Concerning Trends in Philanthropy for Education Reform

Foreign.

Hey, Michael.

Hey, Diane. It's good to see you.

It's good to see you. As we. I think the. The unofficial start of summer has happened. I know that that's coming because I had a graduation last week, a big one, my son from college, which is. Is a little bit surreal, quite frankly. And it's summer's coming because this is our last episode of the season, which I can hardly believe.

Yes. Well, first, congrats to you, Congrats to Rhett. Very exciting news on the graduation front. And you're right, it is. I can't believe it's the end of the season. And it's been a season where we've gotten to interview a lot of really interesting people. And then, Diane, we've sort of settled on one in particular who we really like having back on the show.

This is true, Michael. I'm excited to bring reintroduce, but I think regular Lister listeners will be very familiar with Stacy Childress at this point. We teamed up originally to do a two part series on higher ed, and we had so much fun doing that that we decided to do it for K12 education. Hopefully folks are enjoying those episodes. And during those conversations, we all sort of had some. Some like off the record dialogue about kind of a big topic that's happening in education right now. And so decided that it was an important conversation and wanted to come back for it. So welcome back. Stacy. We're so thrilled to have you here. And we've done your sort of credentials before. I will say today, you know, you've done a ton of things that are applicable, but you really are in the expert seat today, having been on, you know, in multiple seats around philanthropy, which is the direction we're going.

Hi,

thank you for joining us again.

I am happy to be here. So I. There's like two things about now. This being my fifth episode that I'm reflecting on. Fifth episode in a row, I guess, right?

Yes.

One is never say anything to you guys. Kind of in an offhand way. We're like all charged up from a conversation because it'll become a podcast episode. We ought to do philanthropy now. Here we are. Okay. So I've learned. The second thing is I feel like I've like moved from guest to long term guest. It's like we're almost like in roommate mode. And we. This is it.

We'll see, we'll see, we'll see. We are. Diane and I are, if anything, we are persuasive. So.

Yes, either way.

Either way. Thank you for joining us. And as you've both talked about, we're excited to dive into this topic of education philanthropy. And as you both alluded, we have lots of side conversations, but this is one we were all reflecting on. How it feels like some of the water around philanthropy and education right now is really churning. It's just, it feels different in certain ways right now from maybe the way it has. Maybe this is my imagination, maybe it's not. There was recently this Inside Philanthropy article talking about the changing nature of education philanthropy. And it all struck a chord with us. And we know so many of our listeners are those running school networks. They're running schools, they're starting education nonprofits, whatever else, and they're interfacing with folks that are donating money to help them create the change that they so believe in. And so we wanted to dive into this important sector of the education, quote, unquote, reform movement, if you will, to talk about how it is or isn't changing and some of the implications that that may have on our sector more, more, more generally. Diane, what did I miss before we dive in?

Well, I, I think you captured it pretty well, Michael. Maybe just a minute more on the Philant. I think it's Philanthropy Insider article that I think did a good job of sort of capturing the, the feeling, I would say. So the conversations that I am having regularly with folks who are in education, whether they be in nonprofits or school organizations or anyone sort of in the ecosystem who rely on philanthropy to, whether it be do their, you know, new initiatives and their innovations or sometimes operating purposes, there's a real sense of worry, of stress, of fear. I would say that I feel that there is a belief that there is less philanthropy to be had, that it's a little bit confusing about what's being funded or what's not being funded, if it's going to be there, if some of the long term philanthropists are going to stay in the sector and continue to fund. And so I, I would just say this is a big conversation that's happening all around. And I know, Stacy, you're, you're in this a lot. I know a lot of people sort of look to you as sort of a, a whisperer in this space, if you will. And so what, you know, what else are, is that kind of capturing what you're experiencing?

Yeah, it is a lot of uncertainty. And more than. Michael, you kind of asked when we were thinking about this episode, don't these foundations that we're talking about, we can get more precise in a minute about which Slice of education, philanthropy we're talking about. But just to say, overall. But don't they routinely change their strategies every five years or so? Is that just what's going on here? And, you know, we can talk more about that kind of trend of changing every five years, but this does feel a little bit different in that I think what I'm hearing, you know, from people who are still raising money, it's not just the uncertainty of where we'll head next. You know, what are folks going to, what are givers going to coalesce around in terms of priorities, but more, are they going to stay in this field at all or maybe more frequently, like at the same level as they have? Like, are we. If you're, if you were doing 300 million a year, are you actually kind of going to pause for a little while, figure things out, and then go to 100 instead of 300 and that pulls $200 million out of a billion dollar or so philanthropy market? It's a big shift. Or if you were doing 100 million a year, are you gonna, you know, tail back so there and then what are the priorities? So the feeling is a little different than, you know, I experienced. I was. Had a very kind of concentrated period of fundraising, but it was, you know, it was, it was busy and active. So I was a fundraiser from between 2014 through about a year ago. So a little less than 10 years. And it didn't feel like this. It was always okay, how do we shape the priorities as operators or fundraisers? How do we shape the priorities of the big givers? Because they're going to do a strategy refresh. So how do we help them see things our way, about how the world's changing and how it should work? But we never worried about, we never worried about money going away, not in any real sense, like total dollars going away. And in fact, we're pretty confident that we could bring more dollars in, new people to the table that may have been on the sidelines. So it does feel different. And I am glad I am not a fundraiser right now.

Well, with that sort of context, but also a little bit of sobering context, I guess, is the way to put it. Let's dive into the first question. A bunch of the things you're going to. You touched on there, Diane. And I want to ask more about, but just give an overview of philanthropy and education, like, what are we talking about in terms of dollars? And to the extent you see it actually shrinking, can you quantify that a little bit? Just so we have a Sense of what are we talking about and who. Who are we talking about?

Yeah, I feel a little exposed. You guys called me an expert and I have to say two things about that. One, you know, I do have a, an arrangement with McKinsey and Company right now as a senior advisor. And this is not informed in any way by my work with them, nor is any of this have anything to do with what they think about these issues. This is Stacy Childress. My own, you know, the thinkings of one mad woman.

So, but let's just put it in context, right? You New Schools Venture Fund, obviously raising dollars, but then also giving Gates foundation, you were next gen Stacy, right?

And then yes, I was next gen Stacy.

And even right with the, the book that Rick and I did, you wrote that incredible piece around the role of philanthropy and in markets and things of that nature. So you've thought a lot about this.

