michigan, the Skillman Foundation and AT&T, aims to raise $10 million a year to fund the improvement of low-performing schools during a 5-year period, said Michael Tenbusch, vice president of educational preparedness at the United Way. The plans would be focused on improving graduation rates from 60% and below to at least 80%.
The money would help the schools hire a so-called turnaround specialist -- an organization with a successful track record -- to help transform the schools. And while the selected schools can choose any method to make the transformation, the goal is for them to break into smaller chunks to create a more personalized environment, Tenbusch said. Students who feel connected, experts say, are more likely to stay in school.
Van Dyke Public Schools in Warren is banking on those kinds of connections. The district's Lincoln High School officially has a 71% graduation rate but is one of 30 in metro Detroit eligible for the Venture Fund grant based on a Johns Hopkins study last year that put its graduation rate at 39%. The district applied for the grant, went through an interview process earlier this month and is now awaiting an announcement.
The goal, said Donn Tignanelli, assistant superintendent of curriculum and instruction, is to create smaller environments at Lincoln.
"We know that we have some challenges. And we want to tackle them firsthand," Tignanelli said.
Flexible schooling gets attention
There is evidence that new twists on traditional alternative programs can work. A relatively new effort in Westwood Community Schools, for example, has succeeded primarily on the strength of agreements signed by students and their parents that say the kids promise to come to class, complete their work and follow the rules.
It operates similar to most alternative programs, yet in its first year, it graduated 37 students who had been far behind in credits and not expected to get a diploma.
The district contracted with a national organization, Educational Services of America, to run the program. It is computer-based, with students working independently with assistance from teachers. Students are required to be in school for four hours and 15 minutes daily, though the times are flexible, with the school open as early as 7 a.m. and as late as 8:30 p.m.
"These are kids who ... would have been out on the streets," Westwood Superintendent Ernie Minghine said. "Now I have 37 people who are going to be members of this community and will be outstanding individuals."
The results have officials with the Wayne Regional Educational Service Agency, the intermediate school district that serves Wayne County, looking for ways to replicate it county-wide. The program had a waiting list going into the beginning of this school year.
Minghine said the program is working in ways other attempts to provide alternative programs have not. Key to the success, he said, is the buy-in it gets from both students and parents.
Rigorous requirements criticized
But even with the renewed efforts, there is still concern that students grappling with the state's tough new graduation requirements will make the dropout crisis more acute.
Nicole Laubert feared her son, a sophomore at Dakota High School in Macomb Township, was on track to drop out. He had excelled through elementary and middle school, but as a freshman he was among the first students to face the new mandates, which include a heavier dose of more rigorous math courses.
Laubert's son struggled in algebra, eventually failed and was forced to retake a portion of the class in summer school. Math had never been a strong subject for him, and the additional time spent on algebra hurt his other classes.
"He was just losing interest. He didn't want to do anything," said Laubert of St. Clair Shores.
Laubert, who hired private tutors and bought supplemental materials to help her son, said the best way to prevent dropouts is for the state to rethink what she considers to be unrealistic requirements for students. Barring that, she said, schools must provide more tutoring for students like her son during and after the school day.
James, the 17-year-old from Belleville High, has had every reason to give up over the years. A foster child since age 5, he has lived in more than a dozen homes and attributes his freshman struggles to having been removed from a home he wanted to be in just weeks before the beginning of the school year.
Just about every time James moved, he'd find himself in a new school. The transitions were always difficult, and each time it got a little easier to want to give up, he said.
Support from adults has been crucial.
Radtka, the school counselor, worked hard to find a home that would help James stay in the district because she feared what would happen if he had to leave the high school.
"I was adamant ... that he not have to move again," she said.
She also helped him get connected with a national program that would allow him to take classes online to rebuild the credit he had lost. But it wasn't just her. James said all of his teachers have reached out in ways that he hopes other students experience.
"They saw me as an individual, not just 'Oh, he's just one of my students.' They saw me as James."
James is planning to go to college and is considering a career as a teacher or social worker.
