Or something.

TIB 2.o alpha is debuting this weekend. We’ll send out an email. 

It won’t be perfect, but it should give a clear idea of who we are, what we can/want to do, etc etc. People will be able to register w/us, submit projects for incubation, and browse all listed projects.

Still a lot of work to do, but we’re excited about it. We hope you are too. As always, we welcome your suggestions.

Get ready to say goodbye to the wordpressness.

-an animation of how we connect funders and creative community building programs

-a searchable list of extant and proposed programs that are incubating with us, including a couple of newbies!

-helpful diagrams explaining our utility across various sectors, and our MBA “live case” program

-this blog

-and other goodies

We’re very excited. It’s been a long time coming. It’s time to step up!

Until then, we’re continuing outreach to NYC-based programs and other movers and shakers in the do-good world. We’re hoping to have a launch event before year’s end.  Drop a comment if you want more info!

In honor of this historic day, I’d like to briefly point out how CEI plugs into President-Elect Obama’s conception of America’s next phase. 

I described in earlier posts how the rejuvenation of the country would be America’s new meta-narrative. Obama’s landslide election can be interpreted in many ways, but I think one of the most profound implications is that the age of 9/11 politics (of fear), while never to be forgotten, is done. America is moving on. Fueled by two wars, an inability or unwillingness to engage our enemies diplomatically, and lots of talk of the need for patriotism in a dangerous world, fear and uncertainty have dominated our political landscape since 9/11. For a long time this atmosphere favored the Republicans.

No longer. We are turning the corner. Having needed a perfect storm of crises to realize the enormity of the challenges facing us at home and abroad, Americans are slowly moving past a debilitating and exaggerated culture war and worrying about common challenges. Among the many uphill battles we face, we’ll be hearing a lot about “rebuilding America’s infrastructure”. This refers, most obviously, to the physical infrastructure—highways, railways, the electric grid, green energy—that is perhaps best represented by the idea for a National Infrastructure Bank and other public-private partnerships (PPPs). Less obvious but equally important is a massive reinvestment in our social infrastructure: especially schools and urban communities.

There has been much commentary about the individual aspects that can be categorized under the “social infrastructure” umbrella, but not much use of the term itself. I think it’s a simple way to understand the nature of the assorted cultural and social challenges we face, many of which are intangible and difficult to quantify. Using the infrastructure terminology allows those bundled problems to be presented neatly alongside the physical infrastructural improvements we need to make, and understood as a yin-yanged whole.

The CEI movement attempts to use creative community building to improve specific neighborhoods and, more generally, as an appealing vehicle for the normalization of mass civic engagement. As such, CEI can be a lynchpin of a reinvigorated social infrastructural project.

As I’ve said, neither CEI nor TIB as its major vehicle is going to save the world. I don’t want to exaggerate its potential impact. At the same time, CEI complements many other initiatives, projects, programs, and a general attitudinal adjustment regarding service in this country.  CEI plugs perfectly into our new emerging meta-narrative, in which we will be asked to make sacrifices and think big for the future success of America. Obama has talked about this, and social entrepreneurs are excited.

CEI also performs the necessary service of making community building “cool” through its emphasis on artistic, creative, and generally fun initiatives. CEI programs can vary from TV shows and online communities to afterschool artistic programs and friendly neighborhood beautification competitions; the common factor is the use of creativity and fun, and the enhanced marketing and branding potential of such attributes for the larger cause of civic engagement and service so that a younger generation will understand CEI and aspire to be CEIs.

In other words, CEI complements short-term goals such as specific creative community-building programs with the longer-term goals of a transformative social movement. The new ethos—which really refers back to an older, familiar American one—is going to be a major theme of the Obama administration. The need for reinvestment in our social infrastructure is clear, and the creative sector can play a key role in that reinvestment. CEI can be a voice for the creative sector, and TIB is its vehicle.

The last post toyed with the idea of understanding “spreading the wealth” in a slightly new way, in the context of a certain cultural shift that is emerging in the US in particular. I didn’t talk about changing the culture/conception of capitalism per se. Now I’ll make that connection.

The ideas I alluded to before—spreading the wealth, using (mostly) the private sector (philanthropy, venture capital, wealthy individuals) to spur localized community building programs—already implied a new conception/understanding of the interrelated roles of capitalism and government in shaping the state. Let’s take these notions, and the cultural context of the financial crisis and American rejuvenation, a step further.

