Do We Really Need a Coalition?

As states visit -- or revisit -- the idea of forming a state-level coalition to systemically improve mathematics, science, and technolgy education (MSTE), discussion gravitates toward the central question of what added value might be provided by such an organization. Representatives of existing organizations may be uncomfortable with the idea because they infer that the coalition would be trying to direct the work of their groups; others leaders may feel that an MSTE reform infrastructure already is in place and that a coalition would be redundant. There may be confusion, even conflict, due to:

• limited understanding of the level at which each key element of systemic reform now is being addressed in the state;
• failure to distinguish the elements of systemic reform from the system itself; and
• lack of focus on what a coalition can do that should be done but that isn't being done now (i.e., niche).

The first two items can be treated by having leaders brainstorm the MSTE needs of the state and matching those needs to an assessment of what now is being done to address them. One might even enrich or extend the discussion by introducing a list of key elements of systemic reform or fundamental components of a state-level infrastructure such as those generated by NASSMC. This work leads to the identification of needs that are not being met -- or will not be met in the long term -- by existing groups and activities. It suggests the need for a state-level group that will focus on the unmet needs (and, in particular, on coordination of the work) - a coalition.

Here are sample questions developed for a state that had completed a Statewide Systemic Initiative project funded by the National Science Foundation ($10 million) and had developed regional centers that served professional development needs of teachers of mathematics and science. Did it really need anything more? The questions raised by the leaders of that state are presented below. They won't match the concerns of every state, but they illustrate the need to air legitimate concerns.

1. FUNCTION: What would the coalition do that isn't already being done by other groups but that needs doing? That is, what is the value added of the coalition?
2. BUSINESS PARTICIPATION: Businesses already are supporting many mathematics and science education activities in the state. How would the participation of businesses in the coalition affect their role?
3. COMPETITION FOR FUNDS: Won't the coalition become a competitor for funds that now go to professional development, classroom materials, technology, etc.?
4. ORGANIZATIONAL PROTOCOL: Must the organizational representatives advising the coalition speak "officially" for their groups? Won't that both place a time burden on the representatives (who must do the consulting with their organizations) and stand in the way of timely action by the coalition?
5. SIZE vs OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY: There would seem to be many constituencies that must be represented within the coalition. Board membership could quickly exceed 40. How can such a large group do work efficiently (and not become a twice-a-year debating society)?
6. GEOGRAPHY vs OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY: This is a big state. If representation on the coalition is going to have geographical distribution, how can the coalition operate efficiently?
7. EXISTING RESOURCES: As a result of the Statewide Systemic Initiative and other activities, we have a state network of regional centers that address MSTE needs. What would be the role of the coalition relative to those centers?
8. ORGANIZATIONAL REDUNDANCY: Why not subsume the work of the coalition under an existing state-level professional organization or agency (e.g., teachers of mathematics, teachers of science, department of education, business roundtable, academy of sciences, whatever)?