"I would be passionate about my job. I would remember how tough it was for me and remember that other kids go through the same thing. I would definitely do everything in my power to help them succeed."
Contact LORI HIGGINS at 248-351-3694 or lhiggins@freepress.com.
Summary View-Point on Creative Cities Summit
Creative Cities Summit 2.0 Recap by Arnold Weinfeld
Director of Public Policy & Federal Affairs for the League
Monday
October 13, 2008
Tuesday
October 14, 2008
As the Creative Cities Summit opened on Monday in Detroit, Karen Gagnon, Cool Cities director and CCS2 (Creative Cities Summit 2) co-producer, asked people to take away one big idea. Yet the first day speakers revealed several concepts that when woven together bring to mind the big idea that cities hold the key to creating the environment necessary for creativity.
As Pier Giorgio Di Cicco, author of The Municipal Mind noted, creativity is impossible without the civil encounter, for the city is the place where one discovers his/her destiny through others. Di Cicco also spoke about how risk taking is essential to creative economies as much as good urban citizenship is a key to knowledge economy. He was followed by John Howkins, one of the first to publish ideas on creativity and innovation in the 2001 work, The Creative Economy, and a consultant who has worked in over 30 countries—most recently in China. He began by noting how China will achieve in 30 years, the kind of urbanization it took Europe nearly 2,000 years. Howkins said the creative economy sees more failures than the service or manufacturing economies and that global competition in the 21st century is minds vs minds and copyright vs copyright, or minds working with other minds. He set forth his principles of 'creative ecology' whereby everyone is considered to be creative; creativity needs freedom and freedom needs markets. Howkins said creativity is not simply art or innovation but imagination, dreams, new concepts, design, culture, style, and meaning.
Freedom is dialogue, collaboration, education, training, learning, and acceptance by family/friends/society. The market is the marketplace of ideas as evidenced through information content and the internet. The creative ecology is one where diverse individuals express themselves in a systematic and adaptive way using ideas to produce new ideas. According to Howkins, the six indicators of the creative ecology are systems, diversity, change, learning, adaptation, and sustainability. The next billion of those looking for work will go to creative cities to join the creative ecology.
Bill Strickland concluded with his inspirational story of the Manchester Craftsmen's Guild and Bidwell Training Center in Pittsburgh, PA. Strickland's story and his vision are built around the premise that provided the right environment, people will go into the world as assets, not liabilities. To say the least, the first day of the summit was a day for listening and learning. Tuesday we'll hear more thoughts on the creative economy, creative city, and creative design from thinkers such as Richard Florida and Charles Landry, sustainable urbanist Doug Farr, as well as Ben Hecht of Living Cities and Tom Wujec of Autodesk, with breakout session topics covering LEED neighborhood development, transportation, and a discussion on the Midwest as a mega-region. Something tells me that it will be another day of big ideas. Stay tuned to more from the 'D' on these and other goings on at the CCS2!
Wednesday
October 15, 2008
You'll recall that I mentioned yesterday that if Monday's sessions were any indication then those speaking Tuesday would also have some big ideas for us to consider. Well I and those in attendance were not disappointed! The day began with Tom Wujec of Autodesk. Autodesk is the Oscar-winning industry leader in 3D computer animation technology. Tom discussed how teams foster their creativity, that innovation is the capacity to encourage imagination. He was followed by Ben Hecht, President and CEO of Living Cities. Living Cities is a national community redevelopment initiative that looks to improve the built environment in under-developed neighborhoods. Ben sees cities as the solution for solving America's problems—leading us into the green economy and building a new urban ecosystem through strong neighborhoods. He noted that venture capitalists are funding 'clean technology' initiatives right behind information technology and bio tech.
