tinyurl.com/4pyc3o -> www.edexcellence.net/detail/news.cfm?news_id=41&pubsubid=620#620
Bibliography Afterword: Lessons from the Annenberg Challenge, by Chester E Finn, Jr. and Marci Kanstoroom Immense sums of philanthropic money are pouring into education nowadays, with hundred-million-dollar gifts no longer unusual. To name just one, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation announced in March 2000 that it will give $350 million to "reinvent" schools so that students of all backgrounds can reach higher academic standards. Such munificence takes many forms and spans all manner of projects and activities. Aims vary, too, though most donors appear chiefly interested -- as well they should be -- in boosting pupil achievement, particularly among disadvantaged children. These generous people assume that private dollars, properly deployed, can ease the problems that US schools struggle with. Walter Annenberg's grand, half-billion dollar gift to public education, announced in December 1993, still stands, so far as we know, as the largest that anyone has made, and it is reasonable to view it as a major prototype for other private giving in this area. Seven years later, it's also reasonable to ask what came of it. Other philanthropists and education reformers may benefit from knowing what Ambassador Annenberg accomplished by way of significant reform in return for his undisputed generosity, and what lessons can be gleaned from this experience that may help light the trail for other donors with K-12 education burrs under their saddles. The biggest chunk of the Annenberg gift (roughly 57 percent) went to fund challenge grants in nine of America's largest urban school districts. The remainder of the $500 million was divided among national school-reform organizations, a rural school-reform initiative, and the promotion of arts education and other special opportunities. The present report consists of case studies of three of the major urban challenge grants in cities that together account for $125 million in Annenberg funds, or approximately one-fourth of the Ambassador's total gift. This set of case studies is not the last word on the impact of Walter Annenberg's gift, but it may well be the first -- ie, the first external, in-depth look on a multicity basis at what the Annenberg Challenge produced. Good intentions and a generous checkbook are clearly not enough to transform American education. Short-run innovation can be bought with money, but durable reform takes something more powerful. Goals of the Annenberg Challenge What did the Challenge seek to achieve? When Ambassador Annenberg first announced his gift, he explained that he was making it because of his concern over rising violence among young people. "We must ask ourselves whether improving education will halt the violence," Annenberg said, announcing the gift at a press conference with President Clinton at his side. "If anyone can think of a better way, we may have to try that. But the way I see the tragedy, education is the most wholesome and effective approach." more specific aims for the urban challenge grants emerged later. The goals fall into two categories: process goals (eg, sparking involvement in schools) and effects goals (helping students learn more).
an a financial contribution of whatever magnitude unleash an array of other gifts -- not just of money but of courage and vision and energy -- that make their way to America's schoolchildren and help them learn? And can citizens outside the entrenched systems of public schools help change the way those systems work?" Still broad and somewhat nebulous, yes, as well as hugely ambitious, but also suggestive of an important evolution in the thinking of those leading the Challenge: the recognition that, while it's important to improve individual schools, those changes won't last unless the system itself is changed to accommodate them. Hence the reform strategy had to contemplate system-level transformation. This is a long way from the school-by-school approach that characterized most of the Challenge's early efforts and the designs of many of its projects. Leaders and advisors of the Challenge had begun by promoting the development of small, effective schools, linking them into networks, and prompting the community and the larger school system to support these schools and networks. It was simply assumed that such schools would lead to improved education in general and student learning in particular. The Challenge held certain assumptions, to be sure, including the belief that a good school is one with high standards and a clear vision, where all children are known, where teachers are collegial, and where parents and the community are collaborators. Yet, the Challenge was pluralistic, receptive to diverse strategies for creating good schools. In its 1999 midterm report, the Challenge claimed certain achievements: the collaborative work it fostered had focused attention on critical issues and seeded new alliances; it had set in motion promising strategies for boosting pupil performance; and it was leaving "small yet encouraging footprints in the larger educational system." A number of small schools had been created, and test scores of their students showed modest gains. The Challenge also asserted that it had influenced the larger education system, citing alliances with system leaders and collaboration with public school systems on particular projects. Another report (January 2000) gauged the matching funds generated by the Challenge, concluding that $566 million had been raised from private and public sources, over and above Ambassador Annenberg's own gift. Yet "small footprints" are a considerable distance from "changing the system." And, in fact, the Annenberg Challenge's education-reform accomplishments to date -- both as outlined in its own reports and as described in the case studies presented here -- are less than staggering. One could simply conclude that Ambassador Annenberg didn't get much for his money, at least not by way of improved student achievement or the kinds of systemwide changes or policy revolutions that hold reasonable likelihood of yielding major gains in the near future. It's hard to read these case studies and come to a different judgment. Yet such a judgment is also superficial, begging important questions and avoiding valuable lessons that might be drawn from this experience. Theories of Change In launching any philanthropic venture intended to make significant changes in a large, complex institution, it's crucial to determine one's theory of change in advance. Somewhere in one's mind or gut is an idea, judgment, or conjecture about points of leverage and sources of change in the institution that one seeks to reform. Because these theories differ, and different theories lead to different reform strategies, there is no reason to suppose that one person's approach will be the same as the next person's. The system is well intentioned and capable but suffers from resource constraints. The system wants to improve, knows how to improve, and has the capacity to improve, but it's strapped (or maybe trapped). The second relies on external expertise, technical assistance, or intermediary organizations to provide the system (or individual schools or clusters of schools within it) with know-how and capabilities that it lacks. This theory holds that the school system's chief failings involve ideas, technical capacity, and hands-on assistance; that outside experts and organizations are good at playing "school doctor"; It's another form of resource enhancement but has more to do with know-how than money. The third, commonly known as standards-based reform, is highly centralized, sometimes at the district level, more often at the state level. It's essentially external to the school system, using goals, rewards, and sanctions to pull and prod that system (and the people in it) toward better results. It generally rests on a tripod of externally set academic standards, externally mandated assessments, and externally imposed rewards and interventions. It shifts power, too, usually from those within a school or school system to outside "masters" such as governors, state education agencies, or state boards of education...
|
http://csua.com/feed/