A Discussion Paper
Ken Hoffman
President, National Alliance of State Science and Mathematics Coalitions
Professor Emeritus in Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Many coalitions are at a crossroads, if not a watershed. They are undergoing changes in leadership. This provides the opportunity to step back and reflect on just where each coalition stands in the pursuit of its mission. It seems a good time to ask what a coalition "ought" to be doing and what changes may be needed. In order for this reflective exercise to be useful, it should obviously take into account the realities of education in your state today and the lessons learned from your coalition's experience, and it should be done against the background of (i) a general description of the purposes of "state coalitions"; (ii) what has been learned over the past decade from the 51 coalition efforts across the country; and (iii) the way we see the role and importance of coalitions today versus ten years ago.
What Is a Coalition?
What is meant by the header is the following, of course: "What is a state mathematics & science coalition -- herein referred to as 'a coalition' for short?" There are really several questions involved: What or who makes up a coalition? What problem is it trying to solve? What need is it intended to meet? What void is it attempting to fill? Who needs one anyway?
Experience elsewhere has shown that the concept of "coalition" is a bit elusive -- almost another paradigm for participation in the reform effort. This is one reason for revisiting the idea now.
A formal sort of definition might go like this: A coalition within a given state is an independent organization made up of leaders from three major sectors of society -- education, public policy, and business -- who are committed to standards-based systemic reform of K-16 mathematics, science, and technology education (MSTE) in the state as well as the nation, and who seek to provide seven things:
No doubt this definition needs some amplification, and surely it will play out in a unique way in each state, but the foregoing is enough to get a discussion started.
The First Clarification -- Who Are You?
Tell someone that your organization is concerned with mathematics and science education in your state, and they immediately assume that it is a creature of the state government. Even if wrong, this is understandable. In the United States, we don't have very good terminology for other kinds of statewide organizations. The British do. A state coalition is what they would call a QUANGO -- a quasi autonomous, non-governmental organization. It is not formally part of government, yet must work very closely with government, as well as many other constituencies. Ideally, the Governor, the chief state school officer, and one or more key members of the state legislature would be members of the coalition. But they would sit on the Board as individuals, not representatives of their offices or of state policy. Their knowledge of state policy will be important in the dialogue, just as the dialogue should be important for helping shape and/or alter state policy. Their influence in carrying out the coalition's work and the broader reform agenda will be critical.
Similarly, business leaders would/will sit on the Board as individuals, not representatives of their companies or their business organizations. To make a bad pun, a coalition is a QUANBO. Corporate leaders bring their knowledge and ideas to the process, and one hopes they also learn from the dialogue. They do not sit on the Board to give others money. It is their know-how that is needed -- especially with regard to: (i) the needs of employers; and (ii) practical organizational, strategic, and accountability issues. Their influence with key constituencies is another important factor in the success of a coalition.
To further abuse the British acronym, a coalition is also a QUANMSO -- indicating that it is not a math-science organization and that MSTE leaders sit on the Board as individuals who contribute and learn, not as the representatives of particular organizations and policies. If, say, the presidents of the state math and science teachers associations are on the Board -- which will hopefully be the case -- they do not serve as official representatives of their associations. If they did, they couldn't vote on anything before they got the approval of their own boards.
But here an important asymmetry arises among the three major sectors -- one which must be handled with subtlety. The MSTE folks -- teachers, supervisors, college faculty, etc. -- are different, in that they make up the "core" of the Board. This is not because the MSTE members have any larger vote on the Board nor is it because they can expect to have their opinions listened to more closely than those of other members. It is because keeping the content concentration is central to coalition philosophy and operation. To put this in a more fundamental way, the authority base for the coalition is not government, it is mathematics, science, and technology -- meaning the wisdom of best practice in the teaching of these subjects, backed up by the knowledge base developed over the centuries by the research folks, who have included some of the greatest minds in history. Used wisely, this is big medicine -- a strong base. It does require, however, that the major MSTE organizations in the state be strongly behind the coalition effort. Getting the appropriate linkage to university faculty is especially important in this respect. It can also be quite difficult.
One further comment on the mythical question, "who or what manner of beast are you?" In the United States, we may not have the language for talking about QUANGOS, but we do (or did) have a good illustrative example -- the Mathematical Sciences Education Board (MSEB) at the National Research Council. Roughly speaking:
MSEB : national reform = state coalition : state reform.
This is not a perfect proportion -- an exact analogy -- because national government has no official role in education, whereas state government assuredly does, and because to open doors in the early years the MSEB relied heavily on its location within the National Academy complex as well as the unified support of the professional mathematics and mathematics teaching organizations. But it is a useful proportion to remember, if one knows anything about the history or activities of the MSEB over the decade 1985-1995. In particular, it is helpful to bear that in mind when the going proves tough, remembering that (a) the MSEB struggled to understand its role and to explain itself to others; and (b) the report, Everybody Counts [1] which many think of as the starting point of the MSEB, appeared four years after the NRC Governing Board approved establishment of the MSEB and 3.5 years after the Board met for the first time. Of course, if one doesn't know anything about the MSEB, then this analogy does not help much.
If you are unfamiliar with that history, I would suggest that you talk with the leaders of several successful state coalitions. Ask Joan Donahue at NASSMC [2].
Watch Out for "Authority"
The authority base of a coalition gives credence to the idea and helps to get some people to listen. It does not, however, give the coalition authority over anyone or anything, except its own programs and staff. It's pretty obvious that, if a coalition is to reach most of its lofty goals, it must orbit in lofty circles part of the time, which means work closely with very influential folks in several sectors of society. But a coalition is not "in charge" of anybody or anything. Through the makeup of its Board and the wisdom of its actions and advice, it may come to have a voice of authority. Hopefully it will. But it must earn any recognition it gets. And it must use persuasion, not dogma, orders, or insistence.
