From the Laurel Group Newsletter.....

At the end of March, Susannah Malarkey (Executive Director of the Technology Alliance), Ken Myer (President and CEO of the WSA), and John Drescher (Executive Director of TechNet Northwest) engaged in a nearly two week long email discussion about what they see as the crucial issues that might impact the business and technology communities in the Puget Sound.

The major issues that Susannah, Ken, and John tackled were far ranging and included discussion about educating the Washington workforce of today and tomorrow; international trade, and technology driven policy topics.

We are fortunate to have such strong organizations in the region like the Technology Alliance, WSA, and TechNet. Many thanks for their time and insight.
Susannah Malarkey
Coincidentally, I spent the morning at a conference in Olympia, hosted by Superintendent of Public Instruction Terry Bergeson, entitled “Creating an Extraordinary Mathematics Education in the State of Washington.” It was predominantly K-12 math types—teachers, curriculum specialists, principals—but it also included folks from colleges of education who prepare teachers, some school board members, and a few business people. The entire group was about 125 folks-who-care-about-math from across the state. (One observer of the process noted in a breakout I attended that the only key interest group entirely absent were the students, even though this is spring break for some.) Governor Gregoire gave the opening keynote and exhorted us to really focus on the alignment in math instruction between K-12 and higher education. If these two silos could get together with a cohesive plan around math preparation she promised she “would be the mouthpiece” for it. She knows, as all math educator types also know, that the state spends literally millions each year in “remediation” at the community college and university levels because so many of our students are not ready to do college level math when they graduate from high school. If we could fix this, we would have a lot more money to spend on other urgent areas, and we would also end up with a lot more scientists and engineers. ( Not surprisingly, completion of pre-calculus is a big predictor of who becomes an engineering or science major.)

Currently, Washington only requires its students to complete two years of high school math—among the lowest group of states in the nation. The TA’s collaborative effort with other business and labor groups (including the WSA) is called the College and Work Ready Agenda (www.collegeworkready.org) and is pushing for 4 years of math and at least the completion of Algebra II for high school graduation. Why? Because we know that students simply aren’t ready for college or the workforce without it.

So, how are some of our legislators spending their time in Olympia this session? Arguing over the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL), a 10th grade test that measures, at best, 9th grade math abilities but will be used to determine high school graduation. Some legislators want to toss it out, before it even has gone into effect, and replace it with “end-of-course” multiple choice tests that each of the 297 school districts would select and administer. Those who hate the WASL think this will help fix our math problem. But of course, changing the assessment will not make our kids more successful.  And the rest of the world is not waiting for us to catch up while we fight over exams. Yes, we need to help our kids succeed, but that means improving our math instruction so they actually possess the knowledge and skills they will need when they leave high school, not grabbing for an off-the-shelf test with little study or thought behind it in the hopes that more students will score passing grades and therefore allow us to usher them out the door.

There are things that CAN make a difference for students: improving and aligning the curriculum, improving teacher preparation, improving ongoing professional development for current teachers, increasing rigor, changing the culture of schools to focus on student success, engaging kids in more hands-on learning, increasing the transparency of what happens in school so parents can be more engaged and teaches more accountable, smarter use of technology---these changes will have a real, positive effect, but lowering the bar sure won’t.

And–hello people!!—our kids have to compete with the best and the brightest from around the world. Governor Gregoire has really steeped herself in education issues since she took office. She admits that she was all about jobs at first but quickly figured out that we were not producing a qualified workforce for 21st century jobs in Washington State. Like most of us, she was shocked by data that revealed 3 out of 10 Washington 9th graders were not graduating from high school, and that we were 36th out of 50 states in the production of bachelor’s degrees (38th in producing bachelors in science and engineering). This is data the Technology Alliance began sharing 7 years ago, but she was among the first to say with real vehemence–“we are going to fix this.” Trained as a teacher herself, she is a quick study and is impatient to see the recommendations of her nearly two-year long Washington Learns process begin to bear fruit. Some progress is being made this session, but we have a long way to go.

The WASL stuff is an unfortunate side show to what the real discussion needs to be. How can we create a world class education system in this state? How can we help more kids be successful? There are still more questions than answers about this but Mike Riley, Superintendent of Bellevue Public Schools has spent the past 11 years transforming Bellevue into a system that works better than most. He has a lot to tell us. Happy to share some of what he has learned if you guys are interested and happy to discuss more about College and Work Ready Agenda and how to get more folks on board along with any other issues this thread raises for you.

