Exercise:
Overview
Complete after Week 2, Video 1.1 -
Philanthropic Strategy
This activity may take a considerable amount of reflection and brainstorming. Think
about your issue area, under what conditions would you feel comfortable saying, this
problem is solved? What would your issue area look like in a perfect world? At what point
of improvement in your issue area would another issue eclipse yours as being a greater
social need? After these reflections, try to answer, in one sentence, what is your mission?
Given my issue area of early childhood education in the US, I would say that this problem is solved if all children enter school ready to learn at a high level. In a perfect world, all children would have had safe, healthy, and enriching childhoods so that they are physically, emotionally, and mentally 'school ready'. My mission is to ensure that all children in the US start school ready to learn at a high level.
Exercise:
Overview
Complete after Week 2, Video 2.2 - Guest
Speaker: Alexa Culwell - Comparing
Intervention Strategies
Brainstorm and research at least five different intervention strategies that are being used
on your issue area. Be creative and feel free to brainstorm many more than five. After
comparing, researching and thinking about your personal passion, select an intervention
strategy and write down why you chose it and why you think it is the best intervention
strategy
Strategy #1 - helping parents early on. Nurse Family Partnership
Strategy #2 - having volunteers reading with preschoolers. Jumpstart
Strategy #3 - promoting for better teachers. NAEYC
Strategy #4 - building knowledge around nurturing early dev. Zero to Three
Strategy #5 - building parents as teaachers. Parents as Teachers
I don't know if I can make a judgment around the 'best' intervention strategy, because they all serve their part. We need research and knowledge, we need better policy, we need better teachers, we need parents to support their kids.
Foundations
* Brady Education Foundation - http://www.bradyeducationfoundation.org/grantsawarded.html
* Helios Education Foundation - http://www.helios.org/investment-history-helios-education-foundation.aspx
* Heising-Simons Foundation - https://www.cybergrants.com/pls/cybergrants/heisingsimons.heisingsimons_grant_search.search_page
* RGK Foundation - http://www.rgkfoundation.org/public/grants
Online Nonprofit Evaluations
https://www.myphilanthropedia.org/top-nonprofits/bay-area/early-childhood-education/2010
http://www.socialimpactexchange.org/focus/education/early-education
Articles & Blogs
http://www.teach-nology.com/teachers/early_education/organizations/
http://www.scpr.org/blogs/education/2014/04/17/16403/nonprofits-get-nearly-1-mil-to-train-parents-to-ad/
Experts
http://www.nea.org/home/18226.htm
http://www.edfunders.org/
http://earlychildhoodfunders.org/
I really enjoyed looking at what the foundations were choosing to fund. Lots of interesting initiatives that aren't 'normal non-profits'! Some of the online evaluation websites were good for browsing, but they seem more useful once I have a non-profit in mind that I want to research.
Pick two of your nonprofits and think about them in terms of these three criteria: 1) geography/population, 2) scale, and 3) risk. Write down what makes these two nonprofits unique for each of these criteria. Brainstorm for yourself at least two other criteria you could use to help you choose between nonprofits and write what makes the two nonprofits you wrote about previously unique for these two new criteria as well.
For myself, I'm looking for organizations that have a wider reach, preferably national. I'm looking at organizations that focus on 0-8, or anywhere in that range. For monetary funding, I'm drawn more toward proven organizations, although for volunteering, I'm drawn more to 'risky' new organizations. My personal criteria also include being research-backed and data-driven. And I think that working directly with the children, parents, or teachers is important to me - policy and research are important, but for me, I want to work with people (more important when volunteering, perhaps less important for monetary donations).
For this question, I'll look at Jumpstart and Zero to Three.
Both of these non-profits have national reach, which is important to me. Zero to Three obviously focuses more on the younger side, where as Jumpstart focuses more on 4-5 year olds. Zero to Three is more about research and policy, where as Jumpstart is about interactions with the preschoolers. Both are 'older' organizations. Because Jumpstart has a specific intervention, they have done research studies to show good short-term outcomes. Jumpstart is definitely research-backed and data-driven as well as people interactions, where as Zero to Three is less so.