Richard Florida was the lunch keynote speaker, and although he made the circuit a few times a number of years ago after penning the book The Rise of the Creative Class, it was the first time this writer had seen him speak. He has a new book out now titled Who's Your City? and his speech ran the gamut of topics from the current financial crisis to the role cities must play in providing the means for creativity. Florida opined that we are in the midst of a fundamental economic transformation and that the current worldwide financial crisis is not analogous to 1929, but rather to the late 1800s—the last time the world saw great economic system change. The change taking place now according to Florida is the move to a creative economy where the only real capital left is human capital or creativity. The old models of recovery are bankrupt and the only way out is through our communities. He noted that at the turn of the 20th century only five percent of the US was in creative economy; even in 1980 it was only 15-20 percent...now it is 33 percent. Creativity doesn't respect social boundaries...it has nothing to do with race, disabilities; etc. Rather than a “melting pot” he said we are now a “mosaic society” where an individual can keep their culture, their identity, and enjoy the culture and identity of others. Arts, culture, and entertainment are as important today as business, finance, and technology. In order to provide the means for fostering creativity, cities must provide 1) physical and economic security; 2) economic and civic opportunity; 3) leadership to activate the creativity; 4) open mindedness and being welcoming to all; and 5) quality of place including integration with the natural environment. And this just got us through lunch! I'll continue with more tomorrow including thoughts from Charles Landry and a historic roundtable discussion.
Thursday
October 16, 2008
Day 2- Part 2
When I left off yesterday, Richard Florida had just given his manifesto of the way things are now and the way they should be. And, whether you’re a Richard Florida fan or not he definitely gives one something to think about.
Which takes us to after lunch on Tuesday and Charles Landry. Landry is known for his work on creativity and its uses and how city futures are shaped by paying attention to the culture of a place. He too has written books, his most recent, The Art of City Making focuses on how cities can be more "creative for the world." His comments reflected that belief as he noted that the art of city making in the 21st century is the art of living together. He said that there are many ways to look at a city but that first and foremost is its history and creativity. Having a strong arts and cultural heritage is synonymous with the creative economy. He noted that one of the challenges facing us is what to do with smaller 2nd-6th level cities. What is the emerging advantage when every city is chasing talent and being creative—it is values driven development connecting to a bigger picture. Cities need to learn to keep the best and reinvent the rest through capital assessments.
Landry also dug down into city organization providing a means by which cities must be open through a "creative bureaucracy" or one which is strategically principled but tactically flexible. One that is open to collaboration and partnership with its citizens and greater community.
Following Landry was a roundtable discussion which, for the first time, brought together the three people—Landry, John Howkins and Richard Florida—who for the past decade have spent their time writing and speaking about the creative economy, creative class, and creative city. The discussion was moderated by CEOs for Cities director Carol Coletta and a lively discussion ensued weaving together the thoughts of these thinkers. Some of the comments included Florida saying that the most basic right of any person is to be able to fully explore your talent through self expression and that cities must stop doing dumb things. They need to conserve resources, empower community groups. Reflecting on the current worldwide situation he noted that "a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.” John Howkins noted that creativity needs freedom and that we need to be investing in people. Landry noted that we have to shift the rule system away from the plantation mentality of the industrial system.
As full as the morning and afternoon session were, there was a after-dinner session with representatives from Google, MSU, U-M and WSU as well as private business and Lansing Mayor and MML Board member Virg Bernero to discuss cities, universities, and talent. Nearly everyone agreed that all need to work better together at retaining talent in Michigan.
Tuesday CCS2 sessions were about as full as they get with concepts and ideas on how we need to move forward to secure a better future. And after hearing speakers for the first two days, one thing is indeed clear... the world economic platform has changed to one in which brains are the new capital, not brawn. Those cities, states, regions, and countries that understand this and put in place systems that will encourage creative activity and growth in their communities will grow themselves.