Yeah, I have. I just wanted to make sure that as we, I know a lot. So I'm not saying, I'm not trying to be falsely modest and say I'm not an expert. I have expertise in this area and in particularly a very concentrated part of the space. But nothing I say today has anything to do with what mackenzie say about this stuff. It's not related. And the other thing is it's been a while since I looked in any rigorous way about like the shape and size of this part of the philanthropic capital market for education. So I can tell you what I have, what I do know firsthand and how that may or may not have changed over time. And you know, when I joined new schools in 2014, it was the first time I was going to have to raise money. I'd been giving money away and then I was going to have to raise money. So I wanted to understand with a lot of specificity what that philanthropic capital market looked like, because I wanted to get more of it for new schools. I wanted to increase our share of that, of that wallet if it wasn't going to grow. And at the time, the collective kind of education innovation, education reform, philanthropists were doing a little over a billion dollars a year. So it was about $1.25 billion of philanthropy to things like charter schools and charter school networks, some ed tech stuff, human capital, the Teach for America, New Leaders for New Schools and some fund kind of things. And so there was about a billion plus dollars in philanthropy and I wanted to get more of that. My sense is, so that stayed pretty stable the whole time I was at New School. So over about a eight or Nine year period, we stayed at about a billion and a quarter as a sector. And again, it's not all education, philanthropy. I'm talking only K12 and only kind of that innovation reform wing of funders. So think obviously Gates, Walton, Czi, Schusterman, Dell, you know, those kinds of overdeck, right? There's a kind of an east coast, west coast and then some middle of the country folks. So that group, little over a billion, it stayed about the same little comings and goings within, but overall about the same. My sense is that that's still true. It might have ticked down just a little bit, but I could be wrong about that again because it's been three or four years since I've taken a firm look. But my sense, even with the pandemic shifts, is that that's still what we're talking about here. Now you match that up though, it sounds like a lot of money and I don't want to diminish it. It is a lot of money. You know, especially once you get into the bees, once you're in the billions, it's a lot of money. The, the thing is, you know, I kind of learned this, say sort of the hard way, but it was more, you know, like you just learn as you go. A big question for philanthropists, whether you're this kind of philanthropic sector or any individual philanthropist, philanthropist, you know, Gates was the, and I think still is the biggest K12 funder of this type we're talking about. And they've stayed in the 300, 350 million dollars a year. So about a billion plus every three years. Just Gates, about a billion, ish, 1.2 or so billion, 1.5 billion every three years. But you know, the public funding for, for K12 education, you know, is 608, you know, has grown from about 600 to 800 million billion a year over the last few years. And that's 1.8, almost $2 trillion every three years. So you kind of match up, okay, Gates has a billion plus dollars to give away every three years. And our government funding for school, state, local, federal is over a trillion and a half. Like it's vanishingly small. It's a lot of money. But when you put it in context, the goal is to create the most impact possible in a sector that has enormous amounts of funding and is in vast need of improvement. And so how do you put those dollars to work in a way that even though they're small, have kind of an outsized effect on what's possible, right, for improving student outcomes, Access to opportunity and those kinds of things. So it's a lot of money, but in the grand scheme of things, not so much money. And so how to, you know, how do you get that wedge of innovation capital in? So Diane, looks like you've got.

Well, Stacey, I think this is, this is such an important point for this conversation because I want to make sure people know what specific specifically we're talking about. And I think you're really zeroing in there, which is the, the, this conversation is really going to be about not, not philanthropy that's generally funding like operational funds. And that's not to say that that philanthropy isn't in the world. Look, there's like a lot of individual donors and people in communities and you know, they give money to their favorite non profit in their schools and you know, charity events and, and gal not talking about any of that money right here, we're really talking about like a relatively small set of you know, foundations, substantial foundations that really are giving specific type of money for specific types of purposes which, which is not sort of your ongoing operations. And so let's just spend a minute more on like what do those grants then like look like when that money comes in and what do they not look like perhaps? So people be really clear.

Yeah, that's great. So yes, that kind of segment of donors that we're talking about, I would kind of categorize it as they fund innovation. So whether it's startups or existing organizations, kind of in this ecosystem fund innovation. So starting something new or creating something new inside the thing you're already doing or trying to radically change the way you're doing something inside a going concern. So innovation capital and growth capital. And so you know, you're kind of onto something and you've got good results and you've got an appetite to serve more kids or you know, train more teachers or whatever your, whatever your core business is. This kind of capital can help you grow, do more of it in more places or with more people or more students. And the hope is always that this is going to lead to some kind of sustainability that's not going to continue to need ongoing funding above what you're either going to get on a per pupil, if you're, you know, a school or a program that gets money through taxes for, for serving students or which you can do in earned revenue. Right. And so if you're more of a service kind of non profit, you know.

Yeah.

Who and what are you, what are you going to charge to whom?

Right.

To continue to operate your organization Without a constant philanthropic substance subsidy just to operate.

Yeah, we always call innovation and growth capital. Yeah. We, we would call them bridges versus peers. So here you're just putting someone in the ocean and then there's no way that's going to be sustainable without continued philanthropy versus building a bridge to something that is sustainable, but hopefully new and better and scalable. Right, right.

Yeah, exactly.

And the size of these grants then and the time frame of them.

Yeah. Obviously it depends on what you're doing, but it's rare that one donor is going to fund your whole need. Yeah. And if you're an operator, you have to think hard about that because you probably don't really want that. It sounds easier. You know, let's get the one big check and then we don't have to, you know, keep. But it's actually good to have, you know, kind of a mix of, kind of a revenue mix or an investment, you know, a capital structure that's got multiple investors in the thing you want to do. Because it actually, I'll just be honest about this. Right. As fundraiser. And Diane, I don't know if you would agree with this. You've raised a lot of money too. Like, I kind of want that power and governance, you know. Right. Of investors diluted a little bit by having several of them. Because that way, you know, we get to do the things we committed to do to our donors, but not answer to one, you know, one set of priorities or more importantly, one sort of perspective about how to do things. And so, you know, having, having that group. So you're probably looking at, in this space anyway, you're looking at multiple donors to fund a thing that you've said you're, you and your team have determined you want to do again, whether that's something that's an innovation or to grow. And these grants are usually three years. Sometimes.

Yeah.

Lucky. Right. Sometimes they'll stretch to five, but often it's a year at a time.

Yep.

You do do a little bit and get a little more. Do a little bit and get a little more. Which can be quite.

Yeah.

Creates quite a dynamic because there are expenses associated with this that aren't necessarily your time. You're usually investing in people.

Yep.

To get good work done. And so then, you know, I was always thinking about payroll. I was always thinking about payroll. But that's a good, like it's a good discipline. Right.

In my experience, the great grants were, were generally three years. I had a very small number of five year grants. Those were amazing.

Hard to get.

Very amazing Very hard to get. Very rare. And a lot of ones and twos.