Saturday, October 25, 2014
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Ed Policy - Ed Spending
For those of you who just can't get enough of this topic, you might
enjoy this recent video from Stanford University. At the 50:25 min mark,
Prof. Linda Darling Hammond says, "One other interesting fact when we
compare spending in the US and in other countries is that in virtually
all the countries we would be compared to in the OECD rankings, they
have nationalized or other buckets in the society from which they pay
healthcare. So about 20% of the US education budget actually goes to
healthcare for employees [...] and in other countries that's paid
outside the education budget"
What's your response to her point? Is it misleading to state that the US is one of the top spenders on education? Why/Why not?
https://medium.com/state-of-the-union-2014/state-of-the-union-2014-class-3-education-a9387c9884fe
Thanks for the link to the Stanford video - very interesting!
In general, the US spends a lot on education. This interesting infographic shows that we spend much more in total, and more per student - http://rossieronline.usc.edu/u-s-education-versus-the-world-infographic/
Linda Darling Hammond brings up a good point that the way we allocate our spending on education may not be comparable to other countries' education spending. She brings up that we pay for health care through education, as well as pensions for teachers and other ed professionals. Also food services for students ($14.8 billion according to this article - http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/putting-a-number-on-federal-education-spending/) And we spend a lot on special education services for a small set of students. Our education budget number may also be including early education, which I'm not sure if other countries include in their ed budgets, or in their social services budgets. And what about school sports? Are those finances included in our US education budget? (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/10/21/taking-sports-out-of-school-2) In most other countries, sports are done on a club basis, not primarily through schools. Given all of these non-educational aspects that may be included in our education budget, I think that it may be misleading to say that the US spends more per child than other countries.
One other big issue as talked about is not how much we spend in general, but how much we spend in different districts. Many other countries equalize funding, or even send more funding to high need schools (I believe Finland does this). Where as in the US, there is wide variation in spending on education in different parts of the country - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/05/23/the-dramatic-inequality-of-public-school-spending-in-america/ Some of this is of course due to differences in cost of living, but still the differences are wide.
What's your response to her point? Is it misleading to state that the US is one of the top spenders on education? Why/Why not?
https://medium.com/state-of-the-union-2014/state-of-the-union-2014-class-3-education-a9387c9884fe
Thanks for the link to the Stanford video - very interesting!
In general, the US spends a lot on education. This interesting infographic shows that we spend much more in total, and more per student - http://rossieronline.usc.edu/u-s-education-versus-the-world-infographic/
Linda Darling Hammond brings up a good point that the way we allocate our spending on education may not be comparable to other countries' education spending. She brings up that we pay for health care through education, as well as pensions for teachers and other ed professionals. Also food services for students ($14.8 billion according to this article - http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/putting-a-number-on-federal-education-spending/) And we spend a lot on special education services for a small set of students. Our education budget number may also be including early education, which I'm not sure if other countries include in their ed budgets, or in their social services budgets. And what about school sports? Are those finances included in our US education budget? (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/10/21/taking-sports-out-of-school-2) In most other countries, sports are done on a club basis, not primarily through schools. Given all of these non-educational aspects that may be included in our education budget, I think that it may be misleading to say that the US spends more per child than other countries.
One other big issue as talked about is not how much we spend in general, but how much we spend in different districts. Many other countries equalize funding, or even send more funding to high need schools (I believe Finland does this). Where as in the US, there is wide variation in spending on education in different parts of the country - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/05/23/the-dramatic-inequality-of-public-school-spending-in-america/ Some of this is of course due to differences in cost of living, but still the differences are wide.
Future Ed - What makes a good teacher?
Reflect on:
Do you remember having a good teacher? Or a particularly bad one? Reflect on your memory, what was about it about this teacher that makes them stand out for you?
How does this image of a teacher relate to other images you have of a "good" teacher?
My main good teacher that I remember is Mrs Brennan. She stands out because she got us thinking about more than just her subject area (math) - we did a lot of general problem solving as well. Also she let me opt out if I understood a concept already. Mrs Brennan also pushed me to join math team in high school, which started a trajectory in my life. Also Mrs C in first grade... I remember her giving me and another student the opportunity to do an independent project because we were beyond the level of most everyone else in the class. On the aspect of bad teachers, I don't remember too many that were really bad. Although I do remember a few instances where I felt excluded. Seems like some of the main aspects that made me feel good about a teacher were a connection outside of just the subject area, and also the ability to move at my own pace, or at least not be held back by the 'normal' pace.
My general image of a good teacher fits in with my experiences. Someone who engages the students at their level and with their interests. Someone who scaffolds and pushes, who has high expectations. Someone who connects with the students, and their families, and the community. Someone who is a role model themselves. Someone who is adaptable, reflexive, and meta. Someone who is constantly learning and growing themselves.