Capitalism is now taking a big hit around the world—literally in the markets and figuratively in reputation. Americans, the engineers of modern capitalism such that it is now known abroad as American capitalism,  were always its biggest fans. Some fast developing 2^nd world countries, as well as most of Eastern Europe (now mostly 1^st world), have taken to the miracles of this system as well. The same cannot quite be said for the rest of the world. They tolerated it, benefited from it, and accepted it as the best of all economic systems—and logically so. But the vestiges of “socialism” remain in Europe, Australia/NZ, and across the rest of the developed and undeveloped world (and even in E. Europe, party lines divide roughly along interpretations of capitalism, “American” vs “European”). These countries have held stronger to socialist relics like universal health care and pension systems (even if they failed to achieve them). So we see in practice there a slightly different practice of capitalism, known as social democracy. We’re all familiar with the classic “US vs Europe” debate about economic regulation and government’s role in guaranteeing basic human rights like access to medical care. Or maybe they’re not basic human rights. Or maybe it all should be privatized? Etc. Even in America, “American capitalism” is a highly contested notion.

The point is that, as a result of the financial crisis and the Bush Administration and the performance our financial ecosystem over the last 25+ yrs in general, we in the US are now positioned to tinker with our capitalism in a big way.

The rest of the world is watching, but no longer will they just wait and see what we come up with. They’ve caught up with us enough over time (and we’ve stooped and stumbled, it should be said) such that they’ll have a voice in what the final product looks like. The domestic popular backlash against deregulation of the markets, speculation, tricky banking/financial behavior, etc is going to be echoed in Europe and Asia. Regulation will make a comeback. (Dogmatic conservatives appear scared, liberals happy, open-minded centrists confused.)

That is one story. Concomitant to that broad development will be a significant cultural effect: a rare opportunity to discuss the status and function of capitalism in general. A mainstream debate may actually consider that it can be greatly improved (or that possibly it didn’t work quite as well as we’d thought). That’s not to say we should drop capitalism. We shouldn’t. It’s to say that despite increased global wealth and development we haven’t reached the perfection of economic management. Capitalism can get better. Like every meta-system, it will evolve. No one can (or should) contest that American capitalism worked for a good while. I for one intend to make no such argument. The system was imperfect and its future evolution will remain imperfect—but, if we are smart, perhaps less so. 

Let us learn from the mistakes of the excesses of American capitalism. Let us use this historical moment as an opportunity to improve the system. We also have to improve our country. So we’re going to have to do both.

I have an idea. Maybe, in addition to investing in projects and companies that fuel the great green bubble, we can also direct some money and resources toward genuine community development, local job creation, and improved schools. Maybe we can create financial incentives for very wealthy entities to invest in the future of America. Financial returns may not come for a long time—not until after the cultural returns. The cultural capital will, however, create financial capital. It will save money in the long run. It will boost the middle class, especially as America grudgingly learns to accept a leaner lifestyle. Many things are going to change, and it will unfold over time, and it will likely take the course of a generation for us to collectively, officially come to terms with the new direction in which we’re headed. Being an optimist, I think that direction is not necessarily down. But we’ll have to make some sacrifices and start living with more purpose and efficiency and less indifferent, wasteful luxury. But that’s probably a good idea anyway, right?

The crisis has exposed (to some brutally than others) the danger of living beyond our means. But if that “little lesson” is not an apt microcosm for what America has become at the apex of American capitalism, what is? All those logical lessons should be drawn out and examined. For example, that it’s illogical to excuse the absurdity of top executive incomes and golden parachutes by citing capitalist dogma. That’s like citing the rulebook after you’ve just scored the 100^th goal in a soccer game against a beat up team by saying “This is totally within our rights! This is how the sport works!” Except it’s worse of course, because it’s real life, and real companies and people are suffering because such vast wealth has been concentrating in so few hands for so long now (the bottom-line, shareholder-driven model is perverted when executives and board members are looking for short-term paydays so they can get out and move to another “opportunity”, leaving the company to recover however it may). And at the same time, our government spends like mad: on war, mostly, to the benefit of our military-industrial engine, but on lots of other unnecessary stuff, too (like prisons, so we can lock up marijuana dealers). Spending on defense as a percentage of GDP continues to increase while, somehow, our military hasn’t adapted to the reality of counterinsurgency staring it in the face, and we insist on maintaining bases around the world, as if we hadn’t yet won the Cold War.

