The New York Times has a story out today about the amazing fundraising efforts of parents and community members in several Long Island school districts.  After cuts to the districts' budgets threatened schools' extracurricular activities and sports teams, the Long Island communities rallied in support of their schools and raised upwards of $1 million dollars to save the threatened programs from the chopping block.

But in these gloomy economic times, such success stories are tempered with a heavy dose of pessimism.  The Times piece is replete with takes on the sustainability of private donations to schools, with quotes from school officials warning that "given the difficulty and magnitude [of the fundraising campaigns], they can only be substantiated for one year and are unrealistic as a recurring source of revenue."  So, the story concludes, fundraisers and foundations cannot replace government cash in private schools. 

On the obviousness scale, the notion that "public schools rely on public money" ranks somewhere between "if you eat fewer calories, you will lose weight" and "living with grizzly bears is a bad idea."  And, although The Generation Project seeks to expand community involvement in public schools, nobody here thinks that private donations can be systematically relied upon to make up for massive budgetary shortfalls.  But let's not minimize the positive impact these Long Island parents had. It's inspiring to see community members rally behind schools and children to protect the types of experiences that change kids' lives year after year. 

Of course, the fundraisers in Long Island were...well, Long Island parents.  Parents from socioeconomically depressed neighborhoods--which are facing severe budgetary shorfalls themselves--might not have the time or resources to raise $1 million at the drop of a hat.  But if providing a quality edcation for all Americans is a national priority, the plight of students in schools facing severe budgetary shortfalls affects us all.  That's why The Generation Project wants to connect donors with schools and kids that need their money the most.  No, private money is not going to make all the difference.  Still, it can make a huge difference, and it can do so even if it doesn't go to the school in your own backyard. 

Women's Wear Daily reports today that Georgio Armani is celebrating the opening of his new Fifth Avenue store by establishing the $1 million dollar Armani Arts Institute, which will support arts programs in public schools in underserved New York City neighborhoods.  The reason for this post is not to give Mr. Armani his well-deserved plaudits, as I'm sure he's getting those from much bigger sources than our humble blog.  Nor am I posting this to trumpet the fact that I read Women's Wear Daily, although I would certainly like to be seen as an enlightened, modern man with a healthy appreciation for women's fashion. 

The point is that Mr. Armani's gift is precisely the type of grand, personalized philanthropic gesture that has historically been the sole province of the uber-wealthy or uber-famous, and the precise type of gift that The Generation Project hopes to put in the hands of donors at any income level.  We're trying to revolutionize educational philanthropy--and American charity more generally--by moving away from that old model of charitable giving where donors write a check for $50, $250, or $2500 and let an organization decide how to spend it.  If, like Mr. Armani, you want to support the arts in high-need New York City classrooms, you can donate art supplies to an elementary school teacher that will put them to good use.   If, on the other hand, your passion is politics, you can sponsor an after-school student government club at a high school, or a trip to Washington DC for middle schoolers.  Or if a set of particular books touched you as a kid, what better way to leave your legacy than donating that same set of books to an underresourced school library? 

Everybody has a gift to share, not just those who can afford to open a store on Fifth Avenue.  And kids in high-need public schools don't need $1 million to make a difference (although, if you have it to give, please do!) No matter what you can afford, under The Generation Project's model, the power is in your hands.  Like the Armanis, the Gateses, and the Bransons of the world, we want to give you the power to let your ideas shape the future of education. 

American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten has an op-ed piece in today's Washington Post that might well be a Nixon in China moment for American teachers' unions.  In the Post article, Weingarten--who is head of the second-largest education labor union in the United States--endorses national learning standards for K-12 students.  Weingarten assails as unsatisfactory the currently "uneven patchwork of academic standards for students in our 50 states and the District of Columbia," and calls instead for a system of "common, rigorous" national benchmarks.

The problem, as Weingarten points out, is the mish-mash of federalism that is American education policy.  Although the No Child Left Behind law ties federal funding to student achievement in math, literacy, and science, the federal government also allows states to create their own academic standards and testing mechanisms.  So, in essence, the federal government says that students must clear certain hurdles if states are to receive federal funding, but then allows states to set the hurdle bar at any height they want.  I try not to editorialize too much on this blog (if you want editorializing, check out some of Ivan's posts) but permit me the indulegence of saying that Weingarten is absolutely right.  The current system of state standards makes no sense, and is the result of skitzophrenic policy-makers  who seem unable to decide whether to worship at the alter of local control or at the alter of robust academic standards. 

What's interesting about Weingarten's piece is not so much what it says, but who it's coming from.  National academic standards--and standards in general--have long been a bugaboo for American teachers' unions (see, for example, this New York Times piece from 1991, this one from 2000, and this position statement from America's largest teachers' union from 2008).  The party line for teachers' unions is that  academic learning standards rob teachers of any creative control over their own classroom and make education a series of joyless test-prep drills.  As a former teacher, I can say that ther is definitely something to that line of argument, and I'm glad that Weingarten is careful to point out that she is not "suggesting that teachers be forced to provide instruction in a scripted, lock-step manner, unable to tailor lessons or draw on their own expertise." 

Still, even the embrace of loose, malleable national standards represents a sea change in unions' thinking.  Perhaps the teachers' unions are coming to grips with the reality that standards are here to stay, and have decided to work within the standards framework instead of fighting it?  Alternatively, perhaps the union believes that the creation of national content standards will make it easier for displaced or laid-off veteran teachers to get jobs in new cities.  Moderating the union's stance on standards could also be a politically calculated move by Weingarten, who may have developed a taste for national politics when New York Governor David Patterson considered her for Hillary Clinton's then-vacant Senate seat.  Regardless of the motivations, the Post piece is some food for thought for those of us interested in national education policy.