Reflect back on the teachers you considered in the first reflection task at the start of this week. Reconsider what it was about them that made you consider them to be so good. Would others that were taught by them have the same conclusions?
Perhaps part of the reason that I felt connected to those particular teachers was because of some similarities between ourselves (conscious or unconscious), and perhaps other students would not have felt the same connection because of not having similarities. (Interesting research - http://t.co/FBEsEVbKe1) Also I am fairly self-driven and able to learn well without much instruction - so perhaps for students who needed more instruction from the teachers, my favorite teachers may not have been the best. Although I do feel like they were adaptable, and so perhaps could have accomodated different learning needs and personality needs.
My general image of a good teacher still stands... Someone who engages the students at their level and with their interests. Someone who scaffolds and pushes, who has high expectations. Someone who connects with the students, and their families, and the community. Someone who is a role model themselves. Someone who is adaptable, reflexive, and meta. Someone who is constantly learning and growing themselves.
The real questions are... how do we attract this type of person into the teaching field? How do we continue to develop their skills while there? And how do we encourage those who aren't improving to find a profession that is better suited for their talents and abilities?
Do you remember having a good teacher? Or a particularly bad one? Reflect on your memory, what was about it about this teacher that makes them stand out for you?
How does this image of a teacher relate to other images you have of a "good" teacher?
My main good teacher that I remember is Mrs Brennan. She stands out because she got us thinking about more than just her subject area (math) - we did a lot of general problem solving as well. Also she let me opt out if I understood a concept already. Mrs Brennan also pushed me to join math team in high school, which started a trajectory in my life. Also Mrs C in first grade... I remember her giving me and another student the opportunity to do an independent project because we were beyond the level of most everyone else in the class. On the aspect of bad teachers, I don't remember too many that were really bad. Although I do remember a few instances where I felt excluded. Seems like some of the main aspects that made me feel good about a teacher were a connection outside of just the subject area, and also the ability to move at my own pace, or at least not be held back by the 'normal' pace.
My general image of a good teacher fits in with my experiences. Someone who engages the students at their level and with their interests. Someone who scaffolds and pushes, who has high expectations. Someone who connects with the students, and their families, and the community. Someone who is a role model themselves. Someone who is adaptable, reflexive, and meta. Someone who is constantly learning and growing themselves.
Reflect back on the teachers you considered in the first reflection task at the start of this week. Reconsider what it was about them that made you consider them to be so good. Would others that were taught by them have the same conclusions?
Perhaps part of the reason that I felt connected to those particular teachers was because of some similarities between ourselves (conscious or unconscious), and perhaps other students would not have felt the same connection because of not having similarities. (Interesting research - http://t.co/FBEsEVbKe1) Also I am fairly self-driven and able to learn well without much instruction - so perhaps for students who needed more instruction from the teachers, my favorite teachers may not have been the best. Although I do feel like they were adaptable, and so perhaps could have accomodated different learning needs and personality needs.
My general image of a good teacher still stands... Someone who engages the students at their level and with their interests. Someone who scaffolds and pushes, who has high expectations. Someone who connects with the students, and their families, and the community. Someone who is a role model themselves. Someone who is adaptable, reflexive, and meta. Someone who is constantly learning and growing themselves.
The real questions are... how do we attract this type of person into the teaching field? How do we continue to develop their skills while there? And how do we encourage those who aren't improving to find a profession that is better suited for their talents and abilities?
Monday, October 13, 2014
Ed Policy - Teacher Pay
Professor Peterson identifies six primary objections to merit pay. Choose one: Devote the first half of your post to thoroughly fleshing out the details of this objection. Devote the second half of your post to refuting these objections as best you can. Finish your post by concluding whether or not this particular objection is a valid concern against merit pay programs.
Before going into Prof Peterson's objections, one thing that I wanted to note about the 'pros'. The video mentioned that merit pay would be an incentive to teachers to take their obligations seriously and to teach better. This assumes that teachers are motivated by money, and that they are able to change their teaching based on their motivations. While I certainly think that teachers can change their effectiveness with coaching and other instructional supports, I don't know if the assumption that teachers can magically choose to get better quickly because of a new motivation (money or otherwise) is a valid assumption. Children are not pieces in an assembly line where we can just motivate the line workers to build the finished product faster. Teaching is less of a technical skill that can be just be learned through more knowledge, and more of an adaptive skill that has to be learned through focused practice. It seems to me that any merit pay system that assumes that it will make current teachers better should also have a system in place to help the teachers improve their skills.
On to the objections...
