The William T. Grant Foundation’s Education Portfolio and Priorities

The William T. Grant Foundation’s Education Portfolio and Priorities

Robert C. Granger, Ed.D.

Materials prepared for a meeting of the Board of the National Education Knowledge Industry Association (NEKIA) Washington, DCNovember 19, 2004

William T. Grant Foundationwww.wtgrantfoundation.org

Overview of Presentation

•Introduction to the William T. Grant Foundation

•Overview of WTG current portfolio of education-related grants

•Our collective challenge and some “realities”

•Possible next steps for NEKIA and members

William T. Grant Foundationwww.wtgrantfoundation.org 2

Snapshot of the William T. Grant Foundation

•Established in 1936.

•Consistent purpose: some variety in tactics and focus.

•$12 million in Grants/year: $ 8 million in investigator-initiated awards; $1.5 million for William T. Grant Scholars; $1.0 million for youth service and other small awards under $25,000; $1.5 million for advocacy, fellowships, special initiatives, program development.

•Senior Program Team: Ed Seidman, Rebecca Maynard, Tom Weisner, Brian Wilcox, and Bob Granger.


Mission Statement

The mission of the William T. Grant Foundation is to help create a society that values youth and enables them to reach their full potential.


Logic Model:How WTG’s grantmaking can create a society that values young people and helps them reach their full potential.

OUR GRANTMAKING IMPROVES KNOWLEDGE AND COMMUNICATION

Research

Communication

Capacity Building

SOCIAL SETTINGS1 BETTER SUPPORT2

YOUTH DEVELOPMENT

1.FamiliesPeer GroupsNeighborhoodsOrganizations (Schools, Libraries, Youth Organizations)

2.Supportive relationships

with adults and peersOpportunities for Skill

buildingOpportunities to belongPhysical and Psychological

safety

KNOWLEDGE AND COMMUNICATION HELP IMPROVE SCHOLARSHIP, POLICY, AND PRACTICE

ResearchersPolicymakersPractitionersFundersAdvocates

YOUNG PEOPLE THRIVE

Young people develop the personal and social assets that facilitate positive development.

•Physical•Intellectual•Psychological/Emotional•Social

5

Current Priorities

• Youth. Domestic U.S.; ages 8-25; special interest in vulnerable young people.

• Youth Development. Understanding how social settings such as families, organizations, and neighborhoods affect young people.

• Improving Systems, Organizations, and Programs. Understanding how to durably improve social settings.

• Adults’ Use of Evidence. Understanding how scientific evidence affects the knowledge and behavior of influential policymakers and practitioners.



Characteristics of Successful Research Proposals

A successful proposal:

• Matches our current priorities;

• Poses important questions for theory and policy practice;

• Tackles a few questions well;

• Is beyond the pilot phase;

• Moves beyond description to intervention or capitalizing on “natural” change;

• Meets some of our other special considerations; and

• Is preceded by a coherent letter of inquiry, a thoughtful and clear proposal; and a measured response to reviewer comments.

7

The Current Education Portfolio•Education-related grants are approximately 25% of our portfolio (50/200).

•54 current or recently completed Education-related grants* can be categorized as follows: after-school (23); K-12 policies and reforms (10); student motivation and involvement (6); influences of culture and family on achievement (9), and post-secondary policies and reforms (6).

*A hand-out describing these grants will be available at the meeting and also on our website.


The Current Education Portfolio (cont’d.)

• Most of our current grants are either descriptive or intervention studies looking at how a setting (school/family) affects young people.

• Very few studies are trying to understand how to intervene and improve schools or other youth organizations (examples of projects that are doing this include Hohmann and Smith; Smith and Smoll; Alexander; Hirsch; Bowen; Quint).

• No studies of how or when “influential” scholars, policymakers, and practitioners use research evidence.


The Challenge for the Future

We have considerable agreement on the features of a “good school” or a “good youth program”. But we do not know how to create such features when they do not exist.


11

A Few Realities About Our Challenge

•We know much more about how changes in policies (e.g. desegregation policies, class size) and practices (e.g. curricula, staff practices) affect young people than how changes in policy and practice affect school systems, schools, and classrooms.

•Change is unlikely without dissatisfaction with the status quo and the knowledge, skills, and resources that will support change (in short: “will” and “capacity”).

•We like to learn about new practices from persons we know or trust. Peers are powerful.


12

A Few Realities About Our Challenge (cont’d.)

•Complex problems usually demand local ownership and adaptation of possible solutions.

•Educational achievement and attainment are a function of many things including family, peer, and community influences. But schools (and especially classrooms) make a big difference.

•Educational achievement and attainment will not improve without changing the daily experiences of young people (reforms need to penetrate the classroom walls).


13

Possible Next Steps for NEKIA and Members

•Meet with grantees (we can broker)

•Submit Letters of Inquiry that pose important questions and methods up to answering those questions.

•Watch for next year’s RFP.


The William T. Grant Foundation’s Education Portfolio and Priorities

Documents

Transcript of The William T. Grant Foundation’s Education Portfolio and Priorities