Public Education Network

1. Public Education Network Every day, in every community, every child in America benefits from a quality public education. Pennsylvania Education Policy & Leadership ConferenceMarch 29, 2007 To build public demand and mobilize resources for quality public education for all children through a national constituency of local education funds and individuals.

2. Public Education Network Public Education Network (PEN) is a national organization of local education funds (LEFs) and individuals working to improve public schools and build citizen support for quality public education in low-income communities across the nation.

3. A Powerful Base of Local Education Funds International Mexico • La Casa de La Ciencia (reaches 1 million children) Peru • Foro Educativo (reaches 6 million children) Philippines • Synergeia Foundation (reaches 300,000 children) United States • 82 members in 34 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico • 11 million children • 1,600 school districts • 16,000+ schools • 7 of the top 10 cities • 17 of the top 25 cities • Key states of: Florida, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, North Carolina, Texas, Ohio, and California

4. A Constituency of One Million Individuals • 850,000 individuals across LEF communities • 150,000 from PEN’s online activists • 100,000 volunteers donate 1.5 million hours annually totaling $25 million dollars

5. PEN History From Projects to Systemic School Reform 1983 Public Education Fund Created by The Ford Foundation 19831991 Test the viability of Community-Based School Reform 19911995 • Five Interrelated Policy Areas • School Finance • School Governance • Education Leadership • Curriculum and Assessment • Schools and Communities 19961999 20002005 Ten-Point Framework • Commitment • Standards and Outcomes • Assessments • Accountability • School Based Management • Good Teachers • School Readiness • School Community Links • Technology • Public Engagement Public Engagement PEN’s Theory of Action Technical Assistance for Capacity Building Transformation and Growth Systemic School Reform (Building the Base)

6. Resource Power of the Network • Raise roughly $200 million annually to improve public schools and increase student achievement • Raised nearly $4 billion to date for quality public education • Invested over $1.5 billion in teacher quality • Donated over $2.5 billion in volunteer time

7. Civic Power of the Network • Leveraged roughly $13 billion in public dollars by supporting local bond and tax referenda, state and local budget increases, and litigation • Changed the composition and improved the quality of school boards in 50 school districts • LEF boards convene educators, corporations, philanthropies, and policy and public officials to build common ground

8. Independent of their school districts Professionally staffed with boards reflective of its community Work in high-poverty areas (urban and rural) Committed to whole system reform, to ensure a high quality education for all children Local Education Funds (LEFs) What is an LEF?

9. LEFs Advocate Accountability Involvement Advocates Improvement Resources Advocates PEN members advocate for excellence in public education —they are independent organizations that work with public schools to make a difference for all students. Accountability PEN members advocate for accountability—they expect measurable results from all those who participate in local public education. Improvement PEN members advocate for improvement—they encourage innovative practices and programs that make public education better. Involvement PEN members advocate for community involvement—they help put the public in public education. Resources PEN members generate resources—they facilitate investment in public education from private, public, and philanthropic sources.

10. LEFs Work • To build infrastructure • To build leadership • To build knowledge • To build momentum for innovation

11. Outcomes of LEF Work • Establish a positive environment for reform • Build school community capacity • Create long-term outcomes for youth, families, and communities

12. Outcomes of LEF Work • Establish a positive environment for reform • Public confidence • Committed school and community actors • Shared agenda • Cross-constituency alliances • High-quality ideas

13. Outcomes of LEF Work • Build school community capacity • District receptivity to ideas from outside • Policies and programs aligned with high-quality ideas • Reach and depth of implementation • Adequate resources equitably distributed • Coordinated services • High-quality school leadership and staff

14. Outcomes of LEF Work • Create long-term outcomes for • youth, families, and communities • Improved student achievement • Economic development • Improved conditions for families • Equity of opportunity and conditions