A lot of ones and twos. I'll. If it's okay. Like, I don't. Because I don't mind sharing this. I can put a little shape to this in terms of dollar numbers from my time at new schools. And then we launched AIR to another fund while I was there. So I put those two things together. I raised between. Really started fundraising in 2015. So between 2015 and 2022, so it's seven years or eight. Eight actual calendar years of fundraising. I raised $550 million, so about half a billion dollars in that stretch. 200 million of it was on five year grants. But that was all for Airdif. Like that was. That was the model of five year. But for new schools, the other 350 million, nothing longer than three years. Yep. But only raise that from about 15 donors.

Yep.

Well, I had multiple donors, but still very concentrated. Yeah. And so any one of them stepping off, you know, we kept renewing them, thankfully, those eight, almost nine years. But that, you know, risk of any one of our multimillion, multi year donors deciding either we weren't for them anymore because we were an intermediary, or they were reducing their education spend and so we were getting less. Or as we were always worried about, they could do it themselves. They didn't need us. Yeah. Because they were building teams and, you know, they wanted to control it more themselves. Like that was a constant, you know, just a constant was always selling, you know, something. It wasn't trying to close a gift. I was always selling what we were up to in our idea during the three year terms because we always wanted to. We always wanted to renew.

I think it's maybe useful to just reiterate for folks that, like, what's interesting is you raised all that money, but you raised it to give it away.

Yeah. So then we gave it away.

Yeah. Because, you know, and so there are these. Yeah, there are these two groups where there's one group that is raising it to really deploy it thoughtfully to operators. And then there are people who are operators who are raising. And people like me would raise money from both you and directly from.

And the big guys. Yeah.

Yeah. So that. That's a lot in the weeds, but hopefully that's helpful to help people understand kind of what we're talking about. I think, Michael, though, maybe we should return to you because you're like, really? Is this, is this really different from the past?

I think that's the question. Right. I mean, I remember When I was running Christensen Institute and raising dollars, there was times when the Gates foundation would all of a sudden change strategies. And it felt like it happened every five years and so forth. And so I think that is the question, which is so a bunch of foundations coming out of COVID You know, strategies are in flux. They're rethinking things. Is the current moment different from other times in the field when we have seen similar shifts in strategies? Or, like, what is really different about or why people are asking some of these questions right now?

Yeah, I would say the, the. You know, I alluded a little bit to this in a general way earlier. So let me get more specific about this current moment and the difference, at least as I. Again, as I see it, as you perceive it. Yeah, yeah, as I perceive it. Plug here that somebody ought to do a really good analysis of this, right? An actual bottoms up analytic project to get this sorted out. But here's where I think we are. The pandemic actually was, you know, as it was for almost everything, right? Like an exogenous shock and event. And that changed. That threw us all, you know, threw us all for a loop, put us all back on our heels, you know, whatever. Like, none of us knew what to do during those early months of the pandemic in 2020, throughout the year, trying to figure out how things were going to sort out. And I think you guys know me. I'm generally an optimist. I'm kind of like a sarcastic optimist or something, if that's a thing. But I really am an optimist. I always think, we're going to figure this out and things are going to be better, things are going to work out. Now, I know that's not always true, but it is my default. Like, that's usually how I'm coming into things, even the worst things. And, you know, during that time, I thought, well, this will be a wake up call for all of us in philanthropy in two ways. One, if we reflect back, like, are you kidding me? That this is really where we are in March, April, May of 2020, that we can't even get kids learning at home effectively on some decent digital content? You know, I was like, devastated because, yeah, as you said, I was next gen Stacy at. You know, somebody created that handle for me right, on Twitter while I was early at the Gates foundation, because that's like, yeah, this is the world. We see kids learning anytime, anywhere, no matter where they are, they can be learning in really deep, rigorous and engaging ways. And that learning should count we should figure out how we'll make that learning count for them, even if it's not in a classroom. And you know, I still believe all that. And here we were, we couldn't do that in any kind of scale and there are lots of reasons for it. But okay, this will be a wake up call, you know, because maybe we'll have another of these. Who knows how this one's going to last. But like in general, like the mindset shift to anytime, anywhere. Like this is actually there's some, some real goodness in this. So that was one thing. The other thing was as kind of philanthropic sector like the one we're talking about. Maybe it'll like shake us out of some of the bad habits we have. I don't know, bad habits. But like some of the standard operating procedures we have that do not serve children well because they do not serve grantees well.

And can you just give a couple examples?

You know, I, I was part of two different coalitions, groups of philanthropists that met often on Zoom during 2020, trying to sort out what can we do what, what should we be doing together? What might we do individually to really be responsive in this moment? And a lot of energy, all good intentions, great people, no principles, by the way. So none of the people with the, who earned and you know, had the money. These were all staff people, great folks who, you know what I. One of the things I was struck by is how heartbroken, stymied, frozen people were by the fact not everyone, but most by the fact that their ways of doing business were no match for what was needed. Not in the size of grants, the flexibility that operators needed in the moment we were in to actually just keep, to do things, learn from it, do them differently, do them longer, do them shorter, more dosage, whatever, and fast. Like people needed resources right now immediately. Especially people with vision for how to respond. You know, their current budgets didn't allow for it or they were doing something new. They needed the money right now because kids were stuck at home not learning right now. And you know, I had a couple of, a handful of column off the record conversations and so I like aggregate to kind of theme background. Here's like, we can't move fast enough. We've, we, we're not set up to do this and we can't do it now. And I'll be like, yes, you can.

Yeah, yeah.

But you have to lead. Like you have to make the case to your principal or your, however you're rolling up, you know, in a hierarchy of decision rights, we Got to throw that stuff out the window, at least for now, about what rigor looks like. Some people think a lot of these institutions kind of, I say replace time for rigor. If it takes us a long time, we're being rigorous. But it may not actually be much rigor happening during that long timeline. It may be sitting on a shelf somewhere while you talk about other things or maybe a hundred people, let me not exaggerate, maybe 15 people have to look at something and it takes months for all 15 to look at it when you knew everything you needed to know after the first three people looked at it. And so you could have made the grant in a month instead of six months or eight months. And I say this both from observation as a fundraiser and also sitting inside the world's largest education funder where I had an amazing experience and also learned a lot and things just take too long. And so I don't see that changing. In fact, some of them figured it out like on an emergency basis, but have kind of gone back to standard operating procedures. They may have reorged in different slides and new consultants came in and charted things out and. But it's still taking a long time. And with these shifts, Michael, that you're saying, is this the same old thing? What's happening is people are getting stuck like mid process and have no idea what happens next and can't get good information about what happens next because quite frankly the staff people inside these institutions aren't sure what's going to happen next. They're trying now to respond to their decision hierarchies and things are just stalled. I mean, I know someone very well who's been working on a multimillion dollar, multi year grant that should just be a renewal. Like it's this. There's no real thing the donor doesn't know about the, you know, the grantee, the work, the fit, whatever. They were warned it would take longer because of churn going on inside. It is taking longer and now it is stalled in like another six or eight months. Well, they needed the money last month and thought the money was going to be decided on in the first payment made last month. And they don't have any visibility into what, what, what's the what like what's happening here. And so I like, I feel like I'm just kind of rambling or ranting now. But it's this thing like there was a moment where you could imagine shaking out of standard operating procedure because it was laid bare that once even if we've had some good Ideas, we've not been funding them at sufficient level. Smartness, durability, duration, whatever, to get us where we need to go. And part of that, not all of it, is about how we do business. Could we take this moment to throw it out the window and throw processes out the window and reinvent them for more responsive. We're saying we're funding innovation. We're saying we're funding growth. This is not how innovation investing.

