Are We A Virtual Organization?
This is going to be long, but please stick with me.
Arnold Wasserman from the Idea Factory made me mad the other day. That's part of his job I suppose, to challenge people and get them thinking. What he said was that for someone to be innovative, their entire organization needs to be innovative. As many of us know, this isn't true. Many people in our network work as lone wolves, being an only voice of change in their building. So this has me thinking.
Are we an organization?
Us. Our international network of teachers, consultants, administrators and Ph.Ds. We've got all the trappings of an education system, we just happen to be a geographically dispersed organization. There are plenty of models out there of virtual companies that only exist as a network of people working on specific goals. They have no buildings. They may only have email addresses and cards, conducting their business wherever they happen to be.
If we begin to think of ourselves like this, as an organization, an international network of educators who are all pursuing the same basic goals (educational change to meet the demands of the twenty first century, the infusion of technology into teaching, openness and transparency, etc) we are a group that is at least several thousand people who just happen to be spread out across the globe.
Darren Kuropatwa was musing about this yesterday and wondered about the political pressure we could bring to bear on an issue if we had a mind to. Now, I have never discussed this with him, but imagine if we, as a group, all had sent emails and letters to the authority in Australia who shut down Al Upton. Basically these letters could have explained that we are a group of international educators who advocate for educational change and who monitor situations like this one. We could have issued a press release to news organizations explaining the situation and musing about authorities stifling innovation in education. A similar model to what Amnesty International does: draw attention to a situation, publicize and promote.
Now stick with me, here comes the leap.
Now what would happen if all of the people in this group were to donate a sum of money to support this cause?
Here's what I was thinking:
If 500 people were to all donate $100 we would have $50 000. With a sum of money like that, we could hire someone to work on our behalf. I think this is a fair salary for a year's work. This person could serve as an education change advocate and lobbyist for part of their day, writing letters to political representatives, op-ed columns for newspapers, work on press releases, write form letters for us that we could use in situations like Al's. This part of their day could be spent spreading the message that we have all been working with. Given a certain budget, they could give presentations at conferences and even set up a booth at trade shows to recruit more members. For the other part of their day, this person would work as a resource person for the group. For example, if you were a principal, this person could locate original resources for you to use with your staff. As a teacher, this person could find you videos or tutorials to use with your class. Using the power of the group, they might even be able to get us bulk discounts of some type on technology purchases.
Obviously this group needs to be as large as possible. More people = more political weight and clout. So there could be a scale. You could donate as little as you want to the group and that money would be used for the advocacy / political side of things. But with a donation of lets say $100 or more, you would have access to the person who is hired as a resource.
I'm completely serious about this.
I've started a campaign at a website called The Point. At The Point, you can input your credit card information with the amount that you are willing to donate to this fund. But the great thing is, not one person is charged a single penny until we reach the tipping point I've put in of $50 000. Your information is safe and secure with this site. It would be great if we could get a group of people who would be willing to serve as a hiring committee and who could write a job description and set firm goals once we get close. All of the money collected would be administered in public and all people involved would be able to request information on finances at any point.
I'm interested to truly know what you think about this idea. Leave a comment or email me directly <glassbeed@gmail.com> if you want further information. Please repost this or write your own posts if you think this is a good idea. The wider the audience, the better.
Here is the code that you can paste on your blog or site to insert a widget supporting this campaign:
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.thepoint.com/widgets/campaign/reinventing-education"></script>
I've started us off with a $200 donation.
Arnold Wasserman from the Idea Factory made me mad the other day. That's part of his job I suppose, to challenge people and get them thinking. What he said was that for someone to be innovative, their entire organization needs to be innovative. As many of us know, this isn't true. Many people in our network work as lone wolves, being an only voice of change in their building. So this has me thinking.
Are we an organization?