Where has spending not increased? Remarkably, in areas directly concerned with investing in our collective future. From education reform and health care reform to highways and electric grids, we have virtually ignored our decaying cultural and physical infrastructures. From this perspective the financial crisis is only one of several impending crises. In truth, experts in education, sociology, community organizing and elsewhere will tell you that the crises in those areas have already arrived. But those contentions—blipping on our radar screens in the form of the occasional newspaper or magazine story or 60 Minutes feature—haven’t seemed to register with the wider public. Or worse yet they have, and the wider public doesn’t care. On the one hand this seems unfathomable, given the barrage of statistics and warnings that the grand old America in which we grew up is in a bad way. On the other, it’s the same universal truth: people generally don’t react to disaster until it is staring them in the face, or leaving them in the dust. (We regular Americans can blame lots of decision-makers for dragging us down into this mess, but I suppose we cannot change human nature.)

On a positive note, the moment of reflection resulting from the financial crisis and the election of Obama, and the disintegration of Nixonian/Rovian GOP politics can teach us a lot, if we are willing to both think big looking forward and be honest and logical looking back. Looking back at the restructuring of American capitalism since WWII we see…well, problems. We see a shrinking middle class, an increasing concentrated elite, and widespread poverty, both urban and rural. We see crippling dependence on (mostly foreign) oil set against the stubbornly inefficient American car industry. We see embarrassing rates of incarceration, especially among minorities, especially urban black males. We see an education system falling behind the rest of the world while also dividing success almost completely along class lines domestically, while voucher programs are proffered as solutions because of the “choice” they offer (we love “choice”), despite the fact that they completely ignore the disadvantaged communities in which most bad schools are located—as if that problem will just go away. And we don’t see too many Ivy Leaguers in the Arm anymore: it’s mostly poor whites and minorities. We see opportunities for and obsession with pure entertainment and frivolity increasing exponentially—and being celebrated as if it were noble, right, and deserved. Over this same period of time, we see the erosion civics—to the point that the classes are not offered anymore and the word seems like a relic from another age. It is. The word has been sadly replaced in the political lexicon by patriotism. We’ve gone from what can you do to your country to love your country in speech but trash and/or ignore it in practice—and, I guess, just get yours on the way. 

At some point you’d think we’d start connecting the dots. Many have, but I’m referring to a collective level: the dot-connecting needs to enter the public sphere, pierce the national consciousness, infuse the great American dialogue. It doesn’t have to be couched in the panic of crisis; we’ve still got a hell of a great place on our hands, luckily. Rather, it should be framed in a sort of “Hold on a second, guys,” kind of way, as one might announce to friends after wandering off the trail for a bit too long and realizing that they’re maybe kind of lost. There’s a chance that someone like Obama, if he can halfway live up to his expectations and potential, will provide that kind of leadership. We might get lucky. For now, the point is that our ignorance and inaction in the face of crucial mistakes and misdirected policies is causing a crisis. Now that it’s emerging, we’re forced to act—perhaps irrationally—and cautiously move forward while casting blame and covering asses. This is a folly of humanity, sort of like the cosmic proof that, after all, we’re really just making it up as we go along, aren’t we? 

I’ll leave the cosmic or philosophical implications of all this for another time. For now the point is that if we zoom out and analyze the long arc of America’s rise, and the arrival of globalization and the digital age, it should be clear that the postmodern, postindustrtial turn really has changed the playing field profoundly—and yet we’re playing by the same old economic rules, and living with the same old tired conceptions of capitalism and socialism and America The Best. In those respects, we haven’t thought very much about evolution and hybridity and decentralization and interconnectivity, even though, oddly, the tech and business worlds seem to speak only in those terms. It’s time for the rest of us to catch up. 