Yeah.

And growth investing happens in other sectors. The economy. It's just not. And so I. I also like the Depression. Sorry. And then I have one more thing to say about the pandemic lessons.

Well, I'm. It's interesting to be having this conversation, and it's surprising to me we have not really had it, because I think I'd love to share sort of what I was experiencing at that same time that you're talking about. Well, first of all, Michael and I started the podcast because, like you, we were optimistic that that moment was going to create this opportunity. People were going to see what was wrong, not only in how philanthropy was being done, but how schools were being operated, and it would offer this moment in this opportunity. And here we are, season five. And so I think a couple of things that I'm just now reflecting on. One, as an operator, I think everything you're. You're saying is right. Like, I don't think people understand how expensive it was to just survive during the pandemic as a school in a school system. Literally the amount of money that we had to spend on tests and masks and, like, computers and hotspots and just literally everything. And, you know, I would argue that Summit was probably one of the best in the country to get things up and running and affect just what you were describing. Stacy and I, I had to make some decisions where I was just, like, extending ourselves and thinking that the money was going to come in. What's fascinating is the money did not come in from philanthropy as it should, not because it couldn't cover the entire system. It came from the government, though, and the government moved pretty darn quickly, I would say. And so one of the ch challenges is, and, you know, I'm a pretty savvy fundraiser, is I didn't know what to ask philanthropy for at that moment in time, because we couldn't do innovation in that time. We were just trying to survive. We had a lot of money flowing in from the government. I will say, to your exact point. We had one amazing funder who came in within weeks, literally, no surprise, Arthur Rock, who Just gives very generously and does not have a team or staff or any. And his money. What we did with it literally was. We became. I became you because we had so many families in crisis that we actually set up a mini, like, fund to, I mean, just prevent families from being thrown out on the street. Literally, like, help them to make sure that they could stay housed. And, you know, one family who's literally their refrigerator went out and have, you know, I mean, had lost a family member to Covid these tragic situations where people just needed emergency cash.

Yes.

To just survive. And so thank goodness for Arthur to enable, you know, everyone who didn't have Internet to have a hotspot like that you know, within days and things like that. But that was it. That was all that came through. And to your point. Yeah, I'm not. I. Yeah, he just has a really interesting way of thinking about things where he doesn't think that time is going to give him more information, you know, and he always.

He also. And this is another, you know, challenge. I don't want to spend too much time on it unless we come back to it. But Arthur also trusted you to know the best way to deploy those resources. Arson trusted me, and my team does trust that team and, you know, trusted me to put that money to work in ways that would lead to the best outcomes possible for students in that situation or in that arena. And that's another thing, like, as foundation staffs get bigger, they. They hire really smart people. I mean, I worked at one, so I'm not saying, like, they hired the brilliant Stacy Childress and. But, you know, they hire smart people and start. Start to get into the habit of being experts who are lauded, you know, for their smarts and expertise on these issues. And aren't they're not as disposed to say, let me just give the money to Diane and let her do what she needs to do. Yeah. Rather than take nine or 10, nine or 12 months to put her through a process where we're going to know nothing more at the end than we really knew at the beginning, because we. We are also experts and have to expert this to, you know, to death. So I do think that's a challenge. I'm not insulting the people that work in these places. I have many friends, people I have great affection and, and respect for. It's, it's. But I'm talking about the institutions and the culture and the processes that you end up in. Right.

Schools.

Right.

Yeah, I remember. Yeah, I remember. This is 10 years ago at this point. Longer, actually. Stacey But Giselle Huff, our friends, frustration that they would hire people like you and not give you the autonomy just to move quickly. Right to your point. And so it's an organizational issue, not the individuals per se. I guess the bigger thing that I'm hearing from you, I think, is that it's not that the pandemic broke any of these tendencies per se. It just exposed them. And then what's happened out of it, I think you're saying, is that you. It then sort of almost created these existential is the wrong word, but almost crises internally, where people said, gee, who are we? What do we do? How do we go back? Do we not? And it's actually created more. Pause.

Right.

More churn. And maybe that's what's different, is this indecision has almost. This hangover is still here.

The hangover's still here. And in most places, Gates is an interesting exception here, which is. I'll come back to a sec. In most places, it's. We've been doing all, like, that crisis I had right. In the first few months of the pandemic. It was devastating that what I had spent the last six or eight years of my career on, in partnership with you guys and lots of other people just hadn't made more progress. Hadn't made more progress. And for the. For the institutional funders, like, they had spent a lot more money than, you know, put. Put out a lot more money to work than I had individually through my time at Gates or so far at new schools or that you had spent. Right. That you had raised and deployed, Diane, in your work, like, we're talking, you know, multiple years, so multiple billions of dollars. What did we get for it?

Yeah.

And so there's this thing now with the principals, you know, the families and the individual wealthy folks or the trustees. I, you know, would say my billionaire's alive. When I worked at Gates, you know, my billionaires are alive, but at Carnegie, you know, their billionaire passed many decades ago, but they've got these trustees. And so whether it's trustees or you're a living donor, you know, asking good questions, but also not getting great answers from teams who are also trying to figure it out and want to be right or as I say, like, don't want to be wrong.

Yeah, that's.

I want to go back to the well and be wrong with Bill or go back to the well and then turn out this didn't work either with Mark and Priscilla or, you know, the Walton family or whatever. And. And again, I'm not talking about individuals here. I'm using these as examples like how these institutions work. You don't get to just do whatever you want. You know, to Giselle's point, Giselle actually went to the president, sitting president of the Gates foundation about a year after I was there and said, why would you hire Stacy Childress and not let her just like, not just let her spend her budget. Why all these steps, processes. And I was like, God, Giselle, like I didn't tell her to do that or want her to do that and wish she hadn't done that. But it's like, what, what are we waiting, what are we waiting for? Who do we think is going to pop up with some better answer or way? What are we afraid of? Like what, what is, what is it that's keeping us entrenched in these. Where's the boldness that it take took to make the money?