One of the areas in which a successful coalition must develop a kind of authoritative image is that of coordination. Because, in order for a coalition to be able to help align the various vectors of MSTE reform, it must come to play the role of "coordinator" to some extent. But, in education, perhaps more so than any other field, every group wants to be the coordinator. As someone once said years ago, "the field of education is all chiefs and no Indians." A good maxim might be: Get all of the MSTE folks behind you, enlist the participation of major corporate leaders, plus the governor and other governmental leaders, and you'll be able to play some sort of coordinating role. In any event, one must remember that "authority" enters the equation in several ways and humility is an important ally.
Yes, But What Does It Do?
It's all well and good to say that a coalition will provide leadership, advice, information, linkages, etc. -- and to have a lovely set of transparencies or a multimedia laptop production describing these roles and goals -- but a member of the audience will always ask: "Yes, but what does the coalition do?
If the answer provided makes the coalition sound like an education project, then big trouble lies ahead. A coalition is not a project. It is a key element of the infrastructure for reform and revitalization. It is largely process. "Ugh!" says the audience. "Education is overloaded with process people." 'Tis true. But, what education does not have is a group, a steering committee if you will, to help ensure that the process of MSTE reform is substantive -- that all major projects and programs are directed toward enhancement of student learning of important content/subject matter -- a group to help assure that the many people trying to help don't inadvertently cancel one another out. This group will question whether, taken together, the 273 adopt-a-school programs in the State of Oz actually add up to anything for the kids or the state. It will ask the same question about impact of the many teacher enhancement projects in Oz. It will ask whether the projects are being held accountable for results -- and whether they are part of one consistent strategy. This group -- this coalition -- will attempt to articulate for various audiences what it thinks the shared or common vision and strategy is (or might be). It will attempt to work closely with all of the major actors.
In short, a healthy coalition will be the keeper of the vision for MSTE in the state and the informal coordinator of programs and projects undertaken by others in pursuit of the vision. (Of course, it must earn the right to be the keeper of the vision and be a coordinator.)
But one must still answer the question of what the products and services of the coalition will be. To be accepted in its role, the coalition must be (and be seen as) useful to the many others involved. A coalition must be a facilitator. Short, explanatory documents, pamphlets, and brochures -- hand outs to be used by many groups -- are another important part of coalition goods and services. Op-ed pieces, wittily written and widely disseminated, are other useful products. On and on goes the list. It's amazing how many needed materials either don't exist or are too difficult to obtain. Parents need them. The legislature needs them. Teachers need them. Businesses need them. They must exist in larger quantities, be given away, and - in the cases of many influential people -- actually placed in their hands, not mailed to them.
Out of the effort to be a service to others will flow a program based on things that are truly needed out there. The aforementioned MSEB didn't set out in the beginning to write an Everybody Counts. It just became clear along the way that such a thing was needed to pave the way for the coming out of the NCTM standards in March, 1989 [3].
A Particular State's Needs
What is it that a state needs, in spite of the fact that many active education leaders believe that "everything" is being done? Which things that need doing are strategically important?
Questions like this must be part of the daily life of a successful coalition. The vision must constantly be reshaped. It cannot all be set forth at the outset. It should be noted, however, that -- when one sets out to revitalize an existing coalition -- the question of what needs it is trying to meet had better have a fairly clear answer. Revitalization efforts have to overcome the images in people's minds of the (probably) less that overwhelming coalition that is being revitalized. Here are some needs that have been cited in the discussions thus far:
These will all need further clarification and discussion, but do seem to suggest some interesting focal points. The last bullet describes a need which might provide a starting point for a coalition's revitalization by giving it the imprimatur of the Governor. The Education Summit brought to center stage nationwide the need for strong, state-based coalitions.
Which brings us to an important point. The discussions of these items must all take into account the existence and role of any Business Coalition for Education Reform (BCER) affiliates in your state. The BCER also brings together the business, education, and policy communities. [5]
Of course, all of the discussions must also take into account the difficulty that will be faced in convincing all of the strong players that a coalition of the type we are discussing is truly needed. This means that any and all descriptions of why it is needed must be thought through carefully and described well.
The Big Three
It is important to get certain things clear, but not get hung up on too many details. If a revitalization effort is to be launched, it must be based on three things:
It is hoped that these can be arrived at and blessed by your coalition's members. Then one simply gets going, recognizing that coalition building is a formative process.
Build It and They Will Come
I have no idea what Yogi Berra thought about the movie, "Field of Dreams", but I can imagine that, in response to the great line, "Build it and they will come! ", he might have said:
"Yeah. They'll come, after it's paid for. "
This piece of indirection is intended to introduce the all-important topic of the financial resources needed to start and run a coalition. This has forced many coalitions in their early years to look more like projects than they ought to. The reason is simple: People will give you money to do projects or to do good, but not to help either projects or a system do well. Most funders also have a sort of religious belief that education can be fixed by working on the nuts and bolts, in spite of the mountain of evidence that shows that the large-scale impact of investment in classroom and building level projects is very small. A coalition therefore faces a particularly difficult problem with finances, because -- by its nature -- it is concerned with the big picture, the larger system. A coalition is not an implementation agent per se. A coalition exists to help the implementation agents, and stimulate the creation of new ones where needed. If it does its job well, it should become the principal intellectual nerve center for MSTE reform in its state -- the keeper of the overall, long term strategy. Furthermore, granted that a coalition may need to do some project-like things in its early years in order to survive, it should try to (a) keep these in the area of products and services for the other players; and (b) learn to sell vision and strategy themselves.
The money will follow if the vision is there.
Addendum -- Assorted Questions
Tacked on at the end here are a few questions that it seemed important not to lose.