15. PEN’s Model of Public Engagement • Public responsibility is a means to lasting policy change • With public support, leaders and policies have staying power, and school improvement can work • Public responsibility is an end in itself in a democracy • LEFs were charged with inspiring and equipping their communities to take on three policy areas: • Standards and accountability • Schools and communities • Teacher quality

16. PEN’s Model of Public Engagement Who is “the community”? • Civic Leaders • Superintendents, school boards, mayors, council members, business leaders, labor leaders, state officials • Higher education • The Public-at-Large • Grassroots participants in community dialogues • Leadership trainees • Professional Service Providers • Community-based organizations, health-service providers, police departments, etc. • School principals, central-office staff, teachers

17. PEN’s Policy InitiativesUsing Public Engagement to Reform our Public Schools Types of Results • Policy changes enacted • Practice changes achieved • Civic support gained from “grasstops” and grassroots • New ways of working—collaborating, listening to the public voice—adopted by other organizations • In Mobile, public responsibility grew and led to policy and practice change within 3 years • In many other sites, public responsibility grew and may lead to future policy change

18. PEN’s Policy InitiativesUsing Public Engagement to Reform our Public Schools Policy Changes Enacted • Election results • Portland school board: defeat of anti-tax slate, election of candidates with LEF ties • Durham and Mobile bond issue • Programs addressing the achievement gap • West Virginia’s HB 4669 • Durham Public Schools’ formal commitment • Mobile’s accountability system for school results • New policies on teacher hiring and induction in Seattle and the District of Columbia • Paterson school board resolution supporting community schools

19. PEN’s Policy InitiativesUsing Public Engagement to Reform our Public Schools Practice Changes Achieved • Services delivered under Schools and Community: • 19 Community Learning Centers running in Lincoln • Aspects of community schools in place in 9 Lancaster schools • Providence After-School Alliance, with Wallace Foundation support, extending services citywide • Opportunities for teachers in New York and Chattanooga, planned under this initiative, grew with other philanthropic support

20. PEN’s Policy InitiativesUsing Public Engagement to Reform our Public Schools Civic Support Gained: Grasstops • As LEF board members, civic leaders learned about public engagement as a strategy • Professional service providers and community organizations convened to work together • ACORN entered the education field in DC and NJ • Universities joined in the work in Chattanooga, Durham, Lancaster, Lincoln, and New York • Local philanthropy began to support community schools (Lancaster, Lincoln) and community engagement (Paterson, Seattle)

21. PEN’s Policy InitiativesUsing Public Engagement to Reform our Public Schools Civic Support Gained: Grassroots • Wider public participation in the discourse • Participants in community dialogues expressed their views in Chattanooga, DC, Durham, Mobile, New York, Paterson, Pennsylvania, Portland, Seattle, and West Virginia • Discussions were civil and rested on a norm of mutual respect—conditions not always present in these communities • Community members gathered and reported data in DC, Mobile, and Paterson

22. PEN’s Policy InitiativesUsing Public Engagement to Reform our Public Schools A New Way of Working Modeled • LEFs join the civic infrastructure • Seattle’s school district and union have tried to adopt the LEF’s approach to public dialogue • Paterson community organizations are more inclined to work together and to listen to community views • West Virginia leaders attended the LEF’s Education Summit, listening to citizens

23. PEN’s Scholars’ ForumUsing Public Engagement to Reform our Public Schools PEN’s Scholars’ Forum: Why PEN’s scholars’ forum on public engagement and public education reform attempts to build the field. PEN convened this forum because • Public engagement must be a prerequisite, not an afterthought, of school reform. It is critical to the sustainability of reform efforts. • Yet the literature on public engagement is episodic and not well-developed. Public engagement work by community-based organizations has been little studied. • PEN is well positioned to elevate public engagement as a critical element of systemic public education reform.

24. PEN’s Scholars’ ForumUsing Public Engagement to Reform our Public Schools PEN’s Scholars’ Forum: Who • The nation’s top researchers into a Scholars’ Forum on public engagement in public education reform. • The Forum’s 30 members represent many of the country’s foremost experts in public engagement, including professors from education, sociology, political science, and anthropology as well as community-based researchers and practitioners.