Prof Peterson brings up the six objections of cheating, teaching to the test, being unable to test certain subjects/ages, having favoritism by principals (or parents, or students, or peers), not controlling for factors outsde of the teacher's control, and fostering competition rather than cooperation. On the whole, these seem to be less of 'cons' about merit pay as a theory, and more so 'cons' about particular implementatons of merit pay.
Let's look at the last objection - the idea that individual merit pay would foster competition between teachers rather than cooperation within schools. That certainly seems like it may be true, especially if the merit pay system is using rankings or other schemes where only a certain number of teachers can get the highest ratings, and thus the highest pay. If the teachers know that only some of them can get merit pay, then they may hoard resources - physical or intellectual - in order to gain the advantage, as opposed to sharing lesson plans and classroom ideas. Certainly we want the teachers to be trying to work together, to be sharing best practices, and to be helping the children succeed overall, not just in their individual classrooms.
Perhaps we can change the implementation of the merit pay system to address the issue of competition. If the system is set up such that any, or even all, teachers can get high ratings and higher pay, then they won't be fighting over limited resources. Similarly with students, most teachers don't grade on a curve anymore - each student is graded on their individual achievements, and any student who achieves all of the objectives will get an A, even if all of the other students also achieved the objectives and got A's. This is certainly how I like to run a classroom (with high expectations of course), and how I would think that effective administrators would want to run a school.
Another possible solution is to make all (or some) of the merit pay bonuses tied to the overall performance of the school, rather than each individual classroom. This would hopefully encourage teachers to collaborate and try to make the school better as a whole as well as their own classroom. Although as the reading about NYC experiment notes, there isn't yet a solid research backing to support this idea. The NYC experiment found little difference for the students, although there were confounding factors, and a system may take a while to actually show improvement (especially if, as I caveated at the beginning, teachers are not able to change their teaching on a dime). The study did seem to show some benefits for schools with fewer teachers - perhaps a reason to create smaller instructional teams or communities within larger schools?
In conclusion, the objection of competition versus cooperation is a valid objection about certain implementations of merit pay, but I certainly think that it is an objection that can be handled and even turned into a 'pro' with other implementations of merit pay. If all teachers can achieve at high levels (just as we'd hope that all students will achieve at high levels) and if some of the ranking is based on a small community (where there are supports and assistance in changing teaching practices), then merit pay may foster even more cooperation than no merit pay.
One last note not related to merit pay...
I disagree with Prof Peterson saying in the first video that the high school teachers need to know 'more' than elementary teachers. I would argue that they do need to know different things, but I don't know if 'more' is a fair thing to say. Elementary school teachers still need to know their content thoroughly as well as instructional strategies and developmental progressions. Just because we as adults think of addition and subtraction as 'easy' doesn't mean that it's easy to teach. Prof Peterson was talking about this in terms of high school teachers getting paid more. If we're going to do market pay, then yes perhaps high school teachers should be paid more because their skills & knowledge are more in demand in other professions, where as elementary school teachers' skills and knowledge are often only in demand in schools and other child-related careers. But to say that high school teachers should be paid more because they know more undermines the skills and knowledge that it takes to be an effective elementary school teacher. Not to mention, I would like to envision a teacher force where elementary teachers are just as accomplished as high school teachers in terms of college grades, how far they went in math classes, etc.
Before going into Prof Peterson's objections, one thing that I wanted to note about the 'pros'. The video mentioned that merit pay would be an incentive to teachers to take their obligations seriously and to teach better. This assumes that teachers are motivated by money, and that they are able to change their teaching based on their motivations. While I certainly think that teachers can change their effectiveness with coaching and other instructional supports, I don't know if the assumption that teachers can magically choose to get better quickly because of a new motivation (money or otherwise) is a valid assumption. Children are not pieces in an assembly line where we can just motivate the line workers to build the finished product faster. Teaching is less of a technical skill that can be just be learned through more knowledge, and more of an adaptive skill that has to be learned through focused practice. It seems to me that any merit pay system that assumes that it will make current teachers better should also have a system in place to help the teachers improve their skills.
On to the objections...
Prof Peterson brings up the six objections of cheating, teaching to the test, being unable to test certain subjects/ages, having favoritism by principals (or parents, or students, or peers), not controlling for factors outsde of the teacher's control, and fostering competition rather than cooperation. On the whole, these seem to be less of 'cons' about merit pay as a theory, and more so 'cons' about particular implementatons of merit pay.