Friday
October 17, 2008
After two days of speakers and presenters giving us more than one "big idea," the last day of the CCS2 was drill down day as many session speakers were from organizations working on the ground implementing those very ideas that help to create vibrant cities. In the opening plenary session, Doug Rothwell (president of Detroit Renaissance) and Kelly Lee (executive vice president of Innovation Philadelphia) spoke to their respective efforts at working to create places that will attract young, talented people. That was followed by breakout sessions involving such topics as music and economic development, planning for the creative city, and race and the creative city. This last topic explored the challenges, triumphs, and lessons learned from urban, creative professionals as they worked through racial barriers to spur social and economic innovation. The luncheon speaker was Diana Lind, editor of the magazine Next American City which seeks to link young, urban organizations around the country in an effort to engage that constituency in a quest for more livable cities. The afternoon sessions included discussions on storytelling or how to relate the authenticity of a place; the future of creative expression for cities; creative industry incubators; and a session on the city's role in attracting and retaining talent, featuring League CEO Dan Gilmartin.
The final keynote speaker of the conference was Majora Carter. A life-long resident of the South Bronx, Majora spoke of her belief that one should not have to move out of your neighborhood to live in a better one, and acted upon that belief by founding the non-profit environmental justice solutions corporation, Sustainable South Bronx (SSBx). Her first project was obtaining a federal planning grant for the South Bronx Greenway Project which led to the first new South Bronx water front park in over 60 years. She has continued to work on projects to improve her neighborhood, one of the poorest in New York City. Since starting the Bronx Environmental Stewardship Training Program in 2003, an urban green-collar job training and placement system, she has since partnered with Van Jones on a national green-collar job agenda. Majora is a inspiration to anyone working to make their corner of the world a better place.
For me, this three-day conference re-affirmed my belief that communities hold the key economic prosperity. It helped to coalesce those ideas and strategies that will help me in my work with communities in Michigan. One thing is clear, public and private sector leaders and citizens must understand that a new economic platform is upon us—one that is based around knowledge and creativity, where human capital is the most important element. Those that do and who work together to put in place systems that will encourage creative activity and growth; these are the places that will grow themselves.
I'm glad to be part of an organization that is working with communities in Michigan to help them move forward. Join us.
ASCERTAINMENT!
ON the ACT and ART of "FREELY REVEALING"
http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/evhippel-voluntaryinfospillover.pdf
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
EVER MINDFUL!
Urban Districts and National Foundations: Making the Marriage Work
A couple meets, marries, and has children. Then common goals and values turn to finger-pointing and divorce. Sadly, this too-common story is an apt metaphor for relationships between urban school districts and major national foundations that support public education. Early enthusiasm often turns to disappointment. In fact, several major foundations have stopped funding K-12 public education, disappointed with their grantmaking’s limited impact.
Believing a healthy partnership between urban districts and national foundations is critical, the Aspen Institute Education and Society Program and the Spencer Foundation convened approximately 20 urban superintendents and senior foundation program officers to talk about how they might better collaborate. Participants identified five major challenges to such partnerships and offered some suggestions about how to address them. No district or foundation (including the Spencer Foundation, where one of the authors works) is immune from the following:
It’s hard to be honest. Honesty is the first challenge. Foundations validate and fund superintendents’ agendas, giving district leaders credibility and leverage with important constituencies. Not surprisingly, few superintendents will push back or raise warning signs. In addition, district leaders are often skeptical about national foundations’ steadfastness during transition or turmoil, which are virtually inevitable in urban school districts. Adding to this, foundation program officers can come and go. Each new program officer has new questions and requirements and often limited understanding of the history of the work.
In foundations, there is similar concern about districts’ staying the course, especially when superintendents and school boards turn over constantly. Moreover, while foundations provide the only truly discretionary dollars available for urban schools, they generally do not fund an initiative forever, seeking instead a serious effort to transfer the work to district resources over time.
These factors often produce a fundamental lack of trust that makes honest conversation about the design and progress of reforms difficult. In general, both sides bite their tongues.
Ownership is unclear and contested. A second challenge is the tension over who owns the reforms. National foundations often arrive with their own agendas and need to “brand” their multidistrict initiatives. To secure funding, districts may surrender their own aspirations to the foundations’. Or, lacking a strong agenda, they adopt the foundation’s to get the funding. Either way, the initiative can remain the foundation’s and never gain traction in the district.