John Drescher
Artificially lowering an already low standard for math success will further shrink an already inadequate high-skilled labor pool from which the Microsofts, T-Mobiles, F5 Networks, Infospaces and Amazons of the world are relying upon for business growth.  Moving them along will not get them any closer to filling the thousands of Northwest engineering jobs from these and other local companies that go perennially unfilled. 

Our TechNet Northwest member companies, even our smaller ones, sell worldwide.  The global economy is not a hollow phrase to them, but an everyday reality.  Most of what comes with this is remarkably positive.  For with a more prosperous world come more opportunities in which to sell our goods - be they red apples or computer operating systems.  And the corresponding by-product of increased political stability through increased interconnectedness of the world economy is another, rarely mentioned bonus.  But with these overwhelming benefits come the corresponding responsibility of our leaders to make sure we are equipped to compete in this marketplace.  Susannah makes it clear, that despite some good local efforts, too few recognize the significance of this problem to our longer-term prospects.  Perhaps Bill Gates put it best in his recent Senate testimony, “We simply cannot sustain an economy based on innovation unless our citizens are educated in math, science and engineering.”

To this end, in July, Microsoft will co-host its second annual two-day conference for Northwest area K-12 math and science instructors with the Department of Education and TechNet.  Around 200 teachers will learn from leading national teachers best practices in the teaching of math and science.  A bi-partisan participation of federal legislators will give remarks and support.  This is only a part, a small part of the solution to this educational dilemma, but there are those who recognize the problem for what it is.  Our aim is to make more government leaders recognize this too.



Ken Myer
Great comments.  Well…not surprisingly…. all of us agree there is much we should do to improve our state’s K-12 education system --- particularly when it comes to expectations about math skills.  Our member companies need all kinds of skills to grow --- technical, marketing, sales, operations, administrative, etc. and it’s obvious that Washington’s kids won’t be able to compete for any of these jobs unless they have the necessary skills. 

The particular challenge is in finding skilled local talent for the core technical jobs in our industry.  These jobs will be filled by students who graduate with four year science and technology degrees and our kids won’t get these jobs unless they understand what minimum math requirements are needed as an entry ticket to the college degrees AND they get energized and committed to building their math skills.  It’s a push-pull equation.  We know that two years of math is simply not enough to cover the bases required for getting a four year technical degree, but we also have to recognize that no matter what our standards are --- kids have to be fired up to pursue careers in the technical industries. 

It’s great to see the support of Governor Gregoire for an education agenda --- especially one that in this legislative session provides additional capacity for “high demand” seats at colleges and universities.  We are very supportive of the College and Work Ready Agenda and as far back as 1998 drove the message very hard about the need for more capacity in the four year system for computer scientists and engineers.  It looks good for this legislative session but I think we all share a concern that the supply – demand gap is still far out of balance.  Coming to terms with this as a state is going to be hard work. 

Back to the push-pull comment.  While we push to make sure the broader community understands that math skills are central to the technical jobs in our industries, we need to find ways to pull kids, parents, and teachers into the opportunities of our industry. It’s an incredibly exciting place to be --- with huge rewards personally and professionally.   I know there is a piece of the College and Work Ready Agenda that involves public outreach but I think it’s going to take more than that.  What do you think?  What are the top three ideas you have for how we can get kids energized about careers in the technology industry? 

Susannah Malarkey
My number one idea is help students re-define success.

I have been thinking more and more about the role peers play in how kids do in school, how they see themselves, what they think their possibilities are, and what their aspirations are to become. We focus so much on parents, and they are important, but no parent tells a kid "Don't take the hard math classes. Why are you studying? What, are you some kind of a geek?" No-- it is peers who say that kind of thing. Parents may be uninvolved but it is the rare parent who tells a kid to NOT try in school.

Kids want to fit in and success means being accepted by whatever group you are in. Peers define what success looks like. On Monday when I was at the math conference a teacher described how nearly all of his AP calculus and physics students come to the tutorial after school but not one of his students come from his "Math Essentials" class. (These are students who have failed the WASL and are taking a review class to try to pass.) He insists he encourages them but they all say they are "too busy" to come. Probably more of these low performers have to work or take care of siblings; perhaps he unconsciously sends mixed signals to these students.  

But the main reason for the difference, I believe, is that in that top performing peer group, excelling is the norm. In the bottom performing group, asking for help or going to an after school review session says you are a loser. This is very powerful stuff and requires adults to somehow re-frame experiences for low performing kids so that they can equate effort with success. It is the story of Jaime Garcia in "Stand and Deliver" where he got his traditionally low performing Hispanic students from LA to be a peer group and to define themselves differently-- and they all passed the AP physics test. That is true secret sauce and we need lots more of it.   