Let's look at the last objection - the idea that individual merit pay would foster competition between teachers rather than cooperation within schools. That certainly seems like it may be true, especially if the merit pay system is using rankings or other schemes where only a certain number of teachers can get the highest ratings, and thus the highest pay. If the teachers know that only some of them can get merit pay, then they may hoard resources - physical or intellectual - in order to gain the advantage, as opposed to sharing lesson plans and classroom ideas. Certainly we want the teachers to be trying to work together, to be sharing best practices, and to be helping the children succeed overall, not just in their individual classrooms.
Perhaps we can change the implementation of the merit pay system to address the issue of competition. If the system is set up such that any, or even all, teachers can get high ratings and higher pay, then they won't be fighting over limited resources. Similarly with students, most teachers don't grade on a curve anymore - each student is graded on their individual achievements, and any student who achieves all of the objectives will get an A, even if all of the other students also achieved the objectives and got A's. This is certainly how I like to run a classroom (with high expectations of course), and how I would think that effective administrators would want to run a school.
Another possible solution is to make all (or some) of the merit pay bonuses tied to the overall performance of the school, rather than each individual classroom. This would hopefully encourage teachers to collaborate and try to make the school better as a whole as well as their own classroom. Although as the reading about NYC experiment notes, there isn't yet a solid research backing to support this idea. The NYC experiment found little difference for the students, although there were confounding factors, and a system may take a while to actually show improvement (especially if, as I caveated at the beginning, teachers are not able to change their teaching on a dime). The study did seem to show some benefits for schools with fewer teachers - perhaps a reason to create smaller instructional teams or communities within larger schools?
In conclusion, the objection of competition versus cooperation is a valid objection about certain implementations of merit pay, but I certainly think that it is an objection that can be handled and even turned into a 'pro' with other implementations of merit pay. If all teachers can achieve at high levels (just as we'd hope that all students will achieve at high levels) and if some of the ranking is based on a small community (where there are supports and assistance in changing teaching practices), then merit pay may foster even more cooperation than no merit pay.
One last note not related to merit pay...
I disagree with Prof Peterson saying in the first video that the high school teachers need to know 'more' than elementary teachers. I would argue that they do need to know different things, but I don't know if 'more' is a fair thing to say. Elementary school teachers still need to know their content thoroughly as well as instructional strategies and developmental progressions. Just because we as adults think of addition and subtraction as 'easy' doesn't mean that it's easy to teach. Prof Peterson was talking about this in terms of high school teachers getting paid more. If we're going to do market pay, then yes perhaps high school teachers should be paid more because their skills & knowledge are more in demand in other professions, where as elementary school teachers' skills and knowledge are often only in demand in schools and other child-related careers. But to say that high school teachers should be paid more because they know more undermines the skills and knowledge that it takes to be an effective elementary school teacher. Not to mention, I would like to envision a teacher force where elementary teachers are just as accomplished as high school teachers in terms of college grades, how far they went in math classes, etc.
Innovation in Coursera
Conclusion video from Operations Management about how Coursera is innovating in operations...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igEx_DQ4D5c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igEx_DQ4D5c
Sunday, October 12, 2014
Ed Policy - Teacher Pay Forum Post
I think that teacher benefits should incentivize teacher effectiveness and results for the students - which to clarify does not only mean test score increases. As we've noted before, there is improvement in the first few years and so I do think that benefits should increase as teachers prove themselves to be effective over those first 3-5 years. However, highly incentivizing after 20 years doesn't make much sense as there don't seem to be clear additional results for the students that happen at that point in time. As I've talked about in previous forum posts, this seems to be another incentive for stability in the teaching profession. Some stability in schools is certainly good, as having lower turnover (while keeping effective teachers) can help improve student achievement and help to build a sense of community. But do we really want teachers staying in the profession for benefits in the future if they are not the best teachers? As Thomas Kane from HGSE mentions in this post (http://tntp.org/blog/post/policy-thinkers-on-teacher-evaluation1), by keeping a long-term teacher in a position, we're turning down many new possible teachers. Of course some of them would be worse than the long-term teacher, and perhaps many of them would be worse in the first year or two. But how many of them would be better after the three year mark, or even at the first year mark? How can we change the incentives so that they incentivize growth and better effectiveness, not just longevity? Perhaps by moving away from the lane-and-step pay schedule, and making retirement benefits kick in sooner for effective teachers.
Not on the forum question asked, but related to the teacher pay readings...
