2.10.08
0
The Greater Cleveland Partnership needs to focus relentlessly on stronger high school performance…
High educational levels were the most important factor in reducing urban poverty. “Metropolitan areas with a more highly educated population reduce poverty faster than do metropolitan areas with a less well-educated population,”
Nation’s Poorest Cities Struggle Despite Benefits of Strong Economy
20 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
BFD uses Gravatars for comment icons. Sign up for yours free at Gravatar.com
Their website says that they’re working with CityYear, the CMSD at Max Hayes, and with ePrep. What else could they be doing? Maybe they feel like that’s enough? Perhaps the GCPeanut butter is being spread to thin?
Rate this comment:
+0 | February 10, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
I hate to be dense but help me out. I’m as wistful for a concentration of high tech as well. But without tons of jobs and that means an influx of people who are now somewhere else, how will one specialized area help us in a vacuum? I feel (sometimes) like we are stuck here without anything but our cars and that companies go everywhere but here because well, because our transportation systems suck and the schools need help. I’m not seeing why it’s only the fault of the GCP but I have to ask, what are they reallyl doing? Maybe I’m just having a bad day lol
Rate this comment:
+0 | February 10, 2008 @ 6:42 pm
In the pantheon of greater cleveland economic development orgs, that would be up to Nortech, BioEnterprise and JumpStart, not the GCP. That said, I’m not sure they’re the ones to create a concentration of high tech. While the tech czar was still at the city, he brought lots of companies downtown by offering competitive business incentives. Does the pantheon do that? If not, who does? If you look at areas like RTP or SV, do they have EDOs that are doing similar work?
Rate this comment:
+0 | February 11, 2008 @ 11:30 am
The GCP has a handful of small initiatives, but there is no city-wide drop-out reduction strategy. This is odd, since educational attainment is a key driver of economic prosperity.
The GCP spends more money, time and effort focusing on casinos and convention centers, while regional economic development strategies have shifted to brainpower.
Rate this comment:
+0 | February 12, 2008 @ 10:27 am
Ed,
I just can’t embrace your belief that improving graduation rates in the City of Cleveland Public Schools is the silver bullet economic development strategy for the entire region. I certainly believe it’s critically important on a number of different levels and one of many related tactics, but it’s not the magic economic development solution you want everyone to buy and studies like the one cited here don’t even directly support it.
I’m not as smart as you or the guy who authored this report, but I’m smart enough to see some obvious holes. “High educational levels were the most important factor in reducing urban poverty.” This is somewhat misleading because “reducing” implies a cause and effect relationship that is unsubstantiated. That’s why this sentence is buried at the bottom of the overview — “The benefits of technology-based economic growth might reach the poor, promoting an increase in personal income, which can reduce poverty rates. However, the drop in the poverty rate also could result from significant in migration of higher income residents into tech poles.” Are there a higher percentage of educated individuals in the Chicago, Boston and DC metropolitan areas because each city’s public schools are stellar?
Before abdicating all responsibility to a regional economic development organization, it would be nice if the students, parents, Board of Education and City of Cleveland showed they’re “focused relentlessly on stronger high school performance” as well. Maybe they need to come to the table with a citywide dropout reduction strategy of their own first.
Finally, while it is great ongoing fodder for discussions like these and you mention it whenever possible, the whole embarrassing casino advocacy issue has been dramatically exaggerated by you and others. The GCP wasn’t the true driving force behind the statewide initiative and their “official” support had little teeth or buy in from the actual individuals who make up the business community at large (much like PLJ’s non-support of the tax increase was positioned by many as opposition – there’s a difference). Thankfully, the initiative failed. But, remember, the good people of Cuyahoga County supported it at the polls. I believe the minimum wage was increased during the same election by similar numbers, so please don’t try to imply it was the business community imposing their will on the people. Voter demographics would reveal quite a different story.
Rate this comment:
+3 | February 12, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
Tom:
Your comments are curious to me.
“ I just can’t embrace your belief that improving graduation rates in the City of Cleveland Public Schools is the silver bullet economic development strategy for the entire region”
In economic development there’s a good rule to follow: Remember to put the shower curtain on the inside of the bath tub.
The GCP and the FFEF have built arguably one of the most elaborate and expensive regional economic development infrastructures in the country. At the same time, they have lost sight of some of the basics: Like reducing drop-out rates.
