The a16z Show - Fixing Education in America: What's Stopping Us?
Episode Date: December 6, 2024Over half of Americans live in childcare deserts, while 90% of brain development happens before the age of five. All the while, education and childcare remain among the most resistant sectors to techn...ological change. Billions of dollars have been spent, but outcomes continue to lag. Why?In this episode, we dive into the systemic issues—misaligned incentives, political resistance, and the lack of a shared vision around the purchase of an education. We also explore how technology and entrepreneurial innovation may be shifting the tide.You’ll hear from Anurupa Ganguly (Prisms), Chris Bennett (Wonderschool), Anna Edwards (Whiteboard Advisors), and a16z General Partner Jeff Jordan discuss the criticality of early childhood education, how public-private partnerships are required for scale, and how we can engage risk-averse decision-makers. Listen to learn how the next generation can reclaim the American dream. Resources: Find Jeff on Twitter: https://x.com/jeff_jordanFind Chris on Twitter: https://x.com/8ennettFind Anna on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/annakimseyedwards/Find Anurupa on Twitter: https://x.com/aganguly26 Stay Updated: Let us know what you think: https://ratethispodcast.com/a16zFind a16z on Twitter: https://twitter.com/a16zFind a16z on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/a16zSubscribe on your favorite podcast app: https://a16z.simplecast.com/Follow our host: https://twitter.com/stephsmithioPlease note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures. Stay Updated:Find a16z on YouTube: YouTubeFind a16z on XFind a16z on LinkedInListen to the a16z Show on SpotifyListen to the a16z Show on Apple PodcastsFollow our host: https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg Please note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Transcript
Discussion (0)
51% of Americans live in child care deserts.
It's a tragedy to deny a child access to high quality early childhood education.
A human's brain, 90% of it develops in the first five years of their life.
There are a few sectors in the economy that have proven to be very, very resistant to technological change.
Education is high on that list.
We tried to solve the achievement problem in the U.S. before we solve the engagement problem.
School districts and state leaders operate in a highly
political environment where taking risks is not rewarded. It's really no one's job to fix it,
and so it's not really getting fixed. I've never seen this kind of apathy. I think it's going to be
catastrophic for the United States if we don't find a way to end it. What we're seeing is that the
best way to make inroads is partnerships with the private sector and the public sector to be able
to fill in those gaps. We can get outcomes. We can get them fast. We can all take advantage of the
American dream.
There's been a lot of talk about the government recently.
But wherever you sit along the aisle, one thing that almost everyone can agree on is the desire
to set up the next generation for success, often through high-quality education or child care.
But despite increased funding toward these sectors, we're not really getting the results
that we're paying for.
We have now spent hundreds of billions of dollars and those funds are gone.
And now what?
But this is something that we need to figure out.
Because, as one of our guests says,
We are graduating generations of children who have no idea what they can do with their education.
So in today's episode, we'll explore the history of education and where technology fits into that equation.
I mean, why is it that 35 years into the modern internet, we've gained access to 5G networks, 3D printing, and augmented reality,
yet so little has changed in the way we teach.
Every year, we have the chance to rewrite how things are done.
and change the trajectory of millions. But it's a complex calculus involving federal, states,
and local government, school districts, teachers, parents, and more. So how do you make enroads
with the government and get a new product into a school or district? And what's working or broken
about the incentive system and whose job is it to fix? Plus, is risk ever rewarded? We'll explore
all this and more with founders and policy advisors who have navigated this complex system. That includes
Ana Rupa Ganguly and Chris Bennett, two founders currently trying to disrupt the status quo.
Anorupa is the founder of Prisms, a spatial learning platform that uses augmented and virtual
reality to teach math and science through physical human experiences. Chris, on the other hand,
is the co-founder of Wonder School, a platform designed to help educators build child care programs
while supporting families in locating that child care. Joining this conversation as well is
A16Z general partner Jeff Jordan, who led the investments in both Prisms and Wonder School.
Plus, Anna Edwards, co-founder of Whiteboard Advisors, a strategy consulting firm focused on,
yep, you guessed it. Education. All right, let's get started.