I found it very hard to continue following Michael Podgursky's point of view after he claimed that teachers work fewer hours per day than other professionals. To me, making that claim shows a deep misunderstanding of the teaching profession and of what teachers actually do. I can maybe go along with the claim of a shorter workyear because while many teachers are preparing during the summer, it certainly doesn't take up all of their time and some do get other summer jobs. But to say that they work shorter hours seems very wrong (at least on average - of course, different teachers are different, and will work different hours and schedules). Most teachers in the US do not have adequate prep time scheduled into their 'work day' so they are preparing lessons at home as well as grading work and giving feedback. Yes, other professionals bring work home, but I would argue not with the same regularity as teachers do. The other big issue that I don't think many people realize is that when teachers are in their 'work day', they're working the whole time. There's very little hanging out at the water cooler or surfing Facebook - when you have 20+ 3rd graders demanding your attention. Most other professionals may have to be at the office longer hours, but how much of that time is actually focused work time? You could maybe say that teachers have more flexibility in that they get off at 3-4pm, rather than 5-6pm - but how many professionals go out for lunch, and take non-work meetings during the day? I don't have statistics, but my guess is many. Teachers have one type of flexibility, while other professionals have another type of flexibility. Michael Podgursky also claims later that if teachers were to shift to other professions, they may make more money but they would also have "greater responsibility (and stress)". They would certainly have different types of responsibility, but to choose between managing a team of salespeople versus managing a classroom of kindergarteners, I would say that the teacher probably has more responsibility and more stress. Some of Michael Podgursky's later points about fringe benefits are actually valid and should be considered in comparing teacher pay, but by starting off with the claim that teachers work fewer hours per day, the article put a sour taste in my mouth that was hard to get rid of. ('m basing much of this paragraph off of anecdotal evidence, so I would certainly welcome actual statistics to prove me wrong and show that teachers do work fewer hours, but just citing the unions' agreements on number of hours at the school doesn't mean much for actual hours worked.)
Giving 2.0 Week 1
Exercise: Overview
Complete after Week 1, Video 5 - Why I Give
Take a few minutes to think about experiences, individuals or events that inspired you to
give. Try to focus on one, but consider others if you feel they are crucial. Write out your
personal story, similar to video 6, on a piece of paper or on your computer. Describe what
happened, how it impacted you and how it still inspires you today.
I don't know if I have one particular experience. My parents have certainly been influential - my mom gives a lot of money to charity, and my dad gives a lot of time. I've always been drawn to helping educate people, especially children. The basic needs charities (food, water, etc) resonate with me intellectually, but on an emotional level, I'm more drawn to inspiring people. Giving them hope and happiness, giving them opportunities. I often give small amounts of money to a lot of different organizations, almost more as moral support. I often feel like as good as financial resources are, sometimes the non-financial resources can make even more of a difference. Many projects have come into existence because a few outside people believed in it.
Exercise: Overview
Complete after Week 1, Video 9 - Charity vs.
Philanthropy
Watch videos 7-10 on the definition of philanthropy and review the handout, “Definitions
of Philanthropy,” on the course page. Think and reflect on where you grew up, where you
are now and what it means to be a philanthropist in those communities. Write what you
think philanthropy means in your community, what philanthropy means to you personally
and how, in your opinion, the concept of a philanthropist is changing.
I am happy to see that this course is distinguishing between charity and philanthropy, and emphasizing the importance of both while focusing on philanthropy. We definitely need to address the problems at hand and help those in need, but if we don't also address the causes of the problems, we will never move forward - one of the reasons that I am focused on early childhood education. In my community growing up, most of the giving was about charity - giving to those who had less than us. We did food drives for poor communities. I helped at the soup kitchen in the city. But we had to do the food drive every month, and I served breakfast every other week. While these immediate putting out of fires may have helped the poor to feel better that day and thus maybe have been able to do better at work or with their family, it was mostly just charity, and not fixing any root causes. My community of friends now is much more interested in fixing root causes, although I do think that some of them, especially in the technology sector, are a bit too removed from the charity side of things to be effective philanthropically. I try to do a bit of both - charity and philanthropy - in terms of money and time (usually more so time, my parents often think that I should give less of my time and make money more of the time). I see educational opportunity as an important part of philanthropy because when we give people the resources they need, then they can often succeed on their own. I think that more people are starting to think about philanthropy and not just charity, especially as many of the large gifts from the major foundations are going toward working on causes and not just fixing problems.
