how stakeholders can help transform public … · boston geneva san francisco seattle how...

www.fsg-impact.org

Boston ● Geneva ● San Francisco ● Seattle

How Stakeholders Can Help Transform Public Education: The Challenge of Change

Strategic Stakeholders MeetingJune 26, 2007

Prepared for

www.fsg-impact.org

Boston ● Geneva ● San Francisco ● Seattle

© FSG Social Impact Advisors2

The Dire State of Affairs in U.S. Public Education is No Longer a Secret

The U.S. ranks 20th out of 29 in student math performance among OECD countries that participated in the most recent international assessment (PISA)

By 2008, jobs requiring science, technology, engineering and math training will increase four times faster than overall job growth – with projections that 90% of all scientists will be living in Asia by 2010

Students from the bottom income quintile drop out out of school at a rate six times higher than students in the top income quintile

Children growing up in low-income areas are seven times less likely to obtain a college degree than children in high-income areas

Source: EdTrust. Teach for America; Gates Foundation; Business Roubdtable

PISA stands for Program for International Student Assessment


Recent Reports Are Attempting to Create aClarion Call to Action by Stakeholders

U.S. Chamber of Commerce and The Center for American Progress– “A Joint Platform for Education Reform” (February 2007)

The Conference Board, the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, Corporate Voices for Working Families, the Society for Human Resource Management

– “Are They Really Ready to Work?” (2006)

The New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce– “Tough Choices or Tough Times” (December 2006)

Tapping America’s Potential: The Education for Innovation Initiative– “The Report” (July 2005)

National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education– “Measuring Up 2006: The National Report Card on Higher Education”

(2006)


I. Motivating Corporations

II. Engaging Stakeholders

III. Building Partnerships and Coalitions

Agenda


While Educational Needs are Common, the Compelling Rationale forCompany Engagement is Unique to Each Business

Values/Culture of the Business – Diversity: Achievement Gap– Entrepreneurial encouragement– Passion for science

Long Term Competitive Context for the Business – More engineers needed– Improved distance learning– A more competitive headquarters community

Value Added the Business Can Provide– Management expertise in running organizations– Content expertise related to math/science, or financial aid applications– Expertise in collecting and analyzing data


Opportunities for Corporate Engagement in Public Education Are Well Defined

Inside the Classroom

Outside the Classroom Teachers Organizational

Leadership

Teaching and Learning

Policy Support Services

Organizational Units

Human Capital

Systems and Structures

Community Engagement


GE’s 15-Year, $30 MM College Bound Program

GE College Bound Program: Results: College Going Rates

75%

61%

22% 23% 25%

57%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Albuquerque Cleveland Louisville

1989 1989 1989 2003 20032003

Corporate Engagement in Public Education has Led to Powerful ResultsC

olle

ge-G

oing

Rat

es A

fter C

olle

ge B

ound

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Source: Expanding College Access, Strengthening Schools: Evaluation of the GE Fund College Bound Program: Center for Human Resources, Heller Graduate School, Brandeis University





Agenda


Total Private Philanthropic Spending on Public Education Amounts to Approximately 1% of Public Spending

Source: FoundationCenter; U.S. Department of Education

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Total Elementary and Secondary Education Spending

Private Spending

Public Spending

K-12 Public Education Funding Breakdown(2005)

$3.6B (1%)

$536B (99%)


Technical Problems

Problem is well-defined

Answer is known

Implementation is clear

Solution can be imposed by authority

Examples:

– Selecting effective curriculum

– Buying new tracking software

– Creating a school “scorecard”

Adaptive Challenges

Challenge is complex

Answers are not known

Implementation requires learning

Stakeholders must create and implement the solution themselves – no single authority can impose a solution

Examples:

– Improving instruction

– Creating a process for school, classroom accountability

– Raising community expectations

Change Involves both Technical Problems and Adaptive Challenges

These ideas are drawn in large part from Heifetz, Ronald, Leadership Without Easy Answers, Belknap Press 1994


EquilibriumTechnical Problem

and SolutionAdaptive Problem and Solution

Disequilibrium

Productive Range of Distress

Technical and Adaptive Solutions Play Out Very Differently Over Time

Time

These ideas are drawn in large part from Heifetz, Ronald, Leadership Without Easy Answers, Belknap Press 1994


THE CLASSIC ERROR IN THE CLASSIC ERROR IN CHANGE CHANGE

MANAGEMENTMANAGEMENT

Treating Adaptive Challenges

as if they were Technical Problems


Three Pittsburgh Foundations Utilized Adaptive Leadership To Realize Large Scale Change In The Local School System

In 2002, The Heinz Endowments, The Grable Foundation, and The Pittsburgh Foundation, shocked the city of Pittsburgh by abruptly and very publicly suspending their funding to the local public school system

By focusing media and public attention on the dysfunctional school system, they created a sense of urgency within local government and the community

Several major changes resulted

– Within a month, a Mayor’s Commission on Public Education was formed (with foundation membership), which released a report on dramatic required reforms

– In the next school board election, the president of the school board was ousted and another board member chose not to run

– A new majority on the board implemented many of the recommended reforms

All three foundations resumed their school funding in 2004


FOUNDATIONS YANK CITY SCHOOL GRANTS -- A `SHARP DECLINE OF GOVERNANCE, LEADERSHIP AND FISCAL DISCIPLINE'

July 10, 2002 City school board members reacted with anger and finger-pointing after a stunning announcement yesterday that three local foundations will indefinitely suspend all funding to the district. . . .