To bring this back to TIB and related topics, I will say this. Let’s imagine how much we could do with, say, ten billion dollars invested at local levels in an array of community-building programs that created both jobs and opportunities in neighborhoods that need it most. Imagine what just a few key “crazy” (aka logical) changes could accomplish. Foremost among them would be to complement those community-building initiatives with increased financing for troubled schools, enhanced incentives for teachers, and more generally a concentrated investment in education reform. Imagine some other crazy changes, like requiring carpooling and real fuel efficiency; paying for political advertising with evenly distributed public money, encouraging the public to research politicians on their own; decriminalizing marijuana use; and, of course, teaching and talking about civic engagement and service. Through vehicles like TIB and others, with partner programs that create cultural (social) capital in localities across the nation, we could even begin talking about the new possibilities of capitalism manifested in creative entrepreneurial idealism, community building, and strategic spreading of wealth. When TIB enables CEIs to improve communities, we will be that much closer to our goal: the formation of a virtual circle in which CEIs, philanthropists and local actors collaborate on projects the results of which are in everyone’s mutual interest: increased incentive for civic engagement and stronger communities

Briefly stated, we’ve still got lots of cards to play to fix things up in this great country of ours. But we must be honest with ourselves, tighten our bootstraps, and get back to doing the stuff we did that made this country great. And in a new way: a postmodern way that accepts the underlying interconnectedness of financial capital (money), social capital (culture), investment, and mutual well-being. It’s time for America 3.0. 

Every now and then it slips that the father of market capitalism thought spreading the wealth via government policy wasn’t such a terrible idea. 

Andrew Sullivan quoting Adam Smith:

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. 

Still lamentable, according to Sullivan, but that’s not the point here. The point is that a thriving philanthropic-based redistribution of wealth involving direct private investment in well-conceived, well-executed local community-buidling programs is just another way to spread the wealth. In fact, more than just another way, you could make a strong argument—to conservatives especially—that it’s actually a smarter way to address community building. 

Let me explain. Conservatives will never be excited about a government sponsored program to use the public pot (tax revenue) for any type of social program. From health care to the arts (not to mention welfare, food stamps), a liberal or even a Clinton centrist is always going to have trouble justifying these “crazy socialist model” programs to a true conservative. The argument won’t change unless the framing of “wealth redistribution”  and “social programs” changes. 

Now suppose some part of this operation is shifted to the private sector. Conservatives like private-sector initiatives: let the market settle it, etc.  Let’s say a choice batch of local CEI programs in different parts of the country prove successful over the medium term, providing visible and quantifiable evidence of community development.

A combination of the philanthropy sector,  some very wealthy individuals, and many just wealthy individuals who are given incentive (tax rebates) to invest in their choice of local community-building programs, decides to invest. Let’s assume for the moment that highly capable and motivated individuals/teams are able to create successful programs or open small businesses that have a net effect of creating employment and opportunity, generating incentive to build community, and decreasing crime.  It seems crazy, but government could offer great incentives to the private sector to invest, like in-kind donations to successful initiatives, tax rebates, etc. And a billion dollars would go a long way in terms of community building.  

Already we are hearing a lot about a New New Deal, government investment in national infrastructure, a return to public projects for the betterment of America. We know we have an education crisis to fix,the noble goal of universal health care to achieve, roads to pave, a green revolution to spur. Call it what you will, but we are coming to an age of re-investment in America. This will be the emerging meta-narrative of the Obama Administration: reconstruction, back to work, and in a post-partisan style. A new “morning in America” delivered by perhaps the only man who is as well-qualified as Reagan was to pull it off. (I’m confident in saying that now; but I should not that, if elected, McCain too would have been talking about a return to service in America, re-investment, and anything reformist-sounding to distance himself from the current president.)  

While it is easy and logical to worry about the financial crisis, I believe this cultural atmosphere presents an opportunity to re-conceive the concept of community building (and the notion of + need for community), and its ugly brother, class stratification. The culture wars won’t be over, but more people than ever will be sick of them; the apparent failure of the Nixonian/Rovian anti-elistist brand of Republicanism, and its likely replacement by a civil war within a chaotic GOP, will accentuate this trend. 

I believe this emerging cultural moment presents an historic chance for the philanthropy and social entrepreneurship (and related) industries to lead the creation of a more cohesive private infrastructure for social programs. Instead of predictably thinking big in terms of national programs, this infrastructure should concentrate instead on state and local programs. Keep the core concepts and ideas at the macro level, but trust unique actors execute those ideas in local contexts.  

If large philanthropic gifts to SE and CEI social causes lead to promising local improvement across the country (as I believe they will), it could open a compelling new perspective on the outmoded capitalist/socialist divide.  The long term result could amount to a “great compromise” between liberals and moderate conservatives: to leave government responsible for the big problematic social issues, like health care/medicare and social security (since the GOP won’t have much choice anyway); at the same time, recognize the need for further social programs, and put the philanthropy-, SE-, and citizen-driven private sector in charge of them. Challenge states and communities to take on more responsibility for themselves. Siphon off new private investment funds with seed money dedicated to generating more for these causes. Get everyone involved. Create common interest in the success of such programs. 