As a reminder, the content here is for informational purposes only, should not be taken as legal,
business, tax, or investment advice, or be used to evaluate any investment or security,
and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any A16Z fund.
Please note that A16Z and its affiliates may also maintain investments in the companies discussed
in this podcast.
For more details, including a link to our investments, please see A16C.com slash disposures.
As an outsider, it feels like education and childcare in particular has stayed pretty consistent,
despite a lot of the remainder of our world changing with technology.
And so why is it that so much of our world has changed, but maybe the classroom has not?
I think about the inconsistency that lies in just what is the purpose of an education.
if you ask the teacher over here
versus a superintendent over here
versus a chief academic officer over here
versus a chief technology officer here,
you will get a different answer from everybody.
So there isn't a consistent narrative around
is a purpose to expose kids to the jobs
of today and tomorrow's workforce
is the purpose to teach them the canon
of all the discoveries in math and science thus far
is the purpose global citizenry
such that people can make educated choices and vote
on issues pertaining to AI, the future of different advanced technologies.
What is the purpose?
And because that purpose is not clear across constituencies,
you don't have a comprehensive set of state nor national standards.
So what everyone does is we just fall back on the lowest common denominator,
which are the state assessments.
I was a math director in one of the largest systems,
and all we did was drive kit outcomes towards these state tests,
because that's the thing that we could agree on.
Thinking back, there have been a lot of efforts to create new standards,
and the NGSS, which are the new science standards, the Common Core, which was a step towards
the math standards.
But they didn't go far enough.
It was an incremental change.
Instead of learning ABC, they should kind of also learn X, Y, Z.
But that's not what I'm talking about when I say the redefinition of purpose.
It's saying 80% of the current jobs in the economy will be fundamentally reimagined by 2030.
If that truly is the case, then we need to take a real scalpel to going back to the purpose and the delivery
of our educational methods, and I think that's exciting, but a daunting task.
Chris, as we address that question of where we are today, are things working?
I know Anoripa just talked about maybe there's not even alignment on what that means,
but are children thriving, faltering, and how should we be thinking about that?
It's probably working for like a small percentage of the American population,
but for the majority of folks, it's not.
And when I think about early childhood education, one of the things I'm coming to terms with
is that it's really no one's job to fix it.
and so it's not really getting fixed.
If you look at the agencies involved in early childhood education,
HHS serves low-income families.
And what we find is that a lot of states aren't able to generate enough funding
from the federal government to be able to serve all the families that need it.
For working class families and just all children in general,
there's actually no agency and there's no one's responsibility to actually fix the
child care problem.
And so it's left to sort of the private sector to fix it.
But what we're seeing is that the best way to make inroads as partnerships with the private sector and a public sector to be able to fill in those gaps.
Anna, you work across both of those sectors.
And so maybe at a high level, are there any other data points or trends that really grasp you, whether it's data points that garner promise or maybe also concern.
It could be a shortage.
It could be test scores going down.
What are you paying attention to here that kind of signals what we should be focusing on?
I actually see so much hope at a moment where you could be really discouraged because we have
massive declines in student achievement that are still pervasive coming out of the pandemic.
51% of Americans live in child care deserts.
And we had this massive investment in federal funds during the pandemic that actually resulted
in a 20% increase in purchasing power over four years for the K-12 school districts and
states and then additional investments that went into our.
childhood, we have now spent hundreds of billions of dollars and those funds are gone and now what.
But I think we're at an interesting point where because those funds really did help to infuse a lot of
innovation, I think we'll start to see a real close look at what's actually now producing results.
And then that evaluation will help to inform the new federal education law that we hope to see in
the future and alignment in what new standards should look like.
And I think we are at an interesting moment. It's hard to say exactly what the outcome is going to be.
But I think states and districts and child care providers are going to have to be a little bit more discerning in what they decide to scale.
That's where I think we start to see some of the promise.
There are a few sectors in the economy that have proven to be very, very resistant to technological change.
Education is high on that list. But there's nothing in my structural that should keep that from happening.
So the bets on what is working in other parts of the economy can have a large impact in education,
which is at a point in time where they really need impact.
Yeah, I think another thing that we've witnessed over the last few years is a shift.
COVID was part of that.
But technology is being more integrated.
We're seeing different remote, hybrid learning environments.
And so as that has changed over the last few years, what have we learned?
Yeah.
I think that the question of technology in classrooms is an interesting one to me because there's the technology, but then they're the methods and the principles and the teaching practices that they allow.
And most technology that's introduced, there's no real discipline around what are we trying to achieve here.
What's the problem statement that tech is trying to solve?
So I'm taking VR, AR into schools.
I'm not really interested in the VR and AR.
What I'm interested is in first person embodied real-world problem solving.
It happens that I have to use the modality of VR
because that's the fastest way to scale
it democratized access to high quality experiences for all kids.
So I think that what's really fun about at Tech 3.0,
which is what we all kind of in the field call it fondly,
is that best practice pedagogy is going to win.
It's how do we scale student-centered learning,
so learning assets in Baltimore
where you go to neutralize it chemically contaminated water,
not off of a word problem on a piece of paper.
So I think that what's going to be really exciting
about this wave of educational technology,
is we're moving away from the idea of like Chromebooks, computers,
that's not really the object of affection.
The object of affection is a teaching principle in my presentation.
I don't have VR anywhere because it's kind of irrelevant, right?
It's just a secret saw that, oh, by the way, you need devices
because your kids have to be embodied in these real world problems.
So I think that's where it's going, is the more and more entrepreneurs, leaders,
teachers, and educators focus on method.
There will be no resistance because the focus is on a relationship between teachers
and kids versus a forcing function of a particular technology.
The other piece is that school districts and state leaders operate in a highly political
environment where taking risks is not rewarded.
And so I think having the data and the research to show the impact of the technology
and changes in instructional modality has been a missing piece that hasn't been there.
The entrepreneurs that are really going to succeed are the ones that also
are doing massive efficacy studies or even real-time evaluation of the efficacy of their solutions,
that gives the comfort and peace of mind for risk-averse decision makers to actually say,
okay, let's bring this technology in.
The other thing, parents, one is if something is working somewhere else,
I would like my child to experience it.
And so our dream is the world flips in that there's a new modality, it's working.
We need it, bring it in the kind of thing.
Why isn't that at my kid's school?
completely. What's been really fascinating for me has been student voice. In one of our districts,
it's a very large urban system. We were in credit recovery for algebra one. And these kids took
to Instagram and they started to post. I've learned this five or six times already. I never got it.
This is the first time I understood it. And it turns out the board chair read that Instagram post.
And we went from 120 kids immediately to 5,000 students two weeks later. Right. So I say this because
I think now you have so many more voices and efficacy is not just achievement on standard.
undersline assessments because we tried to solve the achievement problem in the U.S.
before we solve the engagement problem.
We have to get our kids engaged again in their education because I'm often putting teeth
in the way that we are right now.
So I just wanted to kind of add into that idea of measurement.
There is so much more anecdotal and this very strong student presence that I was not as privy
to when I was an administrator.
You've got so many stakeholders.
You've got parents.
You've got districts.
You've got other legislators.
And then as you mentioned just now, you've got the children.
and of course, in lieu of just being able to put a headset on every single person and have them
experience that, I'm curious what you have learned about the methodology to convince.
Is it just getting the right study out there or are there other learnings?
Yeah. For the last four years, I've been pitching and pitching.
And I have this VR headset in my backpack and it never comes out.
And I'm like, why am I taking this dead weight on these trips with me all the time?
And it turns out, Steph, that what people are drawn to is the thinking.
It's an aspiration.
It's this movement away from passivity that's coming to our education system versus the
active, the kinesthetic, the constant movement.
Our kids are most engaged in PE, right?
Let's be clear here.
And so what they're actually really excited about is the learning methodology.
It's the problem-based learning.
And so our entire conversation is about the hope and the aspiration and what's possible.
Most of the people put a headset on after the deal is closed, everything has been signed at Teacher Institute,
which is typically four months after those first conversations.
And I think that's relevant.
What is K-12 really starved for?
It's not start for technology.
