The Future is in the New

BEN ARMENT - Originally posted Tuesday, November 24, 2009   Hundreds of thousands of pastors have converged upon South Barrington, Illinois, at one time or another to attend a Willow Creek conference. For years, it was Mecca for outreach-minded church leaders. They came to learn the models and methods of this larger-than- life church. And that’s a shame.

It’s a shame that most of us missed the beginning of Willow Creek Community Church. We missed the college class where Bill Hybels caught the vision for a New Testament church from Dr. Bilezikian. We missed selling vegetables door-to-door with a teenaged Nancy Beach to help pay the bills. We missed the years of meeting in a movie theater and the infamous “train wreck” (detailed in Rediscovering Church by Lynne & Bill Hybels) that almost killed the church.

Most of us caught the back end of the vision for Willow Creek, when it was tested, proven, and old. Once it broke all records in church ministry, we finally paid attention. When the lakeside auditorium was built and the escalators were installed, we finally woke up. And that’s a shame.

It’s a shame that we only catch on to great ideas when they’re no longer new. Willow Creek is a living monument to the power of vision, but we seem to have learned nothing from its story. When was the last time you paid any attention to a recent college graduate with a dream?

It’s a shame because the future is in the new.

Last year, I worked at Catalyst Conference, where we hosted 12,000 church leaders in Atlanta, 3,500 in California, and thousands of others at one-day events all across the country. The events were packed, the excitement was contagious, and the momentum was unquestionable. This year’s gathering in Atlanta sold out at 13,000 people and became the highest trending topic on Twitter. But hardly anyone was excited about Catalyst when it started. They had to give away hundreds of free tickets in its first year. Only two or three sponsors were interested in exhibiting. The early bird deadline was extended at least three times to reel in the stragglers. Nearly two-thirds of the attendees came from North Point Community Church, and that only happened because Andy Stanley promoted it for $49 two weeks before the event.

What a shame.

We miss out on the most important season of a vision’s lifecycle because we have an undying love for proven ideas and a blatant disregard for new ones. We don’t want to tolerate the hardships or the impossible odds that come with new ideas. We don’t want to take a risk on something untested. We want to gather where others are gathering, celebrate what others are celebrating, and affirm what others are affirming.

I’ll never forget the story of how a pastor visiting Willow Creek got caught measuring the distance from the rear doors to the front stage, presumably for his own building campaign. He wanted his church to be just like Willow’s, but without the unique vision. I think he missed the point. And unfortunately, so have most of us.

This year, a considerable number of conferences are closing down. Rob Bell just announced the end of NOOMA. The time is ripe for fresh, new vision, but it’s not going to come from what is already established and proven. The future comes from the new. And this means we all have to take some risks. We have to start looking for great ideas in their infancy. We can’t dismiss a young staffer’s audacious idea just because he’s inexperienced. Sure, he’ll make mistakes, but his idea will become refined by the process. It just might be the next great revolution in the church.

We have to trade our preferences for potential. If we go to the same conferences, listen to the same podcasts, and follow the same preachers, we’ll get more of the same. It’s time to shuffle the iPod and discover some new opportunities.

We have to be willing to break some rules. Great ideas turn into systems that get repeated over and over again. So when a new idea comes along, it threatens our way of doing things. We’ll be inclined to say, “You’re not allowed to do that.” But we have to be willing to break the rules if these new ideas have a shot at making it.

So go ahead—honor the idea-makers of the past. But make room for the obscure, the unheard-of, and the ridiculous. The future is in the new.

Ben Arment is the founder of STORY (www.storychicago.com). He is a former church planter and a daily blogger at www.BenArment.com.

Five Social Media Fundraising Trends for 2009

By Beth Kanter
I usually don't write end of year roundups until those quiet last days of the year, but if Leave09Behind  gets legs, that might be next week!   But I'm a member of the Social Media Advisory Board for SmartBrief, Inc, a terrific daily summary of social media insights and they asked me to do a roundup post for this week.

Over the past six months, I've been collaborating on a book with Allison Fine, titled "The Networked Nonprofit"  and we've been sifting through stories, research, and seeing many patterns. So for this post,  I'd like to share 5 fundraising trends that we saw emerging in 2009 related to fundraising and social media and that will most definitely continue to have impact in 2010.

Less than 24 hours ago, Epic Change launched its TweetsGiving 2009, a 48-hour charity event to encourage people to express their gratitude using online tools and at face-to-face meet-ups.    This two-day event, which ends on Thanksgiving, also invites people to donate to Epic Change.

Last year, TweetsGiving, raised $11,000 to build a classroom in Tanzania using Twitter to spread messages of thanks and opportunities to donate.   More importantly, the event was one of a series of social media fundraisers that offered evidence that Twitter and other social media tools were not just a passing fad.