Correction--sorry-- it was actually Jaime Escalante who inspired "Stand and Deliver" and it was calculus---but you get my drift.

I think it is also a key reason why Trish Millines-Dziko is so successful with her African American students at the Technology Access Foundation--she leads and inspires those kids but also creates an environment where the peer norm is to excel and where students encourage each other. She creates a safe place for students to define being cool as being tech savvy.

Ken Myer
I think you are spot on that kids take so many cues from their friends that if a remedial course in math essentials is viewed as punishment ---- or a job in high tech is viewed as “nerdy” ---- we’ll never get the hearts of kids to join the industry.  We have to find a way (through public awareness campaigns, field trips, visiting speakers, etc.) for kids to see that there are some very cool jobs in high tech that are behind the music – games, instant messaging,  social networking sites etc. that they really enjoy experiencing.  This is about bringing to life the interesting people, jobs, and companies behind the curtain which make all the cool technology possible.   I am convinced if kids see behind the curtain of the tech industry early enough to get excited about the possibilities --- that many will see math class in a different light. 



John Drescher
Education's vital importance to the future success of our technology industry in our flattened global economy is without question.  And while we are right to do all we can to make math, science and engineering cool for our children, as important as these efforts are - the elephant in the room that stands in the way of the fundamental educational change our age requires, are teachers' unions. 

For if their interests were foremost aligned with securing a top-notch education for our kids, as opposed to placing barriers to innovative change - the schools could begin to more readily produce employees equipped for the 21st century information age.

As it stands - the process to remove unsuccessful teachers is enormously difficult and slow and only the rarest principals have the fortitude and courage to fight these necessary battles.  Good teachers cannot help but see it and be disheartened, and most importantly, kids suffer.  Parents who see their children being undereducated have few, if any choices.  If they are well off, perhaps they choose private school, but many cannot afford that - so there is a Russian roullette quality to whether kids will even have the chance to learn the basic skills needed to succeed in these fields. 

Until the time where principals and administrators are equipped to hold teachers immediately accountable while rewarding them for their success, we will be fighting an uphill battle.  Imagine if private industry would have to work with the same hiring and equal pay constraints of public education - it simply would not work - and it is no wonder that our schools are not keeping up.

Even as these more fundamental issues are addressed, we still have ways to effect change in other areas.  FIRST, a TechNet company from New England, holds thousands of robotic competitions all around the country in a successful effort to bring excitement and competition to engineering pursuits, as I once enjoyed with basketball.  It is this sort of effort, as Ken lays out well, that can help to begin to change the mindset that leads too many from even considering these areas of pursuit.

I look forward to diving into the subjects of trade, worker visas and more should we have time.

Susannah Malarkey
One last comment on education before we move onto the internet taxation thread---
I agree with John that teacher's unions have not made schools better for kids, and in fact have hurt the reputation and profession of teaching.  But there is a ray of hope--differential pay for teachers in high demand subjects and "pay for performance" are proposals that are getting more and more traction; Governor Gregoire has spoken out in favor of both. We will see how far we get, but at least it is on the table.

A lesser known "elephant" that contributes to poor school environments is poor governance because of the quality, makeup and process of local school boards. Just think how dysfunctional the Seattle School Board has been and how hard it is to attract talented people to even run for school boards. A superintendent cannot implement effective change without a stable and supportive school board, and the superintendent revolving-door-problem is not conducive to school improvement.  We really need to re-think school boards--they are an anachronism of another age and seem to --more often than not-- derail the best efforts for real education reform. But it isn't the whole answer either. Mike Riley has been at it 11 years in Bellevue with a supportive and stable board and he would be the first to point out that his district, while high performing, still has a long way to go. Change is difficult and K-12 is obviously a system that is highly resistant to change.

However, I don't believe that teachers unions or even school boards are "the problem" and if we got rid of them our schools would be instantly fixed.  Look at U.S. private schools. They get to pick their students; they mostly have highly supportive parents and bright kids; they do not have to worry about teacher's unions or serving special needs kids or meddling school boards---and yet they are really not all that innovative most of the time. Their students tend to perform fairly well on standardized tests, but most of the schools are remarkably unchanged from 50 years ago. Technology, which has radically changed the workplace almost everywhere else, is mostly seen as a distraction from "real" work in school (e.g., kids IM-ing and texting instead of studying), Teachers still lecture, kids read textbooks and answer questions at the end of the chapter, they jump through hoops to get rewarded, and most of them cannot wait to finally escape a fairly prescribed and pointless place to a world of choice and adventure where they get to finally start making a difference in the world. There are some good private schools, and some good classrooms in mediocre private schools, but considering how many more challenges public schools have than private schools, I find it frankly shocking that private schools don't do a much better job than most of them do. 