Exercise: Overview
Complete after Week 1, Video 11.3
Guest Speaker: Lucy Bernholz
Philanthropy snd Technology Part 2
The next page of the workbook has a list of 15 websites changing philanthropy. Take a
look and explore 3 of them (feel free to look at more). As you view the pages, engage with
them and write down how you think each website is changing philanthropy. Then think
about innovation and future ways technology will continue to change philanthropy. Reflect
and write your thoughts and maybe even come up with the next big philanthropy startup!
I am already familiar with a good number of these websites. Was just using Guidestar and Charity Navigator for my first paper in my Nonprofit Management course. I've given on Kiva and DonorsChoose, and ran a fundraising campaign on GlobalGiving a year ago. I'm on VolunteerMatch (which reminds me that I need to follow up with the Kohls Children's Museum about helping them with early STEM). I have friends who worked with GiveWell.
I was not familiary wth catchafire, Jolkona, or GlassPockets. I'll have to check out some of the projects on catchafire to see if I can help (while still maintaining all of my other priorities!) Unfortunately the Jolkana quizlet had technical issues, so I'm not sure which celebrity philanthropist I am. I'll have to bring up the Glass Pockets website in two Nonprofit classes.
Exercise: Overview
Complete after the previous activity
In this activity you will answer three separate questions to guide your selection process. In
the end, you will have your issue area, an area where your passion and society’s greatest
needs meet. Here are the three questions:
What is your passion, are there certain people, places or problems
you want to solve? Looking at some of your previous workbook answers can help
guide this process.
My passion is around children and education. How do we go from being one little cell to become thinking, feeling beings. Early childhood is especially important to me because if we can start kids off on the right foot, everything else is so much easier later. I am most interested in helping in the US - while there are many issues in the developing world, I feel a call to help regionally or nationally here in the United States.
What are the world’s greatest needs?
The world's greatest needs are much more about clean water, high-quality nutrition, reduced violence, and equal opportunity. But in the US, those needs are strongly felt by our youngest population. Too many children do not have the building blocks that they need to succeed once they reach elementary school.
Finally, find your sweet spot, where do these intersect; where does your greatest
passion intersect with the worlds greatest needs? Then you have your issue area.
My issue area is in early childhood care and education in the US. The US is a bit broad, but I am currently looking at moving from a local impact to a broad regional or national impact.
Exercise: Overview
Complete after the previous activity
Slowly make your issue more specific. Use your research and your passion to refine your
issue area. Use the examples on the next page as a guide. If you think your issue area is
specific enough for you to make a significant dent, make the issue one step more specific;
that is your specific issue area. Think about location, different approaches, segments
of the population, etc. to help you narrow it down. Once you have selected your issue,
embrace it by tweeting about it, make it your Facebook status, send an article about it to
your friends or use other ways to celebrate your issue and advocate for it.
I am interested in many aspects of education - early childhood, STEM, leadership, high-quality teaching, etc. And because of my personality, my value for variety, and the high needs in all of these areas, I will of course continue to give in multiple ways to multiple organizations. For the purposes of these course, I will focus in on the highest impact in early childhood care and education, building school readiness skills, for low-income kids in the US.
I already embrace my issue(s) on social media. I started @earlymath in order to spread the word and advocate for high-quality early math learning. And on my personal social media, I'm constantly posting about education and early care.
Complete after Week 1, Video 5 - Why I Give
Take a few minutes to think about experiences, individuals or events that inspired you to
give. Try to focus on one, but consider others if you feel they are crucial. Write out your
personal story, similar to video 6, on a piece of paper or on your computer. Describe what
happened, how it impacted you and how it still inspires you today.
I don't know if I have one particular experience. My parents have certainly been influential - my mom gives a lot of money to charity, and my dad gives a lot of time. I've always been drawn to helping educate people, especially children. The basic needs charities (food, water, etc) resonate with me intellectually, but on an emotional level, I'm more drawn to inspiring people. Giving them hope and happiness, giving them opportunities. I often give small amounts of money to a lot of different organizations, almost more as moral support. I often feel like as good as financial resources are, sometimes the non-financial resources can make even more of a difference. Many projects have come into existence because a few outside people believed in it.
Exercise: Overview
Complete after Week 1, Video 9 - Charity vs.
Philanthropy
Watch videos 7-10 on the definition of philanthropy and review the handout, “Definitions
of Philanthropy,” on the course page. Think and reflect on where you grew up, where you
are now and what it means to be a philanthropist in those communities. Write what you
think philanthropy means in your community, what philanthropy means to you personally
and how, in your opinion, the concept of a philanthropist is changing.