Us. Our international network of teachers, consultants, administrators and Ph.Ds. We've got all the trappings of an education system, we just happen to be a geographically dispersed organization. There are plenty of models out there of virtual companies that only exist as a network of people working on specific goals. They have no buildings. They may only have email addresses and cards, conducting their business wherever they happen to be.
If we begin to think of ourselves like this, as an organization, an international network of educators who are all pursuing the same basic goals (educational change to meet the demands of the twenty first century, the infusion of technology into teaching, openness and transparency, etc) we are a group that is at least several thousand people who just happen to be spread out across the globe.
Darren Kuropatwa was musing about this yesterday and wondered about the political pressure we could bring to bear on an issue if we had a mind to. Now, I have never discussed this with him, but imagine if we, as a group, all had sent emails and letters to the authority in Australia who shut down Al Upton. Basically these letters could have explained that we are a group of international educators who advocate for educational change and who monitor situations like this one. We could have issued a press release to news organizations explaining the situation and musing about authorities stifling innovation in education. A similar model to what Amnesty International does: draw attention to a situation, publicize and promote.
Now stick with me, here comes the leap.
Now what would happen if all of the people in this group were to donate a sum of money to support this cause?
Here's what I was thinking:
If 500 people were to all donate $100 we would have $50 000. With a sum of money like that, we could hire someone to work on our behalf. I think this is a fair salary for a year's work. This person could serve as an education change advocate and lobbyist for part of their day, writing letters to political representatives, op-ed columns for newspapers, work on press releases, write form letters for us that we could use in situations like Al's. This part of their day could be spent spreading the message that we have all been working with. Given a certain budget, they could give presentations at conferences and even set up a booth at trade shows to recruit more members. For the other part of their day, this person would work as a resource person for the group. For example, if you were a principal, this person could locate original resources for you to use with your staff. As a teacher, this person could find you videos or tutorials to use with your class. Using the power of the group, they might even be able to get us bulk discounts of some type on technology purchases.
Obviously this group needs to be as large as possible. More people = more political weight and clout. So there could be a scale. You could donate as little as you want to the group and that money would be used for the advocacy / political side of things. But with a donation of lets say $100 or more, you would have access to the person who is hired as a resource.
I'm completely serious about this.
I've started a campaign at a website called The Point. At The Point, you can input your credit card information with the amount that you are willing to donate to this fund. But the great thing is, not one person is charged a single penny until we reach the tipping point I've put in of $50 000. Your information is safe and secure with this site. It would be great if we could get a group of people who would be willing to serve as a hiring committee and who could write a job description and set firm goals once we get close. All of the money collected would be administered in public and all people involved would be able to request information on finances at any point.
I'm interested to truly know what you think about this idea. Leave a comment or email me directly <glassbeed@gmail.com> if you want further information. Please repost this or write your own posts if you think this is a good idea. The wider the audience, the better.
Here is the code that you can paste on your blog or site to insert a widget supporting this campaign:
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.thepoint.com/widgets/campaign/reinventing-education"></script>
I've started us off with a $200 donation.
That's going to be one hell of a job interview that person will need to go through.
Posted by: Brian Mull | Friday, May 30, 2008 at 08:10 PM
I need more details before I put my money where my mouth is. Who's this person responsible to? Who makes the final decision? You?
Perhaps we need a bit more discussion before asking people to part with (theoretical) cash. :-)
Posted by: Doug Belshaw | Saturday, May 31, 2008 at 07:02 AM
With a well-crafted mission statement and links to the types of work each of us is doing, I suspect such a global educational organization of like-minded educators would also have allies in the parent community.
I agree with Doug that further discussion would help refine the vision and organizational structure for such a group. In a sense you could get folks on board before deciding whether funding would be required to make a greater difference.
I heard about "The Point" a few weeks ago on CBC's Spark podcast. It's a unique way of safely getting folks on board for missions of this type.