Lest you mistake my point, there are no “silver bullets” in economic development. We are dealing with complex open systems.
It just so happens, though, that educational attainment is tightly linked to economic performance. The Dashboard tells us so. But so does research by REI stretching back twenty years. It’s also been well established by our own Cleveland Fed.
Could you really be arguing — as you seem to be — that there is no connection between education levels and income?
Read more here, here, here, here, here, here, here.
“Before abdicating all responsibility to a regional economic development organization, it would be nice if the students, parents, Board of Education and City of Cleveland showed they’re “focused relentlessly on stronger high school performance” as well. ”
Who is advocating that anyone abdicate responsibility? I was recommending that the business community accept some responsibility for boosting educational attainment. (See the speech of Sandy Pianalto, President of the Cleveland Fed, above in which she advocates the same position.)
“The GCP wasn’t the true driving force behind the statewide initiative and their “official” support had little teeth or buy in from the actual individuals who make up the business community at large ”
This statement is simply at variance with the facts: The GCP devoted considerable time and effort to the passage of this ill-conceived amendment. Ask any editorial board in Northeast Ohio when the last time they had a personal visit from the CEO of the GCP.
To Jason: Web sites are cheap. Follow the money. What’s the budget that GCP devotes to increasing educational attainment?
Rate this comment:
+1 | February 12, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
Remember to put the shower curtain on the inside of the bath tub. Heh.
Rate this comment:
--1 | February 12, 2008 @ 5:25 pm
Jason:
I’m not sure what your comment is supposed to mean. Would you care to elaborate?
Rate this comment:
+0 | February 12, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
GCP and our predecessor organizations, as well as our partners such as MAGNET and NorTech, have a long history of working on education and workforce issues. It is correct to characterize GCP’s recent involvement as a collection of initiatives that lack a formalized strategy. The reasons are numerous, but they have nothing to do with resources being diverted to gaming, medical mart or other projects. A gaming proposal was going to be on the ballot in 2006 whether GCP supported it or not and for GCP, the opportunity to create college scholarships and increase the size of our educated workforce was at the heart of the issue.
Make no mistake, education and workforce issues are top-of-mind for the Cleveland business community. GCP is in the midst of a strategic planning process to update our strategy plan. We’ll be releasing the updated plan at our annual meeting next month. Of critical importance in that new plan is a strategy that addresses the workforce needs of our region’s employers. Our efforts will be aligned with workforce initiatives the State of Ohio is devising and the CMSD is developing in the area of STEM education.
For the record, January 23, 2008 was the last time we met with the PD editorial board to discuss one of the region’s most important assets. We were joined by Dr. Woodrow Whitlow from NASA Glenn to talk about all that the business community has done and continues to do on behalf of, as well as in conjunction with, NASA Glenn.
Rate this comment:
+3 | February 12, 2008 @ 6:06 pm
Hardly disputing the connection between education and income. I’m also glad you acknowledge there are no silver bullets and we are dealing with a complex issue because your apparent fixation with the GCP rescuing the Cleveland Public Schools leads me to think that you believe otherwise. That’s my point.
Improving the Cleveland Public Schools is just one of many spokes from a regional education perspective. Improving the percentage of educated people within the region doesn’t hinge exclusively on the performance of the Cleveland Public Schools. The other Northeast Ohio school systems, recruiting talent from outside the region and retaining the college graduates we do produce have something to do with that as well.
Rate this comment:
+3 | February 12, 2008 @ 6:09 pm
Seems I have struck a nerve here.
I’ll relate a story. About a year ago, I was teaching my Advanced Strategy Lab at the Economic Development Institute. We were exploring the growing challenges of workforce, the coming demographic wave of baby boom retirements, and the growing shortage of skilled workers. (For more on these issues, see the 2010 Meltdown, a good book by Ed Gordon.)
We were talking about how the underperformance of school systems will undercut the long term strategies of many regions. I mentioned the 60%+ dropout rate in Cleveland.
A lead economic developer from the Austin, TX chamber was in the class. He asked, “How can the city’s business community put up with that?”
I told him, I had no idea.
(For some good examples of how a business community can become deeply engaged in this issue, look at Austin. For something a little closer to home, look at the collaboration emerging in Cincinnati and Northern KY.)
Tom, I am fixated on this issue (although I prefer the less pejorative term, focused) because it matters. There are no sure bets in economic development, but improving educational attainment is as close as it gets.