You walk in, there's computers everywhere, laptops everywhere, robotic arms everywhere,
Raspberry Pi everywhere.
There's tech everywhere.
What there isn't is innovative thinking and really doing something differently because digitization is fundamentally different from innovation.
I probably spend the majority of my time talking to legislators, staff of governors, and a lot of agency leaders.
And what I'm noticing is folks are just looking for results.
There's been a lot of money spent, but a lot of the systems just haven't delivered results.
And that's what's led to a lot of our adoption.
We started working with governments in 2020 during the pandemic because states were scrambling to get people back to work.
And they were noticing that they couldn't get people back to work because of child care.
And so we started working with states and we've seen them partner with these like huge
multinational services companies that charge them in Arminaleg are late on delivering the technology.
And then the price of the technology to modernize a state system can sometimes 4x, 5x.
So what we started to do is build technology to help a lot of child care administrators get data on what's going on in respective child care.
programs to understand what parents need when they're searching for child care.
And what we're finding as agency leaders are starting to use our technology to figure out
where to start child care programs.
And what this is leading to is we're starting child care programs all over the country.
In Mississippi, we were able to start 37 programs in a week.
And this is like mind blowing for a lot of state administrators because it's just not something
that has really been done before at the speed at which we're doing it.
We're focused on delivering outcomes and getting these.
programs up and running instead of just what's happening right now is teaching people how they could
potentially start a child care program. This was super interesting to me because the target market
was not governments as conduits into child care. It was families and individuals. And the pull
from governments was so substantial that it led Chris to, you know, changes go to market emphasis.
It was so counterintuitive to me, especially running a consumer company at the time.
Steph, I'd love to come back to your question about convincing.
Ultimately, workforce and economic development are the main drivers of governors and state
legislators and what they're thinking about and the investments that they're making.
So Anirupa can contextualize what she's doing in creating future employees that have the STEM
skills to fill high-tech jobs that the governors are trying to recruit in their states.
Similarly, Chris is able to talk about the reason.
and state leaders might not be able to recruit employers is because there aren't enough
child care slots to help their workers actually go to work. And so this is a way to tap into
an untapped workforce by providing enough child care slots. And so I think that is a really
compelling part of the narrative that's driving a lot of state interest. Something we're kind of
meandering our way into is this idea of selling to the government. I think, Chris, what you just
shared there is so interesting that a lot of people do kind of stay away from
selling to the government because they think it's unintuitive, long contract cycles,
really hard to penetrate. How does a product actually make its way into a district?
Like, what do you need to do to get a product like Wonder School or Prisms into a classroom
or to set up one of these child care programs?
Yeah. And I think it's a misnomer that sales cycles in K-12 or long. That's actually not true.
The way that typically our motions run is unless you get the executive, i.e. the superintendent,
you will have a fracturing of the implementation. So I always start with the CEO, who's a superintendent of, let's say, Broward County and Miami-Dade, West Palm Beach. Once that executive is in line with your vision, you then have to go to their academics leaders, right? So you have the chief academic officer, math director, science, that's the next level of cabinet that sits underneath a superintendent. But then you have your instructional coaches that will actually oversee the operation implementation. You've got to get them on board. But last but not least, you have your principals and your teachers. So we will not close a deal unless we've gotten
full buy-in of all teachers. They put their hand up and said, we opt in. Because if you don't get
that, you will not get the expansion. You will not get the renewal. You're going to get a lot of
pushback and implementation. Now, you might say, oh my gosh, those are a lot of presentations. No,
they move really, really quickly because our problem statement is aligned to their problem statement.
That's a very important part of this. The tech reviews takes about a week. The biggest question
is around the RFP process. If there is an executive champion and they want it, they're going to make sure
it closes. So that's just kind of a high level emotion.
I wanted to talk a little bit about the state, for example, in a state like Florida,
is we launch across all the large urbans, tons of rurals, the panhandle, we're in so many districts
in just about a year and a half. So then we were then able to go to the Senate president and then
the House Speaker and say, hey, Senate President, you have a real focus in rural counties. You're
from Miami. You care deeply about urban education. So then you're able to take the successes
and the outcomes and the results that you've been collecting at the district level and you take
that up to the state. And now we're doing a pretty significant statewide deployment across
Florida, but it was completely grassroots. It started at the district level. We delivered
outcomes. We had to pick those right senators who were the right voice, what we were trying to do
and then push an appropriation through it. And I think what's really interesting also. I thought
I was going to the DOE. I'm not going to the Department of Education. Everything is through either
the workforce development infrastructure channel. In the case of Oklahoma, it's directly with the
governor. In Rhode Island, it's directly with the governor. And it's all around regional workforce
development strategies in light of both fear and anticipation of what AI is going to do.
to their local economies.
This is classic bottoms up
because you're starting at a few schools
in the district.
And if you produce results at those districts,
you know, it's the classic land and expand,
riding it all the way up.
I remember once when I was at Salesforce,
the first big bottoms up company
of the internet era,
Mark Benioff met with my boss,
Meg Whitman, and said,
I just wanted to thank my largest client in person.
And Meg's very gracious with Mr. Benioff,
walks back to my cube and goes,
we're Salesforce's largest client.
I'm like, I didn't know.
And we were a very large client because it was solving individuals work needs.
So the hope in the case of Prisms is if we can do a great job at a subset of schools,
it becomes super compelling to expand into more schools in the district.
We're doing a great job at a district.
It becomes more compelling to evolve to the state level.
So it is a classic sales strategy done in the VR-A-R world.
And Chris, how do you think about that and making your way, whether it's into the district or the state?
And then how do you think about building a product that in some sense needs to be scalable, but then also needs to fit these unique needs?
There are a couple of agencies that we can sell into.
So Department of Education, Department of Early Childhood Education, Department of Labor, sometimes work directly with the governor.
And what we found is we have a number of products.
And our land and expand motion is usually we start with one or two of these products.
And then we show success.
We show outcomes with the state.
And that ends up leading to states wanting to essentially adopt more of our products so that they can help solve the child care crisis.
Your customer is typically the state.
And then it's just how much they're buying.
Whereas Anorupo often we'll start with a subsets of the states, district, schools.
Exactly, Jeff.
For Wonder School, child care is actually managed by health and human services.
And so a lot of our go-to-market doesn't really have a district model.
And child care is regulated by the state.
So we end up spending the vast majority of our time working with states.
Anna, I'd love to get your take here because I know you work with not just these two companies but others.
And so how would a company trying to participate in this world start and think about who they should be relationship building with or is there in at the DOE or is it not?
It's such a good question.
and have been doing this for 20 years.
So it's kind of all I've focused on and worked on for a long time.
We love data and companies that love data.
And so first identifying ideal customer, just like an indie industry,
and then thinking about the characteristics and the market environment
in which those customers are going to be able to make purchases is really key.
So we like to do 50 state analysis looking at what makes for a favorable market environment
and start to work with entrepreneurs.
to figure out we want a solid budget situation. Maybe we don't. Maybe if there's a budget crisis,
it's easier to go in and sell. I do think that there's at the state level an X factor that is
really important to know that is particularly as a company is getting started with the first set of
one to five states to really launch a state level program, which is really strong and innovative
leadership. There are state leaders willing to take a risk that know that they have a problem
that they need to solve. They don't want to wait around and pass it to the next governor that
comes after them. And so really figuring out who those innovative leaders are, building relationships
with them, understanding their challenges and articulating the solutions in the context of those
challenges is really important. And then to Jeff's point about kind of land and expand,
once you have the first five states going, it starts to become a trend. And then the neighboring
governors are all watching their PRC success, and the governor of Alabama is looking at Mississippi
and saying, he launched 37 programs in a week, and we haven't launched 37 programs in a year of
our current investments, what is Mississippi doing? And so that's when it starts to really take off.
And some of those state leaders that might be a little less reluctant to innovate will start
to catch on. We spend a lot of time looking at org charts and the timelines of appropriations and
legislative sessions, but ultimately there is this X-factor of innovative state leadership and
tapping into those leaders is really critical for getting going. You talked about how finding perhaps
the right legislators is important. Are there any frameworks, things to pay attention to there?