"This was a wrenching decision for both our staff and trustees," added Susan Brownlee, executive director of the Grable Foundation. "The Pittsburgh Public Schools is the largest beneficiary of Grable funding...." But city school board President Jean Fink said she was angered by what she characterized as a strong-arm tactic by the foundations that would harm children. "I can't tell them what to do and they shouldn't tell me what to do. They shouldn't use money as a threat. I don't like being blackmailed," Fink said.

PASSING GRADEFOUNDATIONS DECIDE SCHOOL BOARD IS BETTER BEHAVED

February 14, 2004It is difficult to parse the exact reasons for this improvement because it has several strands, but the July 2002 decision by The Heinz Endowments, the Grable Foundation and the Pittsburgh Foundation to withdraw their funding did serve to concentrate minds on the seriousness of the board's dysfunction. At the very least, the foundations' action provided a helpful context for the grass-roots effort that led to the victory of Patrick Dowd over then President Darlene Harris, breaking the old majority on the board and bringing the hope of better times.


Positive Changes Resulted from Actions Taken by the Foundations

New Superintendent Mark Roosevelt hired in August 2005

The three foundations are supporting specific elements of the district’s new strategic plan

Lowest performing schools closed and students are given the opportunity to attend higher performing schools or new schools with new staff

District is more financially stable

State test scores are trending upwards in math and reading in all grade levels

GEO-MRK-3/18/04


Adaptive Leadership Tasks

Identify the adaptive challenge and frame the problem

Keep distress within a productive range

Hold attention on ripe issues and prevent diversions

Give the work back to the people

Protect voices of leadership within the community

GEO-MRK-3/18/04These ideas are drawn in large part from Heifetz, Ronald, Leadership Without Easy Answers, Belknap Press 1994


Public Education Stakeholder Engagement Requires Change Efforts at Three Levels of the System

Local– View the District as the unit for achieving large scale change– Engage education stakeholders around improvement strategies, particularly

supporting human capital and systems and structures

State – Advocate for changes in state education policy and/or allocation of funds

More equitable funding formulaIncreased and differentiated teacher compensationIncreased length of school day/yearMore rigorous and relevant state curriculum standards

– Bring data and business community perspective to state education issues

National– Advocate for changes in federal education policy and/or allocation of funds

Stronger standards in curriculumPolicy reform related to NCLBAdvocate for reforms to address global competitiveness concerns

– Bring data and business community perspective to national education issues


In Chicago, Extensive Local Engagement Facilitated by the BostonConsulting Group Changed How High Schools Measure Results

Facilitated Strategic Planning Process

Implemented community engagement activities

Developed High School Score Cards to increase transparency and accountability

Unique Partnership Between Chicago Public Schools, the Gates Foundation and BCG

Stakeholder Engagement – Local Level


The Bell South Foundation (Now AT&T) Has Engaged in State Level Advocacy Around Expanded Access to E-Learning Opportunities

AT&T’s strategy in education leverages the resources of the company, and was important to the communities the company served

– 20/20 Vision for Education aims to bring to engaging, rigorous online instruction to low-income students in the Southeast

– Online delivery of teacher-led instruction that expands learning opportunities

Engaging in state advocacy efforts around e-learning and educational quality – Advocating for states to adopt common standards around online learning– Advocating for states in the southeast sharing best practices in online learning – More systematic recruitment, training, support and evaluation of online teachers– Helped form the Columbia Group – a public policy and partnership group focused

on education reform in the southeastern United States

Stakeholder Engagement – State Level


More Concerted Efforts by Corporations at a National Level Will Be Required to Accelerate Public Education Reform

Gates and Broad recently initiated a collaborative education advocacy effort

The Strong American Schools campaign is a $60M nonpartisan joint investment that aims to move education reform to the top of the 2008 presidential campaign agenda

– Three key advocacy goals: Strong American education standardsBetter trained, better supported, better paid teachersMore time in school for struggling students

“ED in ’08” is pushing for debate among candidates on these three issues

– TV ads have run during presidential debates

Stakeholder Engagement – National Level





Agenda


Corporations Are Well Positioned to Do Even More to Affect Systemic Issues Facing Public Education

To achieve greater impact, corporations need to…

– Engage with all stakeholders as they adopt more systemic thinking

– Replicate and scale effective initiatives

– Take collective action

What More is Needed


Corporations Can Help Replicate and Scale Effective Initiatives – Even if the Successful Initiative Was Not Started by the Corporation

Scaling a company’s own education initiative to different geographies

Helping effective education nonprofits expand their geographic reach

Replicating and scaling proven ideas – even those originating with other funders

What More is Needed – Replicate and Scale Effective Solutions


Corporations Should Seek More Opportunities for Collaborative Efforts at the District, State and Federal Level

More effective cooperation between corporations, other education funders and stakeholders leverages a much larger pool of resources, ideas and expertise

At the District level:– Aligning philanthropic funding with other corporation/foundation efforts in the district– Creating “District Corporate Compacts” to support Change/Reform efforts – leading to a

division of labor among companies supporting higher student achievementAt the state and national levels:

– Leveraging and joining advocacy efforts to raise state standards to “college ready” levels

– Building more collaborative efforts to raise achievement levels with corporations that share specific “mission critical” skill sets

– Getting behind, and “putting skin in the game” with national efforts like the Strong American Schools Campaign

What More is Needed – Take Collective Action

how stakeholders can help transform public … · boston geneva san francisco seattle how...

Documents