What we’re talking about, long-term, is a dynamic re-conception of the roles of philanthropy, government, and community actors. We’re talking new ways to think of institutions and collaboration. Such a watershed shift will require an initially huge investment from organized philanthropy and the wealthy—as it did back in the early 1900s when robber barons and the like made serious contributions to America’s growth. Secondly, that investment must be incentivized by the government in any way possible. The third group being empowered by this collaboration between institutions or segments is the local actor group “on the ground” all over the country.

The combined effect could be a virtuous circle, financially feasible, in which wealth is (voluntarily)  strategically redistributed to invest in community building and cultural capital. Creating local environments that give their residents more opportunities to engage and more incentive to invest in those around them will result in stronger communities and more civic engagement. These conditions are optimal for reducing crime, creating jobs, and improving schools. The cycle may not improve the quality of family life or individual decisionmaking, but a safer, better educated and more active civic culture won’t hurt decaying families, either.  It is imperative to remember that an age of stronger community and common bonds is not an impossibility; rather, consider this moment the nadir of a process of cultural fragmentation that has been in the works for decades, influenced both by culture wars and the disorienting effects of globalization. But the culture wars are being revealed as a fruitless exercise and  we’re slowly coming to terms with globalization’s process and consequences. In a context of concern for America’s future and our perceived need to lead the world through troubled times, a growing concern for community building is not only going to become necessary (it already is) but popularly visible.

To be clear, this is much bigger than CEI. We are talking about a discernible (if not profound) cultural shift, a sort of postmodern return to the simpler 50s style sense of community and common destiny typical of suburbia and strong urban immigrant neighborhoods that eventually eroded into the present condition.

That said, CEI has a key role to play here: it can provide a bridge between the present conceptions of these actors (philanthropy, activism, community, government) and future possibilities. How? CEI can show that successful nonprofit communitybuilding ventures provide cultural returns on financial investment. It can spur a new wave of activism and service toward rebuilding American communities by making the whole thing fun, and by sharing the joy of community development. It can prove that smart wealth redistribution– along a market-based model in which different programs will compete for funding and best practices will emerge–makes sense.

[We'll have more on these ideas later. The Sullivan post was the perfect excuse to start this conversation. Why put off tomorrow what you can do today, if imperfectly?...]

One of the biggest challenges in improving TIB’s bizplan, rather than solving operational challenges, is to simplify it. We’ve encountered three strategic hurdles:

1. TIB is a unique entity, and one that has multiple purposes and operations; hence, beyond the description of “pioneer for the CEI industry”, it is hard to explain the organic relationship between each of TIB’s arms. (Of course, that makes it all the more crucial to outline them specifically!)

2. TIB exists within an industry, SE, that is itself ill-defined, nascent, and evolving.

3. While TIB’s mission and most of its functions are clear to us, some questions remain unanswered. Otherwise put, TIB has evolved over time toward the magic balance between market demand, useful service, compelling brand, and operational problemsolving. It will surely evolve some more—hence TIBB.

Now that TIBB is up and running in Alpha, we are taking a hatchet (and a scalpel) to the BizPlan in an attempt to be simpler and clearer.

I can’t help but think back to Scott Belsky’s presentation at The Feast last Thursday. Scott’s company, Behance, makes ideas happen—on every level from strategy to stationery. His talk detailed Behance’s Action Method, which is a brilliantly simple way to approach brainstorming/communication/development such that an idea actually results in something. Given that TIB’s mission is “from dreaming to doing”, this strategy is of great interest to us. Scott spoke of how to best harness productivity among the team, how to roll with some ideas and leave others on the backburner, and why sharing ideas before they’re “ready” is more helpful than hurtful (we really liked that idea!). 

 To say that TIB is the result of a series of creative brain dumps followed by pick-up-the-pieces efforts at organization would be a bit simplistic. Yet when I’m down on myself, it’s often because I can’t organize or present many ideas as efficiently as they need be. In other words, while organization is always in the mix, it is not as natural an instinct as ideation; organization too often seems to be an act of catch-up. This means that we at TIB are heavy on vision, theory, and hypotheticals and light on action.