Posted by: Rodd Lucier | Saturday, May 31, 2008 at 09:38 AM
It's hard to hire the sort of person you want with one-time small donations from a lot of different people, and harder still to get anything coherent going without a governing structure, beyond a self-appointed committee of volunteers.
People tend to underestimate the importance of hierarchy, which is not a bad thing.
The hankering for an organization is a hankering for hierarchy, for a new level in the order of things. A key to understanding hierarchy is understanding the various sorts of information flow, including horizontal and vertical, but also constructive and destructive.
Once these principles are understood, as they work out in actual situations, one comes to understand that "transparency" is not all that is needed. The need for constraint is as real as death by virus.
Posted by: Michael Umphrey | Saturday, May 31, 2008 at 03:22 PM
It's hard to hire the sort of person you want with one-time small donations from a lot of different people, and harder still to get anything coherent going without a governing structure, beyond a self-appointed committee of volunteers.
People tend to underestimate the importance of hierarchy, which is not a bad thing.
The hankering for an organization is a hankering for hierarchy, for a new level in the order of things. A key to understanding hierarchy is understanding the various sorts of information flow, including horizontal and vertical, but also constructive and destructive.
Once these principles are understood, as they work out in actual situations, one comes to understand that "transparency" is not all that is needed. The need for constraint is as real as death by virus.
Posted by: Michael Umphrey | Saturday, May 31, 2008 at 03:23 PM
It's hard to hire the sort of person you want with one-time small donations from a lot of different people, and harder still to get anything coherent going without a governing structure, beyond a self-appointed committee of volunteers.
People tend to underestimate the importance of hierarchy, which is not a bad thing.
The hankering for an organization is a hankering for hierarchy, for a new level in the order of things. A key to understanding hierarchy is understanding the various sorts of information flow, including horizontal and vertical, but also constructive and destructive.
Once these principles are understood, as they work out in actual situations, one comes to understand that "transparency" is not all that is needed. The need for constraint is as real as death by virus.
Posted by: Michael Umphrey | Saturday, May 31, 2008 at 03:23 PM
Absolutely, I agree with much of what has been said here. I don't agree that this is impossible at all. This is how a lot of fundraising is done, with small donations. We're a network of at least several thousand people, we could do this .
I'm not sure who this person would report to. A final hiring committee? I'm interested in hearing your thoughts. We would need a structure and an organization of some type. I am not looking at setting up another edtech organization. We are a loose network, but with some type of voice I think we could actually effect serious systemic change. I also believe that getting the word out more in mainstream (read:print) organizations is what we need to do. Parents, school districts and businesses would hear our voice and see us as an actual group with some expertise and experience, knowledge talking about the things we talk about.
While this seems to be the opposite of the edupunk meme that is going around, in fact, I think this is exactly edupunk. This is us, DIY, outside of the corporate world and not waiting for anyone's permission but rather doing it for ourselves.
Who's got thoughts and ideas? Write your own post and get your ideas out there whether you love the idea or hate it, I'd like to know what you think.
Posted by: Clarence Fisher | Sunday, June 01, 2008 at 09:07 AM
Quite an interesting idea -- but limiting at this time......we need to think beyond the $50,000 and also what to if the person hired was not to work out.....and tax issues.....and and and.....
there are a lot more things to think about -- that I think have not been thought of.
But I do agree that we are much more powerful of an organization that we are giving ourselves credit for. But that can be both positive and negative -- power is not always good.
I wonder -- what if we started some sort of fund....$50,000 could be a great bit of money to help people get to conferences that don't have money, to perhaps give a scholarship to a student blogger, to support someone when perhaps they lose a job, or need some quick cash, or an emergency comes up.
IN my helpful mind, that is where I think we might be of most use. It would not be hard to set up a team -- and not just 1 person -- who would make decisions.
Smiles -- just my 2 cents -- sorry if I diverted off the main idea.
Jen
Posted by: Jennifer Wagner | Sunday, June 01, 2008 at 09:05 PM