This year's Tweetsgiving hopes to raise more than $100,000 in donations.   Even though we are well before the ending bell of this year's campaign, there are number of principles that have been in used by other social media infused fundraisers over 2009.  These principles will no doubt be copied, refined, remixed, and extended as nonprofits experiment with social media-powered fundraising techniques:

Weaving Together Online/Offline Into Real Time Web Fundraising Events

Last February, Twestival raised over $250,000 for charity:water in 24 hours through self-organized volunteer events in 200 cities around the world.   While "Tweet and Meet" events, called "Tweet Ups," were popular with Twitter users in 2008,   "Tweet-Meet-Donate" events became more and more common in 2009.

As we march into 2010, might we see the invention of Real Time Web fundraising events?  Or maybe as more nonprofitexplore the possibilities of location-based social networks and fundraising, the distinctions between online/offline fundraising will melt away.

A Platform for Self-Organizing

Social networks like Twitter connect us with people online who share our interests or passions about making the world a better place.   They also provide fertile ground for us to organize rapid, collective fundraisers.   They key is designing the opportunity for connection, plus self-organizing.   As June Holley, a thought leader in networks, would say, "Be Rhizomatic."

We witnessed the power of combining a platform for self-organizing with network building in the winter of 2009 with A Networked Memorial Service for Maddie, in memory of a toddler, Madeline (Maddie) Sphor who passed away suddenly.   The March of Dimes community rallied to raise money in Maddie's memory, unleashing a groundswell of support and sympathy expressions.

Social Media Fundraising As Part of A Multi-Channel Strategy

Using social media channels alone for fundraising will not be as effective as making it a part of a multi-channel straetgy that includes traditional fundraising techniques. This includes using email, web site presence, google ads, face-to-face events and reaching out to the online and mainstream media .

A great example of how well this multi-channel approach works is the Humane Society’s Spay Day.  In 2009, the organization launched the United State Spay Day Photo Contest in 2009 as one part of their overall effort that included broadcast media and other social media outreach efforts as well as offline event.  More than $550,000 was raised last March.

And just last week, GiveMN, a new online web site that hopes to encourage more Minnesotans to give and help create a stronger nonprofit community for Minnesota, raised over $14 million dollars in 24 hours using a multi-channel campaign.

Donors As Program Partners Not Just Check Writers

In May, 2009,   Peter Dietz, founder of Social Actions, reflected on the future of online fundraising and wrote about a shift in donor expectations.  That donors in an age of social media, will come to your organization with the expectation of being full partners in your work, not just an ATM machine to be tapped when cash is needed.

Take this compelling example of how deep engagement can lead to better results from Wildlife Direct.  In 2007, WildlifeDirect had 7 blogs in the Democratic Republic of Congo written written about a specific animal by a conservation professional. The blogs were an opportunity to engage people in conversations about the daily challenge of conservation work in Africa These blogs raised $350,000 to pay rangers salaries and help save mountain gorillas in the Virunga National Park.  Says Paula, “Two years later, we have over 70 blogs, donations have risen 4 fold, as has website visitation. We treat our donors as partners in our programs.”

Not recognizing the importance of relationship building and engagement as the first step in getting donations has lead to a number of articles in the mainstream media or research studies to conclude that social media is worthless as a fundraising tool.  If we only continue to use these tools to gather nonprofit trend data, we're missing some opportunities..

The Maturation of Peer-to-Peer Fundraising

Peer-to-Peer fundraising is about empowering people to fundraise on behalf of  your nonprofit. It works for marathons and in lieu of birthday presents or wedding gifts, although sometimes it can be a waste of time for nonprofits.

Last year, Facebook Causes added its birthday wish feature and we saw more peer to peer fundraising unfolding on social network sites.   Ammado has recently launched a new take on peer-to-peer fundraising called giving circles and giving communities that nonprofits should keep an eye on.

Another trend with peer-to-peer giving we are likely to see is that donors will want the opportunity to have a closer tiewith those who benefit from their donations.   In 2010, we are likely to see more interaction - not with the organizations, but with the actual recipients of the dollars.

Click at the Heartstrings

We know that good storytelling that tugs at the heart strings opens the purse strings.    With "click philanthropy"actions, ways that users can easily spread a message or leverage a donation, it is important to tap into human emotion.  Good fundraisers (and marketers) know that tugging at the heart strings can open the wallet.

Tweetsgiving is playing off the theme of gratitude, according to recent research is a powerful emotion that encourages positive behavior, the giving and receiving of thanks (and gifts.)   Drew Olanoff, who was diagnosed with cancer, decided to raise money by taking revenge on cancer through his BlameDrewsCancer.com which allowed you with a twitter hashtag, #blamedrewscancer, to blame anything you want on his cancer.  And finally, fun and public humiliation - as NTEN's executive director Holly Ross discovered, can be good levers for donations.

