In a fair society, it would be impossible to tell where the greatest minds are born. The leaders of tomorrow would be found equally to the West, North, South, and East. As it stands, a look at a map of the highest incomes in the United States gives a strong idea of which students are going to the best colleges and into the most-lucrative fields.
With the recent Supreme Court ruling striking down affirmative action, there has never been a more significant time in recent history to ensure all students are granted equal opportunities to succeed. The Raise the Bar: STEM Excellence for All Students initiative is, at least in its inception, a step in the right direction. Broadly, the initiative is designed to create and scale STEM education for students of all backgrounds from Pre-K all the way up to higher education. In its commitment to this program, our government acknowledges the importance of STEM in job creation and in our competitiveness globally. It is beyond argument that these careers are the future of our economy, but partisan lines and political agendas have put lines around who has a place in this future.
The program is designed to help create some modicum of fairness but is it designed to last? I find there are signposts of a successful program here coupled with areas for improvement. If what we can determine now nudges the course of programs like this even an inch, that will mean the difference for tens of thousands of students. What we do today will shape the innovators of the future—what we do today will determine if we are a nation that provides talent to the world or one that relies upon others to lead the way.
At the non-profit I serve, Silicon Valley Education Foundation (SVEF), our vision is clear: We’re here to make sure every student becomes a successful and productive adult. We’re dedicated to creating economic opportunity through quality education. As the demands on our workforce change, post-secondary education has become increasingly necessary for 21st century careers. From this perspective, I find good alignment between what we’re working on and this initiative from the current administration.
Let’s talk about what I think the program is getting right:
Inclusion. This one isn’t as obvious as you might think. Sure, “All Students” appears in the title, but “all’ is too often used to erase inclusivity rather than prioritize it. More important is a simple stipulation included in the initiative’s introduction that states “regardless of background.” That’s a lot to live up to, and the administration seems to understand that. They’ve reached out to political decision makers at local levels to provide guidance on how to allocate federal funding to support this initiative and they’ve partnered with Beyond100 to identify and engage groups that have been most excluded from STEM opportunities. To me that communicates the Department of Education is serious about inclusivity here.
Institutional support. At the time the Department of Education announced this initiative in December 2022, 90 organizations had made commitments to participate. And as the Department’s infosheet boasts, “over 90 organizations and even individual educators from across the country” have pledged their support. The scope here is important too. The expansive list includes national organizations and grassroots groups affecting change at local levels. This kind of transformation demands buy-in not just from the groups its meant to serve, but stakeholders at all levels. This level and diversity of support makes me optimistic for the potential here.
Clear guidelines for commitment . You’ve got to tell people how to do it! What’s more, give them a sense of what success looks like. On this point, I think the administration has done well so far. Their parameters aren’t limiting, but rather attempt to coax introspection from decision makers so that their commitment can be specific to their circumstances and capabilities. Here’s a look at the questions:
- Equity & Belonging: How does our work support ecosystems to cultivate rigorous, culturally relevant, and joyful STEM classrooms with a focus on belonging that meets the needs of underrepresented students and educators?
- Measurable Impact: How will we know and track the number of stakeholders who will be impacted by this commitment, including states, districts, schools, educators and students?
- Outcome-Oriented: How are we changing and improving the experiences of students and educators because of our work?
- Force Multiplier: How will our commitment advance impact across the STEM ecosystem?
- Transparent: How do we plan to achieve the outcomes and why do we think our approach will work?
These are great! And if admins, directors, and leaders are able to answer these questions, they have their roadmap to success. I even notice a lot of alignment between these commitments and some SVEF core values like Empower Students, Strive for Impact, and Act Together. While more oversight and expertise might be needed as groups try to scale their efforts, this is a great foundation for “Raising the Bar.”
That said, there are some gaps here. Much of this work is rallying existing groups of education activists. And I love that! We need solidarity and collective action to affect the change that we want. But, that’s just one piece of the puzzle. For profound and lasting change, initiatives like this need to activate more stakeholders than those already doing the work. Here’s what I think is needed as this initiative continues to mature:
Calls-to-action and guidelines for individual educators, parents, and local policymakers. While the infosheet mentioned the commitment of individual educators, that’s not a representative behavior. Truthfully, many well-meaning educators struggle to find ways to affect change. In this same way, many parents would like to get involved but instead don’t because they aren’t sure how to get started. A separate commitment pledge for these groups, as well as similar questions to help them orient the kind of change they want to help make will leave many feeling empowered and inspired, finally able to name their impact. Perhaps even more importantly, local policymakers might not be organized well enough around education to understand this commitment much less make it. Perhaps the initiative’s inclusion efforts will mitigate this problem, but giving this group the information and perspective they need to act would go a long way in grassroots efforts.
Provide clearer data points to communicate urgency. Maybe this was omitted in the name of “preaching to the choir” but, rather than the politically expedient language I often see around this topic, I would like to see an actual argument made. To me and many like me, the need for education reform, education equity, and economic mobility in this country is self-evident, and any work that supports these efforts is self-justifying. But, others need to see the facts laid bare before their hearts and minds are swayed. And the facts, once confronted with them, are stark and unavoidable.
Money talks. Within the context of education transformation, money can often tell the whole story. Students receive lower-quality education, fewer STEM opportunities, inadequate technologies, and under-trained teachers because their ZIP code was allocated less funding. Without funding, even the best intentions, plans, and effort can only get us so far. My “Funding Formula” is a tool that can help this initiative make [1] [2] sure no student is deprived of a prosperous future based on where they live. Let me tell you a little about it:
The Funding Formula:
Anyone who has ever worked in the school system or for government knows, the gears turn slowly, and the Raise the Bar initiative is still largely in its infancy. It wouldn’t be fair to deem it a success or a failure less than a year into its launch. However, it’s a great start, and a more ambitious education transformation plan than we’ve seen in quite some time. In that regard, I am as heartened by its potential today as I was when I first learned of it. But, like anything, there’s room for growth and improvement that can help it scale and change the minds that most need changing. With a clear communication strategy to reach hyper-local groups like teachers and parents, and a data-driven argument to convince people who need to see the numbers could sway the momentum for the long-term. Here’s hoping!