About a year ago, when I asked an official from NorTech what the region was doing with STEM education, she told me that the Cleveland Engineering Society was taking the lead. Well, a brief look at the CES web site does not inspire much confidence. (Beyond a “road show”, a worthy initiative, there’s not much about STEM: Science, Technology, Engineering and Math education.)
Amanda’s comments give me hope that the GCP has woken to the realities of the global market and will start exercising some leadership. A key metric across the region ought to focus on high school graduation and college continuation rates. (Right now, regional leadership is coming out of Youngstown, Lorain, and Akron.)
One more data point: For a about six months, I worked with the local WIB to try to organize a new strategy. During the six months or so that I was involved, representatives from the GCP never showed to a meeting. I’m not sure why, if workforce is such an important priority.
The local WIB still operates in a confused state, with the Commissioners controlling one side and Mayor Jackson controlling the other. Each year, between $15 million and $20 million is being pumped through the WIB with relatively weak impact (but a lot of healthy patronage through the staff and service providers.)
Amanda brings up NASA, and there’s more to do. Until Peter Lawson Jones, Paul Oyaski and Greg Zucca launched the Cuyahoga Next process, Baldwin Wallace College had not connected to NASA in any meaningful way. Building these connections (and others) has led the County to propose the Cuyahoga Innovation Zones initiative.
Cuyahoga Next is a promising process spearheaded by the County that the GCP has chosen to skip over. Again, I’m not sure why.
Finally, allow me to return to the GCP and casinos. From a September 15, 2005 GCP press release that appeared in the Casino Times:
“GCP will undertake the building of a statewide coalition among metropolitan regions and public officials to develop the components of a constitutional amendment to permit casino gaming in Ohio based on guidelines approved yesterday.”
A second press release on the casino amendment, dated June 2, 2006, makes clear that the GCP was intimately involved in drafting the amendment:
“We look forward to seeing Ohio reclaim some of the gaming revenue that is lost to our neighboring states,” said Joe Roman, President and CEO of GCP. “In crafting the language, we were adamant that revenues should not be used to replace or reduce current state funding provided to local governments.”
These press releases from the GCP clearly underscore the statewide leadership role GCP took in this process.
In crafting language, the GCP was also claiming a hand in one of the most foolish economic development escapades I have come across in a long time.
The editors at the Dayton Daily News called it “a crock“. That’s pretty close.
Rate this comment:
+2 | February 12, 2008 @ 11:31 pm
@Amanda Marko: Great comment. Thanks for the update and the info.
Rate this comment:
+0 | February 13, 2008 @ 7:23 am
Ed,
As far as education goes, there is really very little we disagree on and even those points are mostly a level of degree. It comes down to my impression that you believe the GCP should take complete responsibility/blame for everything. If others share this belief, maybe that’s the problem – too many people looking to the wrong place for answers.
With regards to the casino debacle, your friend Joe Roman was uncharacteristically out front on the issue, but the public support from the remainder of the business community and civic leadership was weak. At the time, I even talked directly with some of the involved parties and could tell they were half-heartedly towing the company line, but the lack of conviction was apparent. I could be wrong, but is there a section on the GCP web site dedicated to casino advocacy? If this was one of their core ED strategies, you would think the propaganda machine would still be running. And since you made the Dayton reference, it reminded me of all the disappointing editorials and position statements from around the state that I read at the time. When it came down to it, they weren’t against gaming, they just didn’t like the fact that Cleveland was going to “benefit” more. Sad. We both agree on the folly of the strategy and political initiative, but you need to move on. It seems like Joe has.
Rate this comment:
+3 | February 13, 2008 @ 10:54 am
Tom:
Yes, I think we do agree on the importance of education to economic development. Where we differ, apparently, is your view that the business community is doing enough in this arena.
I’m not sure where you come up with the idea that I agree with this proposition:
“the GCP should take complete responsibility/blame for everything.”
Who said this?
No, I’m just looking for a little business leadership from the GCP (compared to what I see in other places), and, frankly on education and workforce development issues, it’s hard to find.
Based on Amanda’s post, maybe that’s changing.
On the gaming issue, I disagree with your characterization that editors around the state were upset about Cleveland benefitting more. Their objection goes far deeper: to the ethics of Cleveland’s business leadership.
Editors were far more angry about the deceptions inherent in the proposition as drafted by the Cleveland business community.