When you visit a school like High Tech High in San Diego--a public charter school that that gets virtually all of its kids into 4 year colleges even though their student body is picked by lottery and comes from all over San Diego--you know that it CAN be done, and done well. At High Tech High, kids work in teams and do big projects, such as building robots, inquiry-based science, and math as a matter of course, learn to present what they have learned to others in a clear and cogent way, have adult mentors, do meaningful internships, and feel connected to the adult world of work. Staff are engaged and motivated and every family gets visited at least once a year by the teacher-mentor who the student meets as a freshman and keeps for four years to help guide the student and help plan their future. The use of technology is integrated in a thoughtful way into every subject. Sports are for fun and for exercise and not the main focus of school. In other words, it is really, really different from the typical high school, even the private ones. Oh--and HTH kids do extremely well on standardized tests and go on to excellent colleges. Every kid in this country deserves that experience--to be in a school that is actually dedicated to helping each student become a successful young adult; so very few of them get it. 

So the bottom line is we do know best practices. We just don't do it. Unions and school boards aren't helping. Lack of charter school legislation isn't helping. But I am hopeful that there are going to be big breakthroughs ahead. The alternative is just too depressing.

John Drescher
Great discussion thread on education. 

Before I leave it, the key it seems in all of this - is transformation.  How do we change the way we are educating kids to prepare them for the global economy that is with us today.  Our organizations and the companies we represent, and we as individuals need to do all we can to make incremental improvements to our public schools.  But a transformation is what this age demands - one that has a carrot and stick component where innovation and excellence of our educators is expected and rewarded, and where mediocrity is rooted out.  One where there is greater emphasis on math, science, and engineering and a willingness to consider all good ideas as to how to improve its popularity and heighten its importance.  The entrenched interests against change are well-organized, and powerful.  Yet so long as our focus remains on the kids – giving them every tool to succeed in the global marketplace, we have a fighting chance for rallying legislators around meaningful transformation.  Some private and charter schools and new innovations like High Tech High in San Diego are raising the bar in this regard and providing models for success, but students should not have to rely on family wealth or a lottery ticket to get the top-flight education each deserves.  It should be just as accessible to kids in White Center as those in Medina. 

Regulation/Free Trade

A few years ago I went to a technology conference in DC of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners or (NARUC).  And after a couple of days sitting through discussion panels and speeches by various state regulators, if I had to sum up the conference in a sentence, it would read “Technology is moving so fast, we need to move equally fast in regulating it.”  The anxiety was palpable that somehow the internet, and all its innovations was out of control and had to be captured and slowed.  Yet it is because the internet has been largely untaxed and unregulated that it has grown to the vital place it holds in most Americans’ lives.  I can barely remember the time I balanced a checkbook with pen and ink, looked at a newspaper’s classified ads, or called a broker to make a stock transaction.  We take the efficiencies of the internet for granted now, but do so at our own peril. 

The federal internet tax moratorium that was so instrumental in the internet’s growth, expires later this year, about the same time that fast-track trade authority runs out.  And for the first time in decades, it is not at all clear that either of these crucial pieces of legislation will be extended.  Fast track simply allows the administration to negotiate free trade agreements free from congressional meddling via pet amendments.  Agreements are now complete with Peru, Colombia and South Korea, and one with Panama is apparently close to complete.  Both of these anti-regulatory, pro-growth measures face an uphill battle.  Despite historically low unemployment and an economy that has essentially grown non-stop for the past 24 years, the new congress appears to reflect some of the anxiety around technology’s transforming change.

So we stand at a crossroads.

Do we turn the simplicity of internet transactions into a Byzantine puzzle of tax codes that would deter even the most intrepid budding entrepreneur, or do we acknowledge that a tax free, relatively regulatory free internet has spurred unprecedented innovation and productivity and leave it to continue its remarkable journey from which we all have greatly benefited.

And on trade do we recognize that the best way to model freedom to the rest of the world is to negotiate agreements that open markets to our goods and at the same time help institute basic standards that we could not put in place without trade promotion authority?  Or do we shrink in the face of the nightly caveman rhetoric of Lou Dobbs tapping into irrational anxiety around spurious claims that free trade is robbing us of our very way of life?  It is because these anti-tax, free trade measures appear to be losing the popularity they once enjoyed is why organizations like ours need to make our voices heard in support of them.

