(Post originally featured on EdReformer)

This week, I joined a discussion that included some of the people that care most about education in the United States. As the person responsible for education programs in Washington, DC for Intel Corporation, I am constantly trying to find those who will help shape policy that drives change. I was reminded, however, that this road to change is bumpy and uphill.

Intel in conjunction with PBS News Hour, the Aspen Institute and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) hosted a digital town hall discussion on Education for Innovation. The event coincided with release of international assessment test (PISA) and a new U.S. STEM report from ITIF. U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) Secretary General Angel Gurria and New York Times columnist Tom Friedman participated in the discussion.

Looking at the Numbers

Out of 33 OECD countries, the U.S. came in 17th in science and 25th in math. It is clear we are stuck in 2nd gear while the rest of the OECD countries are accelerating. New to this year’s survey was Shanghai-China. And Shanghai-China beat everyone. As I scanned the various articles before the digital town hall, I was actually surprised. I was surprised that some of the experts were shocked that Shanghai did so well and by the comments about sampling and “non-representative” results. Talk about denial. Can we move on and take responsibility. Finishing in the lower half is not acceptable.

I was impressed to hear Secretary Duncan accepting the facts and calling a spade a spade. We can and must do better. And what must be by now, ground hog day discussions that I am sure have occurred over the past 25 years, is the call for higher standards, attracting and retain teachers, turning around low performing schools and developing great principals. Can we learn from other counties like Canada whose students tend to perform well regardless of their own background or the school they attend? Can we empower replicating our most successful schools nationwide?

Models that Work

One of the recommendations that came out of the ITIF report is to create 400 new STEM specialized schools. We had two examples of such schools at the digital town hall with the participation of the Olin College of Engineering (Needham, MA.) and the School of Science and Engineering Magnet (Dallas, TX). The students, teachers and faculty were very energizing and provided a glimpse of what is possible. You can also see a sense of teamwork, collaboration and energy. These are not factory models; these are student driven schools where the teachers are the key enablers. According to the ITIF report, 10% of Olin College Graduates have started a company right after graduation. Secretary Duncan said that creativity, innovation and entrepreneurs are the future. I’d like to add mentoring and community support to the roadmap of achievement.

After the event, I had an opportunity to congratulate the President of Olin College, Richard Miller. He told me that he and his wife have had every single student to their home for dinner. I went to an engineering school. It was pure cold steel and with a sink or swim approach. While talking with Dr. Miller it hit me. At the end of day, it is local leadership and communities that make education work. And quite possibly our policies will have a more limited impact than I once thought.

At the town hall, Secretary Duncan outlined a vision that I support more than ever. He said his vision is that schools need to be community centers, with a whole host of activities, particularly in disadvantaged communities.

Exposure to Quality Math and Science for All

At Intel, our view is that all students need to acquire the skills necessary for personal and professional success in the 21st-century. Some will decide to go on to colleges like Olin and into careers in technology and engineering. Some will decide they want to pursue other interests. The bottom line is that we need to expose them to a level of math and science that allows them to make an informed decision.

If we don’t, we are at risk of failing to educate the next generation of great innovators in the current U.S. school system. I took the theme of the town hall – Education for Innovation – to mean just that. We want to figure out how American students are best equip to compete with students around the world as we strive to discover life-change, society lifting innovations of the future.

Somewhere I heard a good portrayal of our US Education System -- if a student from 1910 was able to time travel to today’s classroom. It would be one of the few places they would recognize and feel at home. Pens, pencils, chalk, textbooks, backpacks and a teacher at the front of the classroom transferring information and building basic skills to a large group of students. This was a good model 100 years ago when mass communication, transportation, computers and the internet didn’t exist. Back then, content was centralized in a few places and it had to travel via people and textbooks. Today, our schools are pretty much designed the same way and for the most part we are not taking advantage of the technology that is available. Let me be clear, I am not blaming teachers, it is the system that needs to be re-visited.

Last week, I had the privilege of representing Intel at The Innovation in Education Series at the Aspen Institute hosted in Washington, DC. The main speakers were Joel Rose, CEO of the School of One in NYC,  Michael Horn, co-author of Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change How the World Learns and Blair Levin, previously the White House lead author of the National Broadband Plan.

There were three clear messages that the panelist and the audience of experts discussed:

1) We need a Moore’s law for Education – Education expenditures scale linearly, there are no efficiencies built into the system. We have spent more money in the last 20 years and yet student achievement is flat to down. We used to lead the world in the number of 25 to 34-year-olds with college degrees. Now we rank 12th among 36 developed nations. At the same time, we are in the middle of financial crisis. We have no choice, we need to get much better outcomes with less funding. Some good news is that States have taken the initiative (forty of them) to develop common k-12 standards that will prepare students for college or careers.

2) Mass customization and standardization – Imagine yourself as a 4th grade teacher. On the first day of school, you get 25 students and you have to cover some number of topics and all of the students have to get to grade level by end of the year. Let’s take math and fractions for example, some of those kids will already understand the concept, some students need a bit more practice and others are still struggling with adding numbers and are way behind. Every one of those kids is at a skill different level. As a teacher, do you prepare 25 different lessons or do you just aim for the middle? And you have the same problem with reading, writing, science and social studies not to mention the social and emotional development of the students. You can imagine the complexity and the need for some tools that can help. Here is where customization comes in.

What if you had a system that can assess and track student progress against the learning standards during the day and the teachers, parents and students can see that information. The teacher can then use that information to develop individualized learning plans. Here is where standardization comes in.

In the course of education history, some teacher somewhere has developed a good lesson plan that will help a struggling student understand fractions. The problem is that it rarely leaves that classroom or that school and forget about crossing state boundaries. Using technology we can collect, analyze and asses different teaching resources (videos, software, peer learning, tutoring) that address the specific needs of the students. We can then marry the customized student plan with a standardized learning solution. Note, I am NOT taking the teacher out of the equation, you still need their expertise to assess the solution, what we are really doing is giving teachers more tools and freeing up time to be spent where they can add the most value. This solution is already happening in the math center at School of One in NYC.

3) Value outcomes and not time – The concept is very simple, if you know the material, go on to the next level. Our funding formulas are not based on outcomes. They are based on seat time. Schools get money if the student is in the classroom occupying a seat. If the student knows the material, he/she should be able to go to the next level and the funding formula should be flexible enough to allow for that.

All of the pieces for a system redesign are there, but they are scattered and are not embraced. We need to move beyond the divisive rhetoric of charters vs. public or union vs. non-union, because we are missing the bigger picture and the system will continue to produce unacceptable results. To quote Einstein, “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”