But in which ways can we act? We’re barely plugged into the SE ecosystem. We can act on:

• simplifying bizplan and refining our message—under construction
• Networking w/friends for input—check
• Establishing relationships with potential donors—partial check (barely)
• Getting a website whose interface more efficiently presents TIB’s ideas—not gonna happen until daddy comes back with some loot
• Seeking out the advice/support of experts like Behance—partial check (Scott, write me back!)

While we struggle to take this amateur production to a more professional level, we take solace in the fact that nothing extraordinary is ever achieved through ordinary means. I.e., we must be on the right track! 

Can/Should GoogleLearn be considered a CEI program? Or is it more “mainstream” SE? 

The act of imagining and formulating GL (my partner in this mission is Josh Sohn, tutor, playwright, education wonk) was certainly creative. The program would empower both teachers and students to be creative in their teaching/learning approaches (perhaps such that, long term, learning would come to be seen as a creative process). And GL’s implicit invitation to school administrators to try new methods for gauging student performance and progress, insofar as it asks them to think outside the box, demands creativity.

But the GL bid doesn’t concentrate on artistic, sporty, or traditionally “interesting” initiatives that are “typical of CEI”, if I may say that.

So choose wisely.

Oh and please read the bid, tell us how awesome it is, and spread the word that Google should pick up GoogleLearn, immediately, on its own.

Josh & Ivan’s challenge to Google: take education to the next level, people! 

10. What one sentence best describes your idea? (150 characters)

GoogleLearn will revolutionize education as we know it by creating a “personalized-universal” learning tool for classroom and individual education.

(150)

11. Describe your idea in more depth. (300 words)

GoogleLearn applies Google’s informational mission to the world of education with two goals: practically, to make learning easier, more specialized, and more efficient for all users; and theoretically, to create a massive body of organized data that is available to educational researchers seeking to learn more about how we learn.

There is no national educational curricula, yet there is a massive body of common knowledge American students are expected to master before college, regardless of the manner and age at which it is taught. GoogleLearn capitalizes on this minimum standards concept within the context of the increasing digitalization of information to create a revolutionary learning tool. GoogleLearn puts all that information online and transforms it into cohesive mini-lessons organized by subtopic catering to individuals’ unique learning profiles.

The goal is to offer a “personalized-universal” educational system for students and adults: by accessing the universal database and selecting specific subjects, users are given constantly updating personalized problem sets and study guides. By cross-referencing user answers against biographical information and other key metrics, GoogleLearn efficiently bridges the gap between required knowledge and pedagogical approaches.

The logical incorporation of GoogleLearn into the Google Suite (Educators/Books/Scholar/Mail/Calendar) creates a cohesive platform for students, teachers, and families to integrate education more fully and efficiently into their lives. Homework, deadlines, meetings, review sessions, etc are online and email/calendar reminders keep everyone in touch and updated. Students have questions corrected online and note difficulties; results are sent to teachers. For busy adults, the same technology facilitates purposeful and efficient learning without having to pursue graduate education.

Finally, GoogleLearn creates highly compelling, widely accessible data for educational researchers and administrators to use in improving curriculum and rethinking pedagogy. Results that individual schools contribute can be analyzed by others, effectively generating a dynamic marketplace of ideas and best practices.

(299)

 ——-

12. What problem or issue does your idea address? (150 words)

Education is an essential building block to success. American education is in serious need of reform: student performance increasingly lags behind that of other nations, and the sociocultural “achievement gap” in educational quality within the US is the civil rights struggle of our era. Additionally, lack of educational access in the third world remains a critical barrier to development.

Groundbreaking research within education will result in improved schools. GoogleLearn’s metrics set against detailed user profiles will pave the way for progress on critical topics, including: concentration and memorization capacity, incremental learning, traditional vs. computer-assisted pedagogy, multiple choice vs. short answer learning, avatar-based navigation, and achievement incentives.

GoogleLearn particularly empowers underprivileged learners and overwhelmed educators by providing dependable access to dynamic learning models. In pursuing a fuller understanding of the way humans process information, GoogleLearn has the capacity to transform education and create a thriving market in pedagogical methods.

(149)

———

13. If your idea were to become a reality, who would benefit the most and how? (150 words)

GoogleLearn improves American education. All students benefit from greater efficiency, personalized experience, and extra help. Teachers maintain contact with students, compare results with other teachers, reform lesson plans, and enjoy streamlined communication with colleagues and parents.

GoogleLearn utilizes the same technology to provide user-specialized “courses” for adults as well, on an array of topics, improving professional industries and personal lives.