On the other hand, districts may not be open to agendas introduced by foundations, expressing a parochial sense that any initiative must be produced in the district, solely by district staff members, with all credit going to district leaders. The challenge of ownership is intensified by the fact that large districts must often balance and reconcile the goals and frameworks of multiple foundations that rarely speak to one another or coordinate their work.
Generally, the primary relationship is between the foundation and the district superintendent, who is often a roving leader. Thus, ensuring ownership by the central-office staff, the school board, and the community is an additional challenge. Looking specifically at community ownership, it’s notable that foundations tend to support districts more than community capacity for change, even though community leaders are likely to remain long after the superintendent and the school board turn over.
Culture, race, class—unspoken but not unnoticed. Differences in culture, race, class, and experience between foundation personnel, central-office staff members, and students and their families are an often-unacknowledged challenge to effective partnerships. Foundations are largely funded, run, and staffed by elites who do not reflect the demographics of the schools they are trying to reform. Often lacking practical and cultural experience in local communities and operating with workplace cultures very different from school districts’, foundation staff members and their designated intermediaries may be seen as out-of touch interlopers.
Limited capacity. Districts and foundations often agree to highly ambitious reforms, promising to improve student outcomes in a manner or at a scale rarely before accomplished in urban schools. Too often, however, both partners have limited capacity to implement—or even to determine the appropriateness of—the chosen reforms.
When a new superintendent arrives, for example, funders support the foundations’ areas of interest. But success is unlikely if the new superintendent says yes before he or she is able to realistically assess the fit between the district’s and the foundation’s agenda, implementation capacity, and timelines. Moreover, while foundations are often thought to have significant capacity, program officers typically manage multiple initiatives in numerous locations simultaneously, limiting time and attention in any one setting.
No long-term learning agenda. A fifth challenge is the paucity of systematic efforts to learn from mistakes. No district or foundation has all the necessary knowledge, yet the typical norms oppose making learning central and reciprocal. Foundations, often concerned with self-preservation, brand identification, and leverage, can be risk-averse and ambivalent about learning from mistakes. Districts likewise have little interest or ability to flag implementation weaknesses or examine failures. Grant modifications based on implementation experience are often considered failures rather than continuous learning. Moreover, once an initiative has run its course and new leaders arrive on the scene, they may label prior initiatives “failures” even if they had very successful aspects that should be studied and shared. As a result, there is little learning from what did and did not work to inform the next effort.
Given these five challenges, how might we strengthen foundation-district partnerships? A few lessons emerge.
First, the initial engagement period, in which the foundation and the district determine whether there is a match, is critical. At these early stages, both sides must be frank about their goals, their readiness and capacity, their predictions of achievable progress, and the potential risks ahead. Both should be prepared to push, and push back, to construct together an agreed-upon agenda—or to decide that the match is not to be.
Second, long-term sustainability depends on district ownership of reforms. Reforms must meet real district needs, be central to the district’s goals and strategies, and be integrated concretely into district operations, rather than simply being an add-on. Importantly, here the term “district” is not defined solely as “superintendent,” but also includes school board, district staff, families, and the community. Local foundations and intermediaries often can play an important bridging role to anchor reforms in the community’s concerns and values.
Third, race, class, and experience are often the “elephant in the room.” These attributes of the people who govern, lead, and staff foundations, districts, and other partners might go unspoken, but they do not go unnoticed. Foundations can make a difference by consistently posing questions that make possible open conversations about these issues and their impact on the work. They also can work to diversify the experience and backgrounds of their boards and staffs, and fund more organizations that are run and staffed by people who represent the communities being served.
Finally, effective reform requires organized and systematic methods for foundations and districts to learn from doing. Deliberate and public efforts to analyze failures can both tease out lessons and embolden others to critically assess their work and avert mistakes in the making. Similarly, ongoing initiatives can be designed to incorporate formative evaluations and midcourse reviews to be used explicitly for continuous improvement, rather than as exercises in “gotcha.”
This work will require a willingness on the part of both foundation and district to recognize that attaining the desired results will take a long-term commitment to traversing a rocky pathway, and with an ability to adapt over time.