Well, so let me. Yeah, so that's a really interesting point. So let me, let me ask the question in this way then, which is because I'm hearing from a lot of non profits, I sit on boards of non profits that, you know, it's, it's as bad as it's ever been. We've seen a bunch go out of business or, or been acquired for virtually nothing. Maybe that's what should have happened, I don't know. But it seems different in all these ways. But I guess the other question I have when you talk about this isn't how the people who made the billions made the billions. I'm just curious. The shifting of strategies every five years, the churn that you're describing. I'd love both of you to reflect on this. Education is a space where change isn't going to happen in five years across the country. Like this is a big complicated 50 state country with lots of challenges that have nothing to do with schools and education, that interfere with the operations. And it's messy. Right. There's a huge install base. Some of this. Are we guilty of impatience and not just sort of like, hey, we have a good theory of action, let's play with it. Or, or is something else going on?

Yeah.

Yes.

I didn't, I didn't mean, I didn't mean to ask a one word.

Yeah, no, I know. So I was having a conversation recently with someone who is in one of the large institutional donors that we're talking about and this person joined relatively recently. Like you know, not been there for years and years. Newer post pandemic for sure joined and had been an outside observer of this institution and fundraiser from this institution and is learning a lot right in the first year ish in the place. He had an insight that rang true for me that I'd never quite thought about it this way. It's like we've got a theory of change, of what should happen in the sector over many years. We have one and it turns out it's not very rigorous or at least it's not examined with any rigor periodically. It's his, his impression, it's sort of shaped around the personality, you know, of the donor and some preferences of senior staff. And it sounds fine, like it's not that it sounds nuts. Okay, but then we are apply then and then there's not a lot of middle, like not a whole lot of thinking about, okay, what are the kind of categories of things that would have to be moving get to that to make that theory of change have a chance in hell of actually, you know, coming to pass or for us to learn about it in a way that would allow us. It's like not like. And then we, at the individual grant level or individual grantee level, we have all of this rigor, 47 row outcomes tracker, you know, for an 18 month grant that we spend months creating and then every call with the grantee, you know, every quarterly call with the grantee, digging into line items in this thing. But we don't have some intermediate view of how the ecosystem around that, you know, around these levers that would have to push up to the big theory of change, how those are going at all, because we don't really clear about what those are. We've got five, four or five areas within which we're willing to fund things. And even at that, we're not looking at portfolio, we're looking at that. So big idea. Not a lot of rigor around developing it in the first place. But yeah, it got checks, you know, it's fine. And then there's this big middle area that if you thought in the ecosystem or industry way, you'd want to think about and then how individual grants add up into those. It's not happening now. It's sort of resonate. My time with Gates wasn't quite that loose, but there are feet, there were features of it, especially this one at a time like this incredible rigor, which was just a lot of people and a lot of rows on a spreadsheet and a lot of conversations, which is to me is not rigor. Right. It's not. Sometimes things were rigorous, some things were more rigorous than others. But what passed for or what not passed. But what, what, what. The kind of shorthand definition for rigor, you know, is how much time we spent in meetings talking about it, like how many rows on the spreadsheet of outcomes. And again, I think when that happens, right then you're five years in and you have three Beacon grantees, three model grantees to show the principal. But you spent $800 million or a billion and a half dollars or $300 million if you're $100 million a year donor. And you're showing me these three examples, how does this add all add up into. Right. And so there's a real. And so what the pandemic did and the shock of, I think opened up some good questions for which there aren't good answers yet. So what you see with Gates, which is different from what you see with a lot of people where they're stuck, is they narrowed and said our approach is going to be rather than a sector wide transformation theory of change, we're going to go math. And then you can quibble about are they, you know, did they scope it the right way or they still have the same problem of large theory not, you know, and pushing in at the grantee level, I don't know because I'm not there. But the narrowing to math, given how much money they deploy every year. I saw the announcements. Gates has committed a billion, $1.2 billion over three years to math. Well, that's just, that's how much they give away every three years.

Right.

So what they were saying is they're only going to fund math mostly. You know, 90% of their funding is going to go to math stuff for the next three years. It's not an additional billion for math, which is fine, but I think some people miss, kind of misunderstood that in the announcements. But what does that narrowing do? Well, it leads to what you were saying. One thing it can do is lead to what you were saying, Michael. So if you had $350 million a year going to four or five categories of things and you had grantees figuring out a way to get themselves into one of those categories to be, you know, to be in the mix or the pipeline, and now all it is, is math, that's a lot of capital that exited, didn't exit K12, but it exited a lot of other types of innovations, a lot of other kinds of organizations with theories of change that used to fit with Gates and had found a way for 15 or 20 years to get themselves into the categories. Well, as narrow as math is, you're screwed like that, that's. You can't twist your way, write a good proposal, your way into funding from Gates over the next three years if you are not, you know, exclusively and tightly focused on improving math outcomes. Now I'm not saying it's a bad thing that Gates did, that it was one of the responses to what have we been like, what is, what have we done? What is it all added up to? And you know, that gets interpreted as that Bill has said nothing they've done works. He did not say that. Even the report that he, the annual report that he and Melinda did a few years ago that people cite as saying nothing we've done works. But maybe tutoring, that's not what it says and it's not what Bill thinks. But Bill loves math and it's very concrete. It's concrete. And in the ambiguity of our field and what both the challenges and opportunities are in the moment we're in like that all conspires to say, please bring me something concrete and that we could make a set of grants, that then we could count things at the end of it, like how much did math scores improve for the kids who experienced the things we funded.

Yep, that makes sense.

Now the downside of this, again, I have no quibbles with. It's not what I would have done, but I'm not there. I don't work there. So I think what they've done is fine. And a worry I have is if they get to the three years or five, however long they're going to give this one and they still can't do it to build satisfaction, then what? Yeah, we've been system wide transformation. We've been, we've been innovation, charter schools, blah blah. Then we've been district wide, state country wide standards, teacher of system, bobbity blue. We've been next gen. We've been. And we only give things three or five years to your point, Michael. Right, we'll get there. And then we switch, switch, switch. Now we're going to say, okay, maybe the problem is we're too abstract, too unwieldy. Math.

Yeah.

Now where do you go after that? Yeah, I mean I know what I would do. But you know, if you're in that institution and now you're 25 years in, they're going to be 26 or 27 years in by the time the math cycle, you know, kind of comes first math cycle comes to fruition. Now what?

No, that makes sense.

What people are worried about is that the now what will be an exit.

Yeah, that's what people are worried about, for sure.

We're worried about. And this isn't the only one. I use that example because it illustrates it cleanly.