Is it just really like being on the ground and studying what these people are saying? Or how do you
identify who's really willing to stick their neck out and try some of these programs? There are
certainly networks of state leaders. So you've got the National Governors Association, and you can
look at who's really leading on education and workforce and child care issues within that organization.
There's the National Conference of State Legislatures, and so you can start to see the leaders
that are rising among their peers nationally and outspoken on certain issues. So that would be a way
to start to identify where there might be a state based on leadership that would be good to focus.
on, a lot of it is having conversations because the number of that bats you have increases the
likelihood that you meet with a state leader that immediately catches the vision and says,
let's go and let's move fast. It's a combination of paying attention to what's happening
nationally, who is outspoken in terms of state legislators or governors on the issues that you're
working on and getting in front of them because they're the influencers. And in the last
pieces. There are local consultants that are great that can help with understanding dynamics locally.
And so knowing where there are states that you can tap into local consultants that really know the
players and know the process can also help to accelerate things. How much does the pricing model
matter here when you're talking about government and reshaping these things? How do you think about
framing your product as you're trying to break into these new districts or states? Do they really care?
if this is going to be more expensive or less expensive, or are they really focused on the outcomes?
The reason why I was convicted to start a company around this versus a nonprofit or another
entity is, unbeknownst to many, there's a lot of money in education. It goes to all kinds of tools.
If you go to an average district, there's somewhere between 3,000, 4,000 ed tech tools being used.
So the money's there. The big question is, how do you redirect it towards a strategy and really bring a
cohesive vision? And that's what great entrepreneurs do. The K-12 operating budget,
are typically what we use for the software, the services.
There are other, like plush funds and other CAPEX budget sources,
Title I through four that can be used for the hardware.
But at the state level, I have not seen much price sensitivity at all, frankly.
But going back to the question of outcomes,
if we can deliver what we are endeavoring to deliver,
which I'm going to close your achievement gap in Algebra 1,
the number one predictor of future life wages.
The Brookings Institute founded, it's a big problem the U.S. has been trying to solve.
They will pay for that problem.
We already put billions into this problem.
So I don't think it's a money issue.
I think it's an implementation issue.
It's getting the right person to drive fidelity of implementation and get those outcomes.
But you can get all those players in their roles and situated.
I just have not seen price sensitivity at the state level that I have seen a bit at the district level,
which again, we're able to now supplement the funds that you don't have at the K-12 level with state funds.
So it's a shared revenue model.
Distries are paying for a part of it.
States are paying for a part of it.
Education is a state mandate.
but Title I through four is all federal funds, though that's the money that all of our districts
currently use. So the feds also have a big role in supporting innovative solutions.
The way Wonder School has approached these state partnerships is truly as a piece of the puzzle
of solving this crisis of child care, the fact that a number of the slots that you open up
for child care, parents that receive subsidies, then access the child care. And when the subsidies run
out, then they're like, well, maybe we don't need to open more slots. And so Chris not only has to go in
and advocate for a state partnership and help increase supply, but then in many cases, also to advocate
for increased subsidies so that then families can continue to have the demand and take the slots.
And so I think you're really smart to think about the solution also amongst other solutions that
helped to solve a crisis. And then that comes off as very authentic to state leaders. And then
And Anorupa, I loved your point, the idea of reprogramming budgets.
There are longstanding investments, whether it's districts or states, in certain programs.
And it can be hard because there are entrenched staff members inside of the agencies operating
the programs that have always worked with these programs.
And so there's a lot of infrastructure that's been built around the status quo.
And then what's happening at the state level in reprogramming budgets.
ultimately helps to inform what we see at the federal level as well.
So we're hoping that all of the state innovation and what we saw, for example, in the shift
from No Child Left Behind in terms of accountability to ESA, was that what states were doing
actually helped to inform what the new version of the federal law looked like.