Although social media as part of the fundraiser's tool box is not yet the norm, these experiments are laying the ground work for even more dramatic successes in 2010.    Social media fundraising tools will come and go, but the ability to leverage one's social graph to raise money for a good cause is bound to be with us for a long time.

What do you think are the key fundraising/social media trends of 2009?   What is important to take into 2010?

Stumble It! • Share on Facebook • Email this • Technorati Links

November 25, 2009 in fundraising2.0 | Permalink

Time to Abolish Homework and Save our Families - Read this article

After years of teachers piling it on, there's a new movement to ... Abolish homework 

Vicki Haddock, Insight Staff Writer

High school teacher Phil Lyons has become a heretic: He refuses to assign homework. At Palo Alto's Gunn High School, where he teaches world history and advanced-placement economics, his no-homework policy leaves many new students anxious and their parents aghast, at least initially.

"At back-to-school night every hand goes up, and they bombard me with various versions of the same question -- 'What are you doing?' " Lyons says. "This year I pre-empted it by opening with an explanation of why homework is a failed approach, and why their kids will actually learn more without it."
He also noted that his students achieved a 94 percent pass rate on the advanced-placement test, one of the highest in the country -- and a success rate that has risen since he jettisoned homework assignments.
Like Lyons, a growing minority of educators and researchers are calling for an end to homework as we know it -- and some are out to abolish it altogether.
Vigorous scrutiny of the research, they argue, fails to demonstrate tangible benefits of homework, particularly for elementary students. What it does instead, they contend, is rob children of childhood, play havoc with family life and asphyxiate their natural curiosity. Learning becomes a mind-numbing grind rather than an engaging adventure.
In an era of more rigorous academic standards and vertebrae-straining backpacks, most American schools seem to be assigning more homework in earlier grades. For two decades, experts have propelled this trend with dire warnings that students in nations such as Japan are besting Americans because they diligently do more homework.
Even the youngest students have begun sweating over worksheets. In Prince George County, Md., a school superintendent famously suggested that preschools were frittering away time better spent on academics by having their little ones nap. In the Bay Area, tutoring companies began tailoring services to a new pool of clients who had just mastered tying shoelaces.
An AP-AOL Learning Services Poll released earlier this year showed that most parents and teachers say children are getting the "right amount" of homework -- an average of from 79 minutes per night in elementary school to 105 in high school. And those who were dissatisfied said they preferred not less but more.
The perceived failures of creative spelling and "there-is-no-right-or-wrong-answer" math have made Americans wary of any newfangled educational fad that seems to encourage slacking. No homework, indeed.
Yet a rebellion against homework is brewing.
"The preponderance of research clearly shows that homework for elementary students does not make a difference in student achievement. It is hard to believe that a strategy used so extensively has no foundation," principal David Ackerman of Oak Knoll Elementary in Menlo Park wrote in a letter to parents this autumn as he put the brakes on homework.
Two new books read like manifestos against what authors consider an avalanche of unproductive take-home assignments. Their titles lay their beliefs on the line: the research critique "The Homework Myth: Why Our Kids Get Too Much of a Bad Thing" by Alfie Kohn, and the more anecdotal "The Case Against Homework: How Homework is Hurting Our Children and What We Can Do About It" by Sara Bennett and Nancy Kalish.
At the same time, an international comparison by two Penn State professors has concluded that junior high students who scored highest in math tended to come from countries where teachers assign relatively little homework -- including Denmark, the Czech Republic and (take note) Japan. Conversely, the lowest-scoring students came from countries where teachers assign tons of homework, such as Iran, Thailand and Greece.
"It almost seems as though the more homework a nation's teachers assign, the worse the nation's students do," concluded researchers Gerald LeTendre and David Baker, who found Americans in the mid-range in the amount of homework assigned and in achievement.
Both sides in the homework wars tend to sling around the phrase "studies show" to bolster their arguments, but pity the poor parent or teacher who starts as an agnostic in search of answers. It's a daunting task, pitting dueling methodologies against sparring statistics.
"Researchers have been far from unanimous in their assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of homework as an instructional technique," summarized the Journal of Educational Psychology. "Their assessments ranged from homework having positive effects, no effects, or complex effects to the suggestion that the research was too sparse or poorly conducted" to say.
Case in point: the glowing assessment of math homework that sprang from a 1997 study by Julian Betts, professor of economics at UC San Diego. He concluded that schools would do more to improve student learning by assigning more homework than by pursuing more costly alternatives -- say, for example, lowering class size or hiring more experienced teachers. He even reported that time spent on homework "appears as effective as time spent in the classroom." In fact, Betts predicted that if teachers doubled the average amount of math homework in grades 7 to 11, it would advance students almost two full grade equivalents and ultimately boost their wages by 25 percent.