So everything that Stacy's saying is resonating for me and Michael. What I'm thinking about a lot is our conversations about innovation. Because if we go back to the top of this conversation, this is philanthropy for innovation. And, you know, I won't go into a very long history that we've had collectively of like, trying to figure out how to innovate on a giant, decentralized system, because that is a massive, massive challenge. And so I think what you're talking about, Stacy, is like, how do you. How does anyone tackle that? And no one can tackle that clearly. And so we start to narrow and try to get in our lane and be successful at something. And, you know, I'm not going to quibble with math either, because, you know, in the work I'm doing right now, how critically important it is for the future of, you know, the workforce, country, etc. And that's probably not going to transform schools in the way the three of us want them to be transformed. And so that really, I think, is at the heart of this, this angstiness, at least for me, which is, you know, most schools in America are just doing the same old thing. They're taking the federal, state money, local money, and they are just running the same schools. And there's probably no prospect of change really happening there. So those of us who believe change should happen, like, what are the levers? How does that happen? How does this relatively small amount of money actually create the change we want? And so one of the things, as we were, you know, talking through this, Stacy, is, you know, you sort of thought of a list of things that you want funders to do, and you've named a couple of them so far, you know, and then I thought of a list of things I want operators to do, if you will, those who want to innovate and raise philanthropy to do it. And so, you know, maybe, you know, maybe it's worth spending a moment on that, because I do think that there's two sides of this, and I do think there's some things that I notice, me, my peers, those of us who. I'm not in it right now, but, you know, who raise money, need to do in order to be compelling to retain this capital in our space. Because if you're not doing compelling, interesting things, of course your stuff's not going to get funding. So I think the first thing I would say on this front is I'll call it get your conditions in order. And what I'm referencing is work that several people have done. Certainly some folks at the Gates foundation did this years ago. More recently, Transcend has partnered with a group of people to really define the conditions of an organization that's ready to innovate. And Michael, you and I talk about this all the time. Like, you, you actually have to have some structures and some mindsets and some to. To be able to innovate. And you got to get your conditions in order, if you will. And there's great tools to use to know if you have. But if you're just going out and trying to get innovation money and you. You don't even know what your conditions are or if they're in order, you are not primed to be raising money. And so that would be my first thing. I think a lot of people when you start poking, who are kind of frustrated that they're not raising money, don't have their own conditions in order. And what do I mean by conditions? Like, you have to have strong, visionary leadership, right? You have to have certain ways that you operate in your organization anyway. There's a whole set of resources around that. I think the second thing is, do you actually have things to innovate on that other people aren't innovating on that are potentially going to move the needle, you know, and so, again, like, just doing your operations better. Even though Michael and I have had long conversations about, you know, sustaining innovations versus disruptive, and I'm not saying everything has to be disruptive, but like, probably this type of capital, you need to be moved more towards the disruptive side, right? Or a sustaining innovation that is really going to help, you know, transform the. And so you got to have those ideas, truly, and you need to understand the field and what other people are doing to know if you truly have an innovation that you want to have funded. And then you have to do this with discipline. This is hard, heavy work. You don't get money for nothing, right? Like, this is. It's, it's hard work that has to be done with discipline. And, and my experience is when you do that, you get a little bit less of that scrutiny because you do start to earn some trust because it's obvious and apparent that you've done these three things. And then the last thing I would just say is, and I think you'll probably have something to say about the funders as well on this front is I have always tried to think of this as a collaborative venture versus a competitive one. And yet my experience is that most operators sadly sort of fall into a competitive. It's a zero sum game. There's only so much money. If you get it. I don't get it, you know, so, so it's very, I think in some way, even us having this conversation is a little bit like, it feels a little odd to me because people don't have these conversations is why we wanted to have it. Because there is this weird competitiveness that goes on that I actually think is hyper counterproductive because no one's going to do this by themselves. No one. And so it's, it's going to take all of us and more. And so if we actually, as operators acted more collaboratively, I think we would attract and keep more money in the innovation space and sector. And so that would be my wish list for operators. What about for.

Very good. It's very good. And it all definitely rings true. The thing I will add to your, you know, I was an operator, but as a venture, like a, A fund, I was running that thing and having to raise money. So I have a little bit of, you know, perspective that we share. Diane, and I would say you said at the top, one of the conditions is visionary leadership. And both of those words are important in fundraising. Of vision.

Yes.

That you can articulate clearly and compellingly about what the world can and should look like.

Yeah.

If it were to work better for young people and then lead on it, like, you know, don't wait for a funder to have a strategy that you can wedge that vision into lead. The time you're spending out in the field and, you know, in your external activity should be socializing that vision so that other operators who, who share pieces, parts, or all of it are also talking about it. And, and then that's what you're talking about to program officers or, you know, all the different kind of staff people or the, you know, the art, the rocks, the individual donors talking about that vision, you're leading on it with conviction. So visionary leadership, you've got to actively do both things and donors will follow that vision and that leadership. You and I have both seen it happen. We've both done it, we both caused it to happen as leaders. And so it does pay off. Okay. So for, for the donor side, you know, my, the first thing I wish they would do is just give away the money.

Yeah.

You know, I want them to, you know, remember the fundamental purpose of what you're organized to do and what you're Given significant tax breaks for. To give away the money. You're not organized to have internal meetings and PowerPoints and memos and politics and reorgs and to go to external conferences and be seen as a thought leader and have learning trips and you know, those things can help the, you know, the, the, the aims you have. Certainly they can also distract from it. Give the money away. That's your whole job. Not the coalitions and the communities of practice. And yes, but give the money away and then use those things that you have to do in service of moving, moving the money. So that's like my first thing. It sounds so silly, but it's like I would just, I'm so, would get so frustrated over the last 10 years with this. Right. Give away the money. It's your whole job is to give the money away and all the other things have to support that. But what are you waiting for? Give the money away. I would also say in this moment, you know, we talked about the pandemic and the dynamics that caused generally and specifically in philanthropy and I would just imply implore any of the funders that are listening, including the staffs that can influence that I hope will have the courage to do everything they can to influence the perspective of their decision matrix internally, including the principals. Now is the time to increase, not decrease your giving right now. What are you waiting for if not now, when One perspective or mindset to adopt about this is you don't have the answer yet because there's not one.

There's that one.

