On Friday I drove to New Haven to attend an Education Leadership Conference. My motivation was to learn more about leadership given my recent research in schools as well as my ongoing puzzles about leadership within my work life. It only dawned on me slowly that this was not an ordinary education conference. Somehow I didn’t catch that our host, the Yale SOM Education Club, had deep roots in the business world. In fact, MBAs are offered in the School of Management and there is little cause to wonder why they don’t call themselves a School of Business given the associated acronym.
Many big names were in attendance including key people from several activist reform organizations: Achievement First and Teach for America. Also, several government folks including a guy who was on the Obama transition team for education along with local superintendents. If Lara Smetana had not gotten off the wait-list at the last minute, I believe I would have been the only university educator in the crowd. Everyone else was very energetic and it appeared that many were selling (e.g., promoting their little projects) while others were trying to buy (i.e., recruiting soon-to-graduate Yalies for their companies). Nevertheless, the discussions were about reducing achievement gaps, elevating school success, improving equitable access, and other educational movements I have come to admire.
I attended a panel about “creating a financially-sustainable education venture” because I was curious how to think about tapping into a revenue stream to keep things like Crossroads going. But the session was much more than that. The guys were all heavy hitters who fund social entrepreneurs and I was struck by their attention to returns on investment. This sometimes occurs through revenue streams (e.g., fees for service) whereas many philanthropists and investors are interested in impacts resulting from their money. It reminded me that any source of support is contingent upon results and while I cannot imagine making money for somebody else, I recognized the importance of thinking about our work beyond the delight brought about by an annual gathering.
Independent of one’s regard for those who seek to make money from education, I came to recognize that many of the biggest initiatives in contemporary education reform are fueled by substantial revenue streams. Alternatively, district and state leaders are being propelled and compelled to produce results on standardized assessments. Less than a month ago, a superintendent in Rhode Island announced that an entire high school’s staff would be dismissed at the year’s end. She was supported by the state commissioner of education and even Arne Duncan applauded the move. Truly, the school had been doing very badly by its students for many years which makes it difficult to dispute. And yet, this all adds to my feeling that educational reform is charging forward and we in the academy are being left behind. I didn’t know how funny that last bit was until I typed it.
There were hundreds of people at the sold-out Yale meeting who are moving ahead with great purpose and energy to change schools. They speak about charter schools. They mention “proof points” as indicators about how to proceed. They rely upon metrics to shape decisions. In many ways, they are doing what educators have always said needed to be done. But they do not feel the need to check in with us in the academy (Panelist: “All they give us R when we need R&D!”). Then again, I am not sure who I would recommend they quick in with given how little we appear to know about effective teaching and how slowly we have gone about our work. I remain very conflicted because I've seen the lack of action by most of our peers as despicable. And yet all this interest in schools by business types makes me uneasy. Action vs. inaction vs. reaction.
Many big names were in attendance including key people from several activist reform organizations: Achievement First and Teach for America. Also, several government folks including a guy who was on the Obama transition team for education along with local superintendents. If Lara Smetana had not gotten off the wait-list at the last minute, I believe I would have been the only university educator in the crowd. Everyone else was very energetic and it appeared that many were selling (e.g., promoting their little projects) while others were trying to buy (i.e., recruiting soon-to-graduate Yalies for their companies). Nevertheless, the discussions were about reducing achievement gaps, elevating school success, improving equitable access, and other educational movements I have come to admire.
I attended a panel about “creating a financially-sustainable education venture” because I was curious how to think about tapping into a revenue stream to keep things like Crossroads going. But the session was much more than that. The guys were all heavy hitters who fund social entrepreneurs and I was struck by their attention to returns on investment. This sometimes occurs through revenue streams (e.g., fees for service) whereas many philanthropists and investors are interested in impacts resulting from their money. It reminded me that any source of support is contingent upon results and while I cannot imagine making money for somebody else, I recognized the importance of thinking about our work beyond the delight brought about by an annual gathering.
Independent of one’s regard for those who seek to make money from education, I came to recognize that many of the biggest initiatives in contemporary education reform are fueled by substantial revenue streams. Alternatively, district and state leaders are being propelled and compelled to produce results on standardized assessments. Less than a month ago, a superintendent in Rhode Island announced that an entire high school’s staff would be dismissed at the year’s end. She was supported by the state commissioner of education and even Arne Duncan applauded the move. Truly, the school had been doing very badly by its students for many years which makes it difficult to dispute. And yet, this all adds to my feeling that educational reform is charging forward and we in the academy are being left behind. I didn’t know how funny that last bit was until I typed it.
There were hundreds of people at the sold-out Yale meeting who are moving ahead with great purpose and energy to change schools. They speak about charter schools. They mention “proof points” as indicators about how to proceed. They rely upon metrics to shape decisions. In many ways, they are doing what educators have always said needed to be done. But they do not feel the need to check in with us in the academy (Panelist: “All they give us R when we need R&D!”). Then again, I am not sure who I would recommend they quick in with given how little we appear to know about effective teaching and how slowly we have gone about our work. I remain very conflicted because I've seen the lack of action by most of our peers as despicable. And yet all this interest in schools by business types makes me uneasy. Action vs. inaction vs. reaction.