One of the great accomplishments of the latter half of the 20th century and into this, is the extension of freer markets all over the world.  From China to Chile, India to Israel, and Mexico to Morocco - goods and capital flow more freely than ever before.  The net effect is a world moving increasingly out of poverty, birthing middle classes where none were before, and bringing unprecedented prosperity to the countries with the strongest rule of law, freest markets, and best educated workforce.

Since NAFTA was crafted in the first President Bush's term and ratified under and with the support of President Clinton, freer trade has enjoyed a shaky but nonetheless bi-partisan majority.  But in the context of increasingly strident rhetoric from both politicians and pundits this consensus is slipping, witnessed by the single-vote passage of CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement) in the last Congress.  And now while we await the approval of a handful of bi-lateral agreements and face the renewal of fast track trade authority in June - the common sense belief of extending freer markets may no longer hold a working majority in Congress, despite overwhelming empirical evidence that these agreements, while creating some disruption, have lifted all parties to them.  Who can forget the dramatic CNN debate over free trade with Ross Perot and Al Gore?  To my mind, it was Al Gore's finest hour. 

The strange bipartisan bedfellows against free trade (the likes of Buchanan and Perot) are certainly tapping into legitimate anxiety about what the future holds.  For like technology, freer trade represents dynamism and change.  To the most innovative and efficient go the spoils, while all consumers win with the decreased cost of goods that result.  

In a recent study by Brink Lindsey of the Cato Institute, 17.8 million net new private-sector jobs in the U.S. were created from 1993 to 2002. Yet, to reach that number, some 327.7 million jobs were created and another 309.9 million lost. In other words, for every one net new job created, there were 18.4 new job additions offset by 17.4 job losses.

While these facts do not diminish the very real pain from old industry plant closings - the evidence is clear that the gains to us all outweigh trying to keep all the jobs of today as they are in perpetuity.
Just think of what today's world would look like if we had pursued a policy of stasis through the decades, of trying to keep all current jobs in place, despite the cost or dynamic market pressures of capitalism. Would we have the automobile, the airplane, the computer?

There can be no doubt that open markets and the free flow of goods raises living standards and has the byproduct of bringing the world more closely together around shared goals.  With protectionist rhetoric reaching a crescendo, now is the time to make our voices most clear.  Free trade benefits us all.



Susannah Malarkey
It is that high rate of job churn that make American tummies tend to churn. A dynamic economy is great as long you have the education and skills to adapt and be successful in whatever the world throws at you.  (Maybe the "giant sucking sound" Ross was hearing was actually people taking audible big deep breaths trying to calm their fears about the future?) The rate of change is frankly scary, especially when you feel like your skills are becoming rapidly outdated and you still have kids to raise.

How to help people embrace free trade? Help them feel confident that they and their children will have the skills and abilities to successfully participate in a rapidly changing future.
We have already discussed K-12 and traditional higher ed. But it also means as a society investing in adult education that helps displaced workers re-train for family wage jobs, which means more than the typical 60 or 90 day training program most seem to get. In a dynamic economy there will be many displaced workers, as you so clearly point out, so we need to acknowledge that and help people re-invent themselves instead of declaring them obsolete. 

One last thought on the trade issue---I find myself often mentioning to people that trade--by its very definition--is not just a one-way proposition. China and India, with over 2 billion people, have a whole lot of potential customers for U.S. products. We just have to figure out what they want to buy from us and make it compelling for them. Boeing has done it with airplanes. Starbucks is doing it with coffee. (It also really helps if people actually pay for the products they use, as Microsoft knows all too well.) That said, these are great markets for us and, as an internationally oriented state, Washington is well-positioned if we can have federal regulations that open up and support free trade. You are right, John, it is not an R vs. D issue. Fundamentally, it is fear vs. opportunity. 



Ken Myer
Given that we are still in the early stages of leveraging the internet to purchase goods and services across borders --- I sense we are just at the beginning of very interesting discussions regarding free trade.  

Most people think of free trade as it relates to the physical movement of goods across borders.  Business across the interest brings an entirely new paradigm about world commerce.   Electronic transactions don’t just bring consumers choice and convenience, but it also brings them an entirely new sets of products and services to choose from, new cultures and contacts to interact with, and frankly, it has the potential to threaten existing channels of distribution and keepers of cultural norms.   It will be interesting to see this story unfold and hopefully it brings individuals and nations together in the same way it brings my sixteen year old friend Jimmy together with his pals across the world on an Xbox 360.