A sequence of broad data-collection and analysis, local curriculum adjustment (e.g. varying by school district), and subsequent experimentation and implementation creates a feedback loop on what students know and how they learn, leading to myriad research opportunities for educational theorists. Breakthroughs within education and related industries are likely.

Given the imminent likelihood of third-world internet and increased laptop access, education within poverty-stricken areas becomes a real possibility. GoogleLearn can educate where schools are absent.

When self-education is incentivized by eliminating barriers to its access, the world becomes a better place.

(150)

———-

14. What are the initial steps required to get this idea off the ground? (150 words)

GoogleLearn is revolutionary, but it uses existing information and existing (or reachable) technologies. It puts entire existing curricula online and perpetually re-formulates modules into cohesive lessons according to user profile and subtopic (Math->algebra->  factoring; Grammar-> compound sentences->clauses-> adjective clause).

First, assemble a team of educators, data analysts, and programmers to hone the methodology and tech specifications of the CAT-based algorithmic model in order to leverage Google’s core competencies (user feedback, automated content suggestion/linking, rapid indexing of large-scale data, etc). Critical issues include: developing subject units and problem sets (expert-created vs. user-generated), automatically adjusting for skill level; determining precise metrics used within problem sets (timing questions, assessing “2nd choice” answers, reacting to student input); exploring added value of program implementation (identifying “leading” and “struggling” students, high- and low-performing schools); strategically integrating GoogleLearn into classrooms so as to supplement (not supplant) teachers and school protocol; identifying districts and/or individual schools to pursue as pilot cases.

(150)

——–

15. Describe the optimal outcome should your idea be selected and successfully implemented. How would you measure it? (150 words)

The optimal outcome of GoogleLearn is nothing short of an educational revolution. It will:
1) offer free “personalized-universal” learning to anyone with a computer and curiosity; 2) provide insight into new learning and teaching techniques and philosophies; 3) spur initiatives to improve infrastructure in low-income communities, such as One Laptop Per Child (OLPC); and 4) advance the empowering ethos of democratized accessibility to “silos” of information.

Academic improvement within schools is tracked by introducing GoogleLearn in a strategic way, and setting long- and short-term benchmarks. An ideal method would be: implement the program among varying age and socioeconomic groups; build a database of record over half-year intervals; conduct cross-industry meetings to review data; and compare test results and teacher/student/parent reactions against other “normal” districts of comparable metrics. In this way learning and testing trends and results will be quantifiable, laying the groundwork for further innovation by educators, administrators, and entrepreneurs.

 (150)

=-=-

orgs to help execute idea (50 words):

Google is uniquely suited both to develop the “personalized-universal” model and execute GoogleLearn in line with its own mission. Organizations to include in research and development: The New Teacher Project, American Educational Research Association, National Education Association, various State Charter School Associations, philanthropies interested in advancing GoogleLearn’s cause.

I was simply blown away on Thursday by the Feast Conference on social innovation hosted by alldaybuffet at the lovely Scandinavia House in Midtown.

As both a volunteer (who showed up at 7.30am to help out) and a judgmental onlooker eager to be inspired, I was amazed that Jerri and Michael managed to organize an event that was meaningful, fun and full of energy, smoothly run, and just long enough. Being more used to overwrought and underwhelming academic conferences, it was a much-welcomed breath of fresh air. 

Despite all the great presentations and wonderful personal conversations I had that day, the best single microcosm of the event was the first coffee break.

After the first 3 speakers, everyone shuffled into the lobby to mingle, network, and relax. The room was adorned with posters of differing patterns that corresponded to participants’ industries so that they could speak w/like-minded attendees. I stood against a wall as silence turned to din, emptiness to craziness. In three minutes the energy level was so high that I found it contagious. It wasn’t just the coffee: the absurd concentration of brainpower and do-good capacity in this little room–between the SEs, innovators, NGO people, funders, etc–was clear.