See, for example, editorial commentary from Youngstown. They called it: “an insult to the intelligence of Ohio voters.”
In Warren, editors noted: “The college education claim is a farce…Only a fool believes this will add to education funding.”
In Lorain, editors called the proposition “devious”. Read more.
Editors in Akron called it “cynical and wrong headed”.
Over in Toledo, editors wrote: “The first thing to understand about state Issue 3 is the reality its backers don’t want you to closely consider: This issue is not about college scholarships; it’s about giving legalized gambling, and the serious social problems that come with it, a lucrative foothold in Ohio.” Read more.
In Columbus, they called Issue 3 “destructive” and “preposterous”. Read more.
In Dayton, as I noted, they called it “a crock”.
This revisionist history by Amanda and you is understandable, but it is not factual.
The GCP led a foolish, expensive, misguided effort with Issue 3. In the end, the whole episode, it appears safe to say, damaged the reputation of the Cleveland business community.
The fact that other business leaders stood by or over two years while this sad story played out is, frankly, of little consequence.
Maybe GCP has moved on, but to what? A convention center and a Medical Mart. Not much of a move in my book.
Rate this comment:
+0 | February 13, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
Ed,
I can hardly blame you, but your well known, contentious personal history with some parties often taints otherwise insightful commentary. That’s just my personal observation gleaned over time.
The self-righteous casino rant was a little over the top considering you’re preaching to the choir. If the GCP was the actual mastermind/creator of the “Learn & Earn” con angle, that’s news to me. Like I said, I read plenty of downstate commentary and opinion at the time (like from the Columbus CVB) that was clearly more influenced by jealousy than objectivity.
Rate this comment:
+2 | February 13, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
Sorry, Tom. You’ve done it again. When on weak ground, you make personal attacks (e.g., “my well-known, contentious history”). I’m sorry to see you head down this path.
Character assassination is a common ploy in Cleveland, I have learned. It’s sad to see you stoop to the practice. In this string, you have repeatedly mis-characterized my comments with pejorative terms and phrases. That’s too bad. You should really try to do better.
Meanwhile, you have lost me yet again. On the casino issue, my previous post puts together what I have read. If you do not believe that the GCP had a central role, then you do not believe the GCP’s own press releases.
Far from being a rant, I was illustrating just how isolated the Cleveland business leadership had become through its central role in the casino issue.
In my judgement, you’re defending the leadership of an organization with a record that is hard to defend.
And, contrary to your characterization, my criticisms of the GCP are widely held both within the region and within the state. (To call it a “self-righteous casino rant” is, frankly, laughable. I did not write these editorials.)
The business and foundation leadership in Cleveland, I have learned, does not like professional criticism, even though it is through the process of criticism that we progress. Sadly, you seem to have fallen into the same pattern.
I think we have just about exhausted this topic.
Rate this comment:
--2 | February 13, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
Ed,
I apologize. Questioning your character or implying fault on your part was not my intent. Just stating you had a public disagreement in the past.
The “self-righteous” reference was in response to your zealous defense which gave the impression that I supported issue 3. I’m not disputing GCP’s role or defending its leadership. To the contrary, I believe their poor decision was made at the very top and forced down and out.
I’m all for constructive criticism, but based on things I’ve read from you other people like George, it ceases to be positive when it’s just about tearing things down. Again, I apologize for this boiling over.
Rate this comment:
+2 | February 13, 2008 @ 7:09 pm
Tom:
I appreciate your comments and thank you. For those of us who care about the region, we need stronger alignments. That requires improved civic behavior, and you are exemplary of the qualities we need to cultivate.
In a world of networks, civility is strategic. These patterns of behavior lead to faster cultivation of trusted networks. Regions with stronger networks will be more competitive. They will learn faster, spot opportunities faster and act faster.
(The opposite is also true. In a world where wealth is created by networks, incivility destroys opportunities to create wealth.)
If anything, I hope our exchange has underscored the importance of setting a new direction for GCP (on which I think we agree). This new direction should set an example of civility, transparency, and authenticity.
Rate this comment:
+4 | February 14, 2008 @ 8:35 am
[…] going to find a good paying job with such a dismal ability to read? And then, Ed Morrison posted this, at Brewed Fresh Daily. How do we indeed go forward as a community if we do not see that the […]
Rate this comment:
+0 | February 14, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
Just came across this article which reinforces my original post:
Employers Seek to Improve Education
Rate this comment:
+0