There's not the answer. High dosage tutoring isn't the answer. But that's how it gets, you know, things. It's a trend. It's not, I'm not. High dose tutoring is awesome. Like I'm glad we have it. I'm glad people are funding that. But like it's not the answer. It's a piece of a puzzle that leads to overall, you know, educational flourishing. And so stop waiting for an answer and stop looking for small things while you're looking for the big thing. Like there's lots of answers in, in fact there are multiple answers in within segments and you know, partial answers that need more time to develop and morph and get ripped apart and put back together. Fund them, learn from him for them. Stop with the 47 row spreadsheet metrics and outcomes as kind of the main thing. You spend your time on creating and monitoring and you know, let, let's, let's get out there, you know, and, and actually fund the people who are Doing the work and listen to them, believe them, recognize patterns among them, and fund lots of things. So more gifts, bigger gifts right now. Like, that's the, that's why, like, go, what are you waiting for? Go, go, go. As part of that, like, make decisions faster. You're not going to fund everything, you know, even once. I, like, fund lots of stuff and fund faster, you know, you know me well enough to know. I don't mean just throw a bunch of money out the door at whatever and whomever. Actually, that's horrible because I know who wins in that game. People doing all the things and figuring out how to tell the stories best that haven't. They're the talkers in our field. Right. Are the people who win if everybody, if you can just fund whatever. So I'm not saying that, but I am saying give the money away now, bigger, all that, and make decisions faster. Like, you're not going to fund everything, but please commit and find ways to say yes fast

and say no faster. Say no faster, faster.

Because you know no long before you know yes. If you're doing kind of a proper diligence process, like it's not the last day of the process that you decide no. Yep. As soon as you know it's no. Tell the operator. Yeah, you can't imagine how much time and energy is being spent waiting for you to tell them yes. How many conversations are having with their board, Right. Other donors, plans. It's just tell them no fat. You know, it's like, yes, fast. No, even faster. Like, let's go. And if your time doesn't equal rigor. So if your processes are getting in the way of that, rip them down something different and do it now. Like, so I would say one of the reasons this animates me so beyond the obvious good of getting the money into the field and letting smart, intelligent, visionary leaders and their people do what they can with it and learn from it and serve kids better. Is that many for four donors who have say, over a billion dollars in network especially. It's not exclusively like in the hundreds of millions too, but especially for billionaires. Their fortunes are growing faster than they. Than their lifetime philanthropic commitments would suggest. They're going to get the money out the door. Right? So I just think an anecdote about this a few years ago when I was in a fundraising cycle and was counting on a donor to come in at a certain level on a renewal and got the sad news, you know, trying to get tens of millions and got multiple tens of millions and got a couple of tens of millions. It was an enormous grant. It was something to celebrate. I was disappointed because I wanted, you know, I planned for more from them, but also I was frustrated because, you know, Silicon Valley is a, you know, it's like a neighborhood. It's a, it's a weird thing. And the donors all talk to each other and then many of them talk to me. And so I knew that this person was at cocktail parties and other kinds of gatherings saying that they had a billion dollars in their donor advised fund at a community foundation because they kept putting it over there at the end of the year for tax purposes because they couldn't find enough good things to fund, including education. And they had just given me multiple tens of millions. Like that's not a statement of you can't find anything good fun. But it was less than right. So, so we're like, what are you waiting for? So like, one thing to consider and we kind of roll to the end here with this. Like when I first joined new schools and I was trying to figure out what the investment kind of footprint would be before we did a specific strategy, because what we had wasn't working, you know, and it was, that was relative. It was kind of a quiet secret in the field that the kind of theory had run its course at new schools and they had been struggling to raise money for a couple of years and frustrating the field and all of this stuff. Great people, but, you know, they've been running a certain way for a long time. It's time to rethink it. And I was trying to figure out, okay, if we're not going to do a few, few grants a year or here's what we've been doing, you know, if I want to think differently about it, what are some concept, conceptual models to consider for a different way. And I, someone who, you know, was a contemporary of Vinod Khosla, who's a Silicon Valley venture capitalist, he was a co founder of Sun Microsystems and then, you know, became a VC and now has his own fund, Coastal Ventures, and he and his wife do philanthropy. But he was at Kleiner Perkins for years. And when he first became a vc, and you know how a lot of people know how venture capital works. You're looking for the one in a category. You're looking for the team and the idea and the company that can win in the category you want to be ideally, number one, you might take number two in a category. You want a category creator or you want a category killer, you know, a new thing that's going to kill an old cat. But you're looking for that one and I know that. And it's how new schools had largely been operating and what Brooke Byers, who I don't know if I should reveal his identity for having told this story, but I think it's okay. It's pretty widespread knowledge in the venture community. Vinode was because of his time at Sun Microsystems and then what he was learning as a venture partner when he was first coming out on general partner at Kleiner, what he was learning. He had a sense, not a bunch of spreadsheets and analytical data and like a sense that something new was coming from closed network systems, you know, like your Sun Microsystems and your Wise terminals and all that, that something new was coming. It had to do with packet switching. You know, it has like this, this Internet thing that's you know, basically a government, you know, research that there's probably commercial but like a lot of things needed to happen for that to come to pass. Yeah, he believed it would come to pass. But was there a way to make it come faster? We get there in five years or 10 years instead of 10 or 20 years. And you know, we worked with some other smart people and engineers and you know, around the valley and they came up with this theory of some categories of innovations that needed to happen that didn't currently exist to bridge from where we were to where we might go, which ended up being the commercial Internet. But we were here, we were a few years from that. And so he had like this, you know, call it a investment roadmap or a market map or something of these non existent categories of companies that needed to come about in order to create these innovations in packet swishing and routers and you know, kind of open networks, like all these things. And he convinced the partners at Kleiner Perkins we don't, it's too early and we don't know enough but it's coming so we can't try to find the one. We don't even know if the categories are right or they're directionally correct. We gotta fund everything. So we want to take multiple shots on goal or multiple swings at the plate in these nascent categories because we don't know who's going to win. We still want our fundamentals, great teams, you know, innovative idea, you know, real strategic insight about how the industry is going to change or a new category is going to get created and they may be right or they may be wrong. Let's back great teams and more than one of them in each of These. So basically, let's fund everything, which, you know, again, that's a tagline. They didn't fund everything in fund bad teams. They didn't fund stupid ideas, you know, and it was remarkable. Like such a different approach, kind of a humble approach. Like, we have a vision for how things likely are going to shake out or how they should shake out. We don't know enough to know who the winner is going to be. So let's fund lots of things. And the way it worked out, I mean, from a financial perspective, it made the firm billions and billions and billions and billions of dollars. Like the big home run. There's Juniper Networks, but there were many others. So some of them didn't pan out at all. Like total flops. A whole bunch of them did fine, maybe a little below venture, you know, a little above, a little below venture expectations, but solid, solid bets that paid off fine. And then there were a handful of just absolute home runs that simply did not exist five years before. Yeah, and this is different, obviously, what we're doing and talking about. But from where I sat at new schools when I joined in the fall of 2014, start fundraising in 2015, I felt like we were in a moment like that. Like the three of us and a lot of other fellow travelers had been kind of playing around with some things, both as operators, thought leaders. Michael, you investor me at Gates about the way the world could and should look for kids. And there were some things that didn't exist yet that we were only seeing glimpses of. And, you know, our strategy at Gates to some degree, but especially when we got to new schools, like, let's push it all into the table on this vision for the future. And some categories of things that have to get better for that to either come about or for us to learn that that's not the way this is going to go. And so rather than trying to find the answer or the thing or create these weird camps where, oh, it's personalized learning. No, it's high quality curriculum. Let's have a fight about that. Wouldn't both of those things be great? Yeah, wouldn't it be great if what we were personalized was some pretty good stuff instead of junk like, really like, so stop doing those things. Take a broad view of the space. Maybe you've only got one. Maybe you've only got enough resources or appetite for one of the categories. But be clear about what that is and what it's leading to. And if you've got the resources of $100 million or more a Year. Like go across the board and fund every good team and idea, every good team, an idea. And stop thinking that you've got all the answers inside. The smartest people, smartest. Most of the smartest people don't work for you. You've got like really smart people working for you. And it's a handful of people. Like most of the smart people don't work there. So like, get out. The answers are not inside your foundation. They're just not. Just like they're not inside of a venture fund. They're outside, they're out there. Fund, learn, fund again, learn. Give the money away and go and listen. I wish people would do more with intermediaries. I mean, I'm a little, you know, I'm a little biased because I ran one and started another one. But they are a great value for donors. Like if I, I won't say names here, but like if I were the leader of a staff at a foundation that had say, $350 million a year to give away, I would work as hard as I could to convince my principal that we should give that $300 million a year to four or five grantees in 75, 50, 70, 500 million dollar chunks. And those would be intermediaries. And then I would have a staff of no more than 10 people, not 125 or 100 or what about 10 people, each of whom was a relationship manager with that thing and then the others of whom helped us learn and adapt. Because then you get the benefit of lots of smart people doing lots of stuff, smart things in the intermediaries and their grantees rather than having to push it all yourself. Right, that, that is what I would advise and what I would do. And if you're under $20 million a year, don't build a staff. Like go with an intermediary. You get the leverage, the expertise, the nimbleness, the learning. And follow McKenzie Scott's example. That's my last thing. Like, I keep waiting for her approach to influence others. I think it might be about to be an influence on Melinda Gates. She's going to give a, a billion dollars in the next two years to women's issues. There's no way you can use a Gates like process to move a billion dollars to women's issues in the next two years. So I'm thinking they're good friends and have some similar advisors. And so I'm hoping that's where that's headed. But big gifts, unrestricted, lightweight process, fast decisions, little to no reporting requirements. Like that's the McKenzie Scott approach, it is not perfect. It can be tough. Tough to figure out how to get in the pipeline, you know, some transparency stuff. But in my view, those challenges are far outweighed by getting the money out the door. Let's do it. Let's get that money. Well, not now. When, like, who are you waiting for? And honest with yourself, like, what are you afraid of? From going really big and visionary and moving lots of resources very quickly to people doing really interesting and important work.