The hope would be in what Governor Polis as chair of the National Governors Association would
tell you with his big education initiative, which focuses on early childhood and K-12, is that
what states are doing and leading on then helps to inform the next iteration of the federal law
and ultimately federal spending. It just takes a little bit of time, but states really are leading the
way. And by the way, I have yet to see a governor's webpage that didn't emphasize early education
as one of the priorities. It does solve a whole lot of their long-term problems. Both these companies
are selling into an eager audience. If we are able to shift this, I know we're early and you're
expanding and hopefully we do this again in three years and you're in many more districts or states,
but what would change? Yeah, a big reason why I started this company is I had a couple of key
moments leading up to starting it. One of them is I met a woman, Laura Jonna, met her at the TED
conference and she's a Harvard educated pediatrician and she decided to leave her career and start
a child care program in her community because she came to the conclusion that she could have a
bigger impact running a child care program than being a pediatrician. Another
thing I saw is this guy named Harris Rosen. He runs the Rosen hotels in Orlando, has made a good
amount of money in real estate. And he noticed that a lot of the service workers in his hotel
weren't putting their kids in early childhood education programs. And the K-12 system wasn't great.
And they just had all these pretty poor outcomes. And there was a lot of crime and a lot of folks
like selling drugs. He ended up going into the community and giving all of the children free access
to child care out of people's homes and supported a lot of the teachers in the
area to support the children. And over a 30-year period, the crime rate essentially like went to zero.
A lot of those children offered to give them scholarships to college. And he found that I don't
think any of the kids actually needed them because they did so well in the K-12 system and they were
able to get their own scholarships. And so I went to go visit him. And he said, Chris, there's all of
these nonprofits that come here and visit us. And no one actually ever does anything. They just come
and visit. And you guys are actually doing something about it. And what I've come away with is that
If we could give access to high quality early childhood education to all children, a human's brain, 90% of it develops in the first five years of their life.
If everyone gets access to it, then so many more of these children will be able to go to the K-12 system and get better use of it and then essentially go on to be a productive American citizens, a productive folks in the workforce, and frankly just live better lives.
There's so much research that supports this.
And so what we found is that the best way to actually achieve this in a capitalist society is to empower business owners to start these businesses to create wealth for themselves, but also give back to the community.
We work with probably about 30,000 child care providers right now.
And some of our child care providers are earning over $2 million a year.
We have child care providers that are making $100,000, $200,000, we have child care providers buying homes in the Bay Area,
on everything that they'd done starting their own child care programs.
And when I talk to parents, they're just so happy for these child care providers
because they're getting so much of a benefit by putting their kid in these programs.
So it's such a clear win for everyone.
That's amazing.
Shear value creation all around.
Yeah, I think asking what is the value or impact of a good education, it's like a vast ocean.
I'll hone in on a couple things that Chris talked about.
I ran and supported the college process in Boston and New York.
And when I would help kids with their personal statements, I would ask them, what do you want to contribute to?
What do you want to build?
And kids could say musician, athlete, doctor, lawyer, they could name five jobs in the most sophisticated economy in the world, the U.S. economy.
So we are graduating generations of children who have no idea what they can do with their education.
So I'll share a few different disparate thoughts and then bring it together.
In terms of my origin story, it started at MIT where I saw huge drop-offs of women, students of color, students who experienced poverty.
And by the time I got to grad school, I was literally only woman in my classes.
And what I began to find is a very homogenous conversation about the direction of technology.
If you look at artificial intelligence, VR, AR, there are very few women in these top roles directing how these technologies ought to be modulated and how they're,
can be utilized to build the next generation of our infrastructure.
Third thought is when I walk into public schools today, I'll never forget, I walk into
Anurundle. It's a school district in Maryland, lovely district, lovely leadership, beautiful
children. And you walk into classes and the kids, they're just heads are on the table,
headphones in, scrolling on Netflix. I've never seen this kind of apathy. And I was a public school
teacher in Title I districts in the Northeast. So that level of I just don't care. I don't have a
passion. I don't really have curiosity. I don't want to build. I think it's going to be catastrophic for
the United States if we don't find a way to end it. So all of that really brings together what I'm
trying to achieve, which is building an education system where we are building builders. The purpose
of school is to build, is to create. You talk about value creation, is to figure out how you're going
to create value. And for that, you have to help kids fall in love with the problems that they're going
to dedicate their lives to. Me and Chris are sitting here on planes all the time. And
not sleeping wide because we fell in love with what we do. And there aren't enough moments where children
get to fall in love in their K-12 schooling. And just to kind of bring back to why math and science,
it's just the backbone of any advanced economy. Full stop. That was a great overview and a picture,
quite frankly, painted by both of you of what can change. Coming back to the very beginning around
why this matters, I'd love to just roundtable go through each one of you to share maybe an idea
that you want people to walk away with.
