![]() How do you measure that, especially when you’re so entangled with all these entities across the education ecosystem?ĭawson: We take a long path on measurement. Horn: Strada is focused very intentionally on measuring social impact and not just scaling for its own sake. The affiliate model-coupled with our in-house research and impact investments-sets us apart from traditional foundations whose primary focus is on grantmaking. We’re working with parties that we do not have direct influence over, like state governments and policymakers, to hopefully achieve even greater scale. Why network?ĭawson: It refers to this internal network we’ve created, through the grants we provide and the investments we make in our nonprofit and for-profit affiliates, as well as the external, larger network we engage with. You’re not Strada Philanthropies or the Strada Foundation. ![]() Horn: You call yourselves the Strada Education Network. We have found this is a much more intentional way of ultimately having an impact on-and bringing to scale some of the effective interventions for-the target populations that we seek to serve. We’re taking a sector-agnostic approach that reflects the critical role of not just NGOs, but also investors, entrepreneurs, and technology in crafting solutions to complex, multidimensional problems. Horn: What’s the thinking behind that strategy, and why do you think there is now greater comfort around investing in different kinds of organizations? Strada is not just making grants, but actually making investments in for-profits and even owning some outright.ĭawson: In education, you can’t really take a siloed approach. There is this new breed of social impact organizations-Strada is one of them, as are organizations like Emerson Collective-that are pulling multiple levers to solve complex and ingrained problems. Now, everyone is doing program-related investments. A decade ago, they were generally skittish about program-related investments. Critically, the implementation of this framework must be flexible and culturally-relevant, while maintaining core principles that foster educational equity for all students.The role big philanthropies play has also shifted. Here, we offer an evidence-based approach to education inspired by research from the science of learning addressing how children learn and what children need to learn to be successful in the 21st century. Creating a revolutionary “Tesla” model of education is necessary for better attainment of 21st-century skills. 5 However, attempting to transform the industrial era “horse and buggy” model of education by incrementally adding new wheels and an upgraded engine is insufficient. 3 These include passage of No Child Left Behind in 2002 4 and the development of the Common Core State Standards beginning in 2009. Over the past several decades, we have attempted to repair the educational “buggy” through substantial reforms. Under this system, students are considered the “products” of the system with standardized assessments serving as “quality control” measures to encourage effective instruction. These schools frequently operate according to a “factory model” that emerged in the early 20th century to mold students for the industrial economy. 1 Many schools across the United States remain trapped in an outdated “horse and buggy” model of education, particularly when instructing students from under-resourced communities. ![]() ![]() Only the most affluent students receive the highest quality education that emphasizes student agency and engagement through collaboration and inquiry. ![]() Amidst a national movement to dismantle systemic racism, our schools risk propagating educational inequity by design. The American education system is not preparing all children to thrive. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |