The William T. Grant
Foundation’s Education
Portfolio and Priorities
Robert C. Granger, Ed.D.
Materials prepared for a meeting of the Board of the National Education Knowledge
Industry Association (NEKIA)
Washington, DC
November 19, 2004
William T. Grant Foundation
www.wtgrantfoundation.org
Overview of Presentation
•Introduction to the William T. Grant Foundation
•Overview of WTG current portfolio of education-related grants
•Our collective challenge and some “realities”
•Possible next steps for NEKIA and members
William T. Grant Foundation
www.wtgrantfoundation.org
2
Snapshot of the William T. Grant
Foundation
•Established in 1936.
•Consistent purpose: some variety in tactics and focus.
•$12 million in Grants/year: $ 8 million in investigator-initiated
awards; $1.5 million for William T. Grant Scholars; $1.0 million for
youth service and other small awards under $25,000; $1.5 million for
advocacy, fellowships, special initiatives, program development.
•Senior Program Team: Ed Seidman, Rebecca Maynard, Tom
Weisner, Brian Wilcox, and Bob Granger.
William T. Grant Foundation
www.wtgrantfoundation.org
3
Mission Statement
The mission of the William T. Grant Foundation is to help create
a society that values youth and enables them to reach their full
potential.
William T. Grant Foundation
www.wtgrantfoundation.org
4
Logic Model:
How WTG’s grantmaking can create a society that values
young people and helps them reach their full potential.
OUR
GRANTMAKING
IMPROVES
KNOWLEDGE AND
COMMUNICATION
KNOWLEDGE AND
COMMUNICATION
HELP IMPROVE
SCHOLARSHIP,
POLICY, AND
PRACTICE
SOCIAL SETTINGS1
BETTER SUPPORT2
YOUTH
DEVELOPMENT
YOUNG PEOPLE
THRIVE
Research
Researchers
Policymakers
Practitioners
Funders
Advocates
1.
Families
Peer Groups
Neighborhoods
Organizations (Schools,
Libraries, Youth
Organizations)
Young people develop the
personal and social assets that
facilitate positive
development.
Communication
Capacity Building
2.
Supportive relationships
with adults and peers
Opportunities for Skill
building
Opportunities to belong
Physical and Psychological
safety
•Physical
•Intellectual
•Psychological/Emotional
•Social
5
Current Priorities
•
Youth. Domestic U.S.; ages 8-25; special interest in vulnerable young
people.
•
Youth Development. Understanding how social settings such as
families, organizations, and neighborhoods affect young people.
•
Improving Systems, Organizations, and Programs. Understanding
how to durably improve social settings.
•
Adults’ Use of Evidence. Understanding how scientific evidence
affects the knowledge and behavior of influential policymakers and
practitioners.
William T. Grant Foundation
www.wtgrantfoundation.org
6
Characteristics of Successful Research
Proposals
A successful proposal:
•
Matches our current priorities;
•
Poses important questions for theory and policy practice;
•
Tackles a few questions well;
•
Is beyond the pilot phase;
•
Moves beyond description to intervention or capitalizing
on “natural” change;
•
Meets some of our other special considerations; and
•
Is preceded by a coherent letter of inquiry, a thoughtful
and clear proposal; and a measured response to reviewer
comments.
William T. Grant Foundation
www.wtgrantfoundation.org
7
The Current Education Portfolio
•Education-related grants are approximately 25% of our portfolio
(50/200).
•54 current or recently completed Education-related grants* can
be categorized as follows: after-school (23); K-12 policies and
reforms (10); student motivation and involvement (6); influences
of culture and family on achievement (9), and post-secondary
policies and reforms (6).
*A hand-out describing these grants will be available at the
meeting and also on our website.
William T. Grant Foundation
www.wtgrantfoundation.org
8
The Current Education Portfolio (cont’d.)
•
Most of our current grants are either descriptive or intervention
studies looking at how a setting (school/family) affects young
people.
•
Very few studies are trying to understand how to intervene and
improve schools or other youth organizations (examples of
projects that are doing this include Hohmann and Smith; Smith
and Smoll; Alexander; Hirsch; Bowen; Quint).
•
No studies of how or when “influential” scholars, policymakers,
and practitioners use research evidence.
William T. Grant Foundation
www.wtgrantfoundation.org
9
The Challenge for the Future
We have considerable agreement on the features of a “good school”
or a “good youth program”. But we do not know how to create such
features when they do not exist.
William T. Grant Foundation
www.wtgrantfoundation.org
10
A Few Realities About Our
Challenge
•We know much more about how changes in policies (e.g.
desegregation policies, class size) and practices (e.g. curricula, staff
practices) affect young people than how changes in policy and
practice affect school systems, schools, and classrooms.
•Change is unlikely without dissatisfaction with the status quo and the
knowledge, skills, and resources that will support change (in short:
“will” and “capacity”).
•We like to learn about new practices from persons we know or trust.
Peers are powerful.
William T. Grant Foundation
www.wtgrantfoundation.org
11
A Few Realities About Our
Challenge (cont’d.)
•Complex problems usually demand local ownership and adaptation
of possible solutions.
•Educational achievement and attainment are a function of many
things including family, peer, and community influences. But schools
(and especially classrooms) make a big difference.
•Educational achievement and attainment will not improve without
changing the daily experiences of young people (reforms need to
penetrate the classroom walls).
William T. Grant Foundation
www.wtgrantfoundation.org
12
Possible Next Steps for NEKIA
and Members
•Meet with grantees (we can broker)
•Submit Letters of Inquiry that pose important questions and methods
up to answering those questions.
•Watch for next year’s RFP.
William T. Grant Foundation
www.wtgrantfoundation.org
13