At the other end of the spectrum, when two Harvard scientists tracked how well students were doing in university science classes and attempted to correlate that to the amount of homework they did in high school, they concluded that homework alone made no difference.
Proponents cite evidence suggesting that homework instills responsibility, and they note that learning would proceed at a sluggish pace if classtime were consumed with students reading novels, memorizing vocabuary or writing research papers -- assignments better accomplished at home.
Opponents counter with evidence that homeworks' dictatorial nature undercuts responsibility, generates family conflict, and takes away time for creative play and natural learning.
The experts can't even agree on whether the quantity of assigned homework has increased, decreased or stayed the same in recent years.
The most widely regarded analysis of the effect of homework has been done by Harris Cooper of Duke University, who synthesized dozens of studies over time. He just published his most recent conclusions, based on updated research. The six studies he deemed most reliable, which compared similar students who were assigned homework with those assigned no homework, found that in the short-term, homework boosted scores on unit tests of the material, whether it was second-graders learning number placement or high school seniors studying Shakespeare.
No great surprise there -- but does it stick over time? Do students with homework achieve better overall mastery of the subject down the road?
In 12 other larger studies that linked the amount of homework to how well students perform on national academic tests -- taking into account other factors that might influence the connection -- he reports that 11 found a positive link between time spent on homework and long-term achievement.
Among research without such tight adjustments for other factors, more than 70 percent found that homework seemed to have a positive effect, but age made a huge difference. In fact, the benefit was twice as large for high school students than it was for junior high students, and twice as large again for junior high students than for elementary school students.
But at a tipping point, too much homework actually seemed to have a negative effect.
"We're waiting for the absolutely perfect study in which kids are randomly assigned to do or not do homework for their entire academic careers, and then we'll see for sure who did best -- but don't hold your breath for that one," Harris said.
Until then, he's sticking by his old recommendation -- used by many schools in the Bay Area and across the country -- that teachers assign up to 10 minutes per night per grade. In other words, a fourth-grader should be doing about 40 minutes per night and a 12th-grader about two hours.
Homework hasn't always been a given. It emerged in the national consciousness in the late 1800s, as more Americans continued school past the eighth grade. Even in its infancy, homework was controversial, as Steve Schlossman and Brian Gill showed in the American Journal of Education.
The practice was simply "barbarous," declared Ladies Home Journal editor Edward Bok in a 1900 editorial, "A National Crime at the Feet of American Parents." Shortly thereafter, California advocates persuaded the state to ban homework for students under the age of 15 and restrict it for older ones. Their argument: better to let them play in the sunshine.
By the 1930s, reformers were publicly likening homework to child labor. The American Child Health Association tagged both as leading killers of children who had contracted tuberculosis and heart disease.
But at every historical moment when criticism of homework began to approach a crescendo, a national crisis roused the public to support it. In 1957 it was the Soviet launch of the satellite Sputnik. In 1983 it was the release of the report "A Nation at Risk."
And of course, much of the debate over the existence and quantity of homework ignores the obvious question: quality. Not all assignments are created equal -- some are busy work, others inspired.
At this point, the only common ground is that everybody seems to agree on the value of reading at home for pleasure, whether the reader is in first grade or high school.
Of course, what works for the academically high-octane students at Gunn High, in the shadow of Stanford University, may not work elsewhere. It's a point Lyons concedes, although he reasons that disadvantaged students juggling jobs are even less likely to do -- much less benefit from -- homework.
"It all comes down to whether adults trust us to learn," said Gunn senior Akila Subramanian. "Having no homework lets you find your own motivation."
It sounds good -- and yet invites the inevitable question: What if that doesn't work?

E-mail Vicki Haddock at vhaddock@sfchronicle.com.

Copy and Steal Everything November 13, 2009 by iowaadguy Mark Mathis

There is an organization for colleges called CASE (the Council for Advancement and Support of Education).  It is equally well-known as “Copy And Steal Everything,” because after the CASE awards and conferences, most ideas are ‘lifted.’  If students did this they would receive an F; if businesses and organizations copy, it is called ‘best practices.’

Too many times we are quick to copy others when it comes to marketing.  We see a competitor doing something and we are fast to follow.  The problem is that many times we don’t know the underlying strategy behind the marketing decision.  

I saw this firsthand when I made a visit to the Des Moines airport.  On the airport walls were seven colleges advertising on back-lit Duratrans.  As I looked around, I didn’t see one prospective teenager within a mile of the advertising messages.

It looked like they were advertising to each other — not to a target audience .  On the surface, it looks like a bad college media buy for the money.  But I’m sure each institution of higher learning points out that the competition is there so they need to be there.  This thinking fills a lot of media outlets.  Follow your marketing strategy, don’t play follow the leader with your marketing money — the “leader” may not have sound reasoning behind the media buy or idea.