25. PEN’s Scholars’ ForumUsing Public Engagement to Reform our Public Schools PEN’s Scholars’ Forum: How Strategies: • Publish a reader that lays out the landscape and analyzes the state of the field, including evidence of effectiveness. • Mount new research studies to examine critical, unanswered questions in the field. • Bring visibility to public engagement strategies in the arenas of academia, philanthropy, policy, and education reform.

26. PEN’s Scholars’ ForumUsing Public Engagement to Reform our Public Schools PEN’s Scholars’ Forum: RESULTS Outcomes: • PEN will have a robust body of work on the topic of public engagement and education reform. • Public engagement for public education reform will be a field of study that continues to be sustained and supported by the nation’s top universities. • The body of research coming out of PEN’s Scholars’ Forum will inform the work of LEFs and other advocates and the crafting of education policy.

27. Building a Constituency For Public Education

28. Building the Campaign • Expansion of the LEF network • Research • Public engagement initiatives • NCLB hearings • Civic Index

29. The Campaign Goal Build a constituency of individuals that use their voices and their votes to achieve the goal of quality education for every child.

30. Focus Groups • We hosted 20 individual focus groups/triads with over 130 different individual respondents across the demographic spectrum. • Groups were held in Ohio, Texas, California, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.

31. What We Learned People Believe • EVERY child deserves a quality public education at a good public school – not every child has access. • EVERY child can learn. • EVERY person in the community has a ROLE to play – although people say parents, teachers, and students are most involved and are most responsible. • LOCAL elected officials are accountable for quality public schools.

32. What People Say About Education • Every child deserves a quality public education, but not every child is receiving one. • Every child can learn. • Everyone in a community – not just parents – has a ROLE to play. • Local elected officials are accountable for the quality of public schools.

33. 2006 Education Poll Results • Public education is the number one concern among registered voters, along with the war in Iraq. • 62% percent of voters say that candidates are not focusing enough on the issue of public education. • 57% of Americans are frustrated and concerned about public schools.

34. Call to Action & Platform • Learn what you can do to demand quality public schools • Vote for quality public education • Act by demanding change in public education by engaging in GKGS activities

35. 2006 Review Built the campaign brand Launched the web site in late August Completed Give Kids Good Schools Week - 200 events in 25 states and DC - 40 LEFS and 16 partners participated Reached 60 million people via: - earned and paid media - PSAs - GiveKidsGoodSchools.org

36. Give Kids Good SchoolsWeb Site Statistics Web traffic highlights (6 months after launch) • 40,000+ visitors • 200,000+ page views • 5,700+ e-advocates • 4,000+ orders for free materials • 1,500+ pledge signatures Advocacy emails sent • Average open rate is 25% (industry avg 2%)

37. Give Kids Good Schools Week in 2006 Signed Proclamations: Mobile, AL Denver, CO District of Columbia Evansville, IN Michigan Lincoln, NE Houston, TX Bridgeport, CT

38. Public Service Announcement

39. Public Service Announcement

40. 2006 PSA Placements

41. 2006 Media Coverage

42. Paid Media in 2006

43. Wrapping Up • PEN conducted years of research to develop the campaign. • The call to action platform is how PEN engages activists in the campaign. • The media partnerships have been invaluable to helping the campaign reach more than 60M Americans. • Developed a strong policy agenda to activate constituents • 2007 promises to be even more successful with new web upgrades and successful partnerships.

44. Contact Us Campaign Hotline (202) 628-GKGS or info@givekidsgoodschools.org Chrystal Morris National Campaign Manager (202) 628-7460 Cmorris@publiceducation.org Emily Reynolds National Campaign Associate (202) 628-7460 Ereynolds@publiceducation.org

45. Public Education Network Every day, in every community, every child in America benefits from a quality public education. To build public demand and mobilize resources for quality public education for all children through a national constituency of local education funds and individuals.