I am happy to see that this course is distinguishing between charity and philanthropy, and emphasizing the importance of both while focusing on philanthropy. We definitely need to address the problems at hand and help those in need, but if we don't also address the causes of the problems, we will never move forward - one of the reasons that I am focused on early childhood education. In my community growing up, most of the giving was about charity - giving to those who had less than us. We did food drives for poor communities. I helped at the soup kitchen in the city. But we had to do the food drive every month, and I served breakfast every other week. While these immediate putting out of fires may have helped the poor to feel better that day and thus maybe have been able to do better at work or with their family, it was mostly just charity, and not fixing any root causes. My community of friends now is much more interested in fixing root causes, although I do think that some of them, especially in the technology sector, are a bit too removed from the charity side of things to be effective philanthropically. I try to do a bit of both - charity and philanthropy - in terms of money and time (usually more so time, my parents often think that I should give less of my time and make money more of the time). I see educational opportunity as an important part of philanthropy because when we give people the resources they need, then they can often succeed on their own. I think that more people are starting to think about philanthropy and not just charity, especially as many of the large gifts from the major foundations are going toward working on causes and not just fixing problems.
Exercise: Overview
Complete after Week 1, Video 11.3
Guest Speaker: Lucy Bernholz
Philanthropy snd Technology Part 2
The next page of the workbook has a list of 15 websites changing philanthropy. Take a
look and explore 3 of them (feel free to look at more). As you view the pages, engage with
them and write down how you think each website is changing philanthropy. Then think
about innovation and future ways technology will continue to change philanthropy. Reflect
and write your thoughts and maybe even come up with the next big philanthropy startup!
I am already familiar with a good number of these websites. Was just using Guidestar and Charity Navigator for my first paper in my Nonprofit Management course. I've given on Kiva and DonorsChoose, and ran a fundraising campaign on GlobalGiving a year ago. I'm on VolunteerMatch (which reminds me that I need to follow up with the Kohls Children's Museum about helping them with early STEM). I have friends who worked with GiveWell.
I was not familiary wth catchafire, Jolkona, or GlassPockets. I'll have to check out some of the projects on catchafire to see if I can help (while still maintaining all of my other priorities!) Unfortunately the Jolkana quizlet had technical issues, so I'm not sure which celebrity philanthropist I am. I'll have to bring up the Glass Pockets website in two Nonprofit classes.
Exercise: Overview
Complete after the previous activity
In this activity you will answer three separate questions to guide your selection process. In
the end, you will have your issue area, an area where your passion and society’s greatest
needs meet. Here are the three questions:
What is your passion, are there certain people, places or problems
you want to solve? Looking at some of your previous workbook answers can help
guide this process.
My passion is around children and education. How do we go from being one little cell to become thinking, feeling beings. Early childhood is especially important to me because if we can start kids off on the right foot, everything else is so much easier later. I am most interested in helping in the US - while there are many issues in the developing world, I feel a call to help regionally or nationally here in the United States.
What are the world’s greatest needs?
The world's greatest needs are much more about clean water, high-quality nutrition, reduced violence, and equal opportunity. But in the US, those needs are strongly felt by our youngest population. Too many children do not have the building blocks that they need to succeed once they reach elementary school.
Finally, find your sweet spot, where do these intersect; where does your greatest
passion intersect with the worlds greatest needs? Then you have your issue area.
My issue area is in early childhood care and education in the US. The US is a bit broad, but I am currently looking at moving from a local impact to a broad regional or national impact.
Exercise: Overview
Complete after the previous activity
Slowly make your issue more specific. Use your research and your passion to refine your
issue area. Use the examples on the next page as a guide. If you think your issue area is
specific enough for you to make a significant dent, make the issue one step more specific;
that is your specific issue area. Think about location, different approaches, segments
of the population, etc. to help you narrow it down. Once you have selected your issue,
embrace it by tweeting about it, make it your Facebook status, send an article about it to
your friends or use other ways to celebrate your issue and advocate for it.
I am interested in many aspects of education - early childhood, STEM, leadership, high-quality teaching, etc. And because of my personality, my value for variety, and the high needs in all of these areas, I will of course continue to give in multiple ways to multiple organizations. For the purposes of these course, I will focus in on the highest impact in early childhood care and education, building school readiness skills, for low-income kids in the US.
I already embrace my issue(s) on social media. I started @earlymath in order to spread the word and advocate for high-quality early math learning. And on my personal social media, I'm constantly posting about education and early care.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)