Well, Diane, as we wrap up five seasons here with our final episode, I think we finally had our Jerry Maguire moment, which is, hey, it's no longer show me the money, it's give away

the money away the money.

And Stacy, you have nailed it. And so with that as a segue as we wrap up an episode, I've learned a lot from both of you on. So thank you both. Let's finish up with some things. We are reading, watching, whatever. Stacy, we're going to call on you first. And hopefully it's not Jerry Maguire, but if it is, we understand Jerry Maguire.

It's not Jerry McGuire. I will say that Stadly, I'm still, you know, very much, you know, watching and listening to heartbreaking, disappointing Astros baseball. But hope springs eternal.

Life Stretch.

New thing. New thing. There is a relatively old, about 10 years old documentary on prime video which I never heard of. And like, it got recommended to me because of something I watched. I was like, oh, that looks interesting. It's called the Wrecking Crew and it is a deep dive on this kind of loose group of studio musicians, session musicians in LA in the 60s and 70s that basically backed 60, 70% of the big radio hits of the late 60s through about 75. So things like the Righteous Brothers, the Mamas and the Papas, Sonny and Cher, they actually were the monkeys, like goofy guys, you know, the. The Beach Boys. So the Beach Boys had live concerts and they obviously the Boys themselves played the brothers and the other. But every studio albums the Wrecking Crew. Wow. Just these guys and like these really iconic. So like Sonny and Cher like had the beat goes on and like there's just a walking bass line in it that's basically makes the song. Well, they didn't. Nobody had that. It's a woman bass player in the Wrecking Crew who came up with Boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom. She did that. Wynn Campbell, Lyman county has this iconic opening. That bass player created that. Like they just backed they. So it's like my investment back. Everybody be the packing band for Everybody and create lots of hits. I just that but well, let.

This is what happens when you have an episode where two of Stacy's passions, philanthropy and music. So, I mean, wow. So exciting. Exciting. I, I will just say that, you know, I, I can't help myself but say like, I agree with everything you're saying. I hope it happens because I actually think we have. I feel like we're at that early sort of 2010, 2011 moment again. I can just feel it. And so I hope that people jump on and jump in. And I actually think, believe it or not, no one else in the world is ahead of us yet on redesigning their education systems. We have an opportunity as an right now. And and so I just continue to be deeply optimistic. So I am reading a early advanced copy of 10 to 25, which is Dr. David Yeager's new book. And I just love, love, love, love him. He had such an impact on our work at Summit. I. He's such an amazing researcher. For those don't who don't know, he spent a number of years working with Carol Dweck and lots of other people. But he, his heart is in schools and with young people and he's so good at connecting research with the actual work. Anyway, I think it's going to be incredibly powerful. It's talking about this mentoring mindset, which is a continuation of growth mindset, and so super excited to, to talk more about that. It'll be out in August and I think it's going to be a hot.

We are going to have to dig in then at that point. That sounds, it sounds really exciting. Diane, I'm glad you're reading it. I'll just wrap up mine. We, my kids got away for their outdoor nature's classroom few days, so my wife and I once again went to New York City and saw a couple shows which was terrific. We saw Merrily We Roll along, highly recommend An Enemy of the People, which was, which was fun as well. And then Stacy, like you, lots of sports in my current moment, but the Celtics are having a little bit more success at the moment than are your Astros. So I'm enjoying, I'm enjoying all of that. But in line with the sports, I recently finished Outlive by Peter Attia, of course. So yeah, yeah, it was great. It was great. A few new tips, a few things that I had known and a whole bunch of common sense sprinkled in. So with that, Stacy, tremendous thank you for joining us for enlivening the last five episodes. And we'll see where that goes. Diane, as always, thank you for the partnership we've had and for all of you listening, thanks for joining us now on five full seasons of class disrupted.