Satisfied with my profound observation, I decided to act. I saw Robbie Vitrano of Trumpet standing near me, alone, and approached him. Knowing something about innovation and branding, he was an ideal person to engage about the role of TIB in the evolution of the SE industry. Still relatively nascent, ill-defined, and chaotic (which comes with advantages as well), the SE industry is bound to undergo some compartmentalization and consolidation. I quickly outlined my vision of CEI within that process, and the need for a legitimization of cultural capital. That is, among the (mainstream and logical) desire for financial sustainability and profit, there should be a niche market for projects that improve communities and culture without guaranteeing profits– even if this market may continually depend on philanthropy to survive. This crazy kind of redistribution of wealth doesn’t fit most business models, but there’s a real need for it (and politicians shouldn’t be afraid so say so, either, btw!). After all, in a world of savage inequality, private (i.e. non governmental) strategic redistribution of wealth—for worthy causes that, in the end, give back to everyone—seems quite organic to me. That’s sort of the backbone of philanthropy and corporate social responsibility, right? (Or are we going to get all semantic?) VC should consider getting in on the act too, say, if the project in question can deliver bottom-line sustainability: in a competitive market of increasingly sophisticated clients, cultural capital will add value and cache to VCs. 

Ok, I wasn’t that spontaneously succinct, but Robbie saw where I was coming from.

He liked the long-term vision of the SE market, but had trouble believing that wealthy entities would take that leap. There’s gotta be some way to deeply involve them, or it won’t be worth it to them. I was going to respond by telling him about TIB’s Kiva-style transparent donation method, in which funders would choose projects, and of course be thanked profusely upon that project’s inevitable success. But like agitated atoms in a high-pressure chamber, we were interrupted.

I didn’t get a chance to ask Robbie about ideal branding for TIB, and about the connected notion of branding a social movement. We left it for a future conversation. 

What a pleasure to instantly connect with people on an idea that otherwise might take a long time for me to explain. I went back to my spot against the wall and considered taking the room hostage, with release contingent upon positive feedback on TIB. At that rate I’d have a perfect bizplan and funding by dinnertime! Oops: dreaming again. Time to do.

A man was standing next to me, so I introduced myself. He turned out to be from the Columbus Foundation, which is to say, coming from the “funders” side of things, ostensibly at The Feast to sample the goods for philanthropists back home. I found myself once again fighting back the urge to spew the goodness about Project:Reversible and TIB to him. Self control is a bitch! But there’s nothing like practicing at these events to arrive at the best “elevator pitch” for your cause(s). Luckily for me, Sidney was a super cool and approachable guy, and we got along. I relaxed. He was intrigued by both projects.

At this point the cynic in me would say “Well, it’s his job to appear intrigued; he’s not gonna tell you your idea sucks!” Perhaps. But what’s the point of being cynical at events like these? Just because your own personal understanding of The Way Things Work—the product of many years of deliberate study and obstinate idealism (aimless wandering?)—leads you to accept cynicism as a necessary self-defense tactic doesn’t mean you can apply it reflexively. Idealistic exuberance is sometimes well deserved. And if not here, then when and where?

So I let myself be excited. I let myself revel in that palpable buzz of concentrated goodness. I’m not sure if the industry veterans on that floor would concur, but at that moment I thought, “This is, like, the best coffee break ever!” 

More later on The Feast. 

Ok people, it’s go time. This is the part of the movie where, upon arriving to the battlefield or the ballfield, the protagonist soldier/athlete thinks back on all the hard work s/he’s put in to get to this moment. The dramatic music rises to crescendo. Stuff is going off in slo-mo (training sessions, parental advice, enemy discouragement, imminent poverty). Cut to the protag’s fiercely concentrated eyes as the helicopter/schoolbus pulls up to its destination…

I’ve still got a lot of fixing up to do (on aspects of the BP, some blogroll additions, other minor stuff) and some pieces I want to post on to the blog, but the basic outline and material is up for your blunt appraisal.

It’s time to start making it better, so we can shop it to the playaz and the ballerz of the SE world– not just so that I can make this my job and feed my kids, but so that I can (for example) make pitches to particular MBA programs in the SE field for them to work with TIB in an experimental case study. And so that we can get mad loot and redistribute that to the amazing CEI projects that wanna work w/us. And, in the virtuous cycle that is TIB’s raison d’etre, then use that momentum to get more publicity (3.3), which helps us get more loot (4.3), more projects (3.1), more universities on board (3.4.2), to create more young CEIs (1.2) to make America fuck yeah again (5.2). Word.

I know the plan needs improvement, consolidation, diagrams, a note from Al Gore and Warren Buffet. Such concerns are addressed in BP 7 and 8.

For now I’d love to know what your *immediate impressions* are of both the BP (the TIB idea) and TIBB (the online presentation of TIB idea).

Thoughts?