There are definitely some legislators
who listen to this podcast,
but there are a lot of parents, right?
A lot of people who have kids,
maybe will have kids,
any parting thoughts that you want them to take away.
Gosh, I think that there's such an opportunity
to bridge connections,
and a lot of it is semantic, right?
There are challenges that parents see for their children.
They want to see more engaged students
prepared for future jobs
and have economic mobility.
you see education district leaders and state leaders that want to address math and ELA achievement
gaps, and you see policymakers that want to use policy to do that.
And then on the other hand, you have entrepreneurs that have these incredible visions and
solutions.
Oftentimes, the biggest gap in actually getting those solutions into the hands of those
stakeholders that need them is just the way we talk about the solutions.
And so that's really what I would urge is thinking about stepping out of the rhetoric that
sometimes exists and really clearly defining problems that are trying to be solved. And then from the
provider side, stepping into the shoes of all of those stakeholders and thinking about how their
solutions actually solve those challenges. And so much of it, it really is just communication.
The technology is there. We can do better. The tools are there. Frank Chen and Andreessen Horowitz
often describes what we do in Metro Capital as the smartest minds give their view of the future
and what it will look like. I hope the future of education looks a whole lot different than it
now and has a lot more impact. And two of the areas that I think have enormous potential,
one is better preparing students for school with the child care issue. And the other is we got
to get better at STEM. It does happen to be where the world is going and the opportunity to continue
to be a world leader in government and business and tech and everything else is going to be
predicated on getting better at both of these. And we love supporting the efforts of these dynamics of
these dynamic entrepreneurs to do that? Yeah, I'd say it's a tragedy to deny a child access to high
quality early childhood education, whether that's from a parent, a nanny, an au pair, a teacher.
It's just a tragedy because we can't get those five years back and the child's brains just develop.
And then we're essentially exposing ourselves to a sizable amount of catch-up that you just really can't do.
And so what I'm seeing is it's really important for government leaders, for parents, anyone listening to this
podcast to make sure that we're all committed to not only our children, but the children in our
communities and making sure that they're getting the right access so that we can all take
advantage of the American dream.
I'll have a really hopeful note.
I remember it was in a grad school class once, and the professor made a comment that social
justice is like a barge.
You're not going to really see it move much in your generation.
We just got to keep working.
You've got to keep working in your grandchildren and their grandchildren.
And I was like, no, we can get outcomes.
we can get them fast.
So after two years of presenting and sharing this vision,
the schools, we're in hundreds of districts in 38 U.S. states.
We have tens of thousands of teachers we train every single day.
So this belief that education can't change quickly.
Chris, I forget the number.
I think you said it was like 30-something child care.
37 child care programs, yeah.
Right, 37 child care programs.
Like this belief that teachers are against the system or the system is slow.
It's not true.
You have to go in there with a clear vision, get everybody invested,
train, upscale coach,
be maniacically get every single end user inspired
because if teachers are inspired,
their kids are going to be inspired.
The future is not over there.
It's happening.
We're right now,
I have teens of classroom coaches
and classrooms every single day
making this reality happen.
And social justice doesn't have to be like a barge.
We can all see it in our lifetime.
All right, that is all for today.
If you did make it this far,
first of all, thank you.
We put a lot of thought into each of these episodes,
whether it's guests,
calendar Tetris, the cycles with our amazing editor Tommy until the music is just right.
So if you like what we put together, consider dropping us a line at rate thispodcast.com
slash A16C.
And let us know what your favorite episode is.
It'll make my day and I'm sure Tommy's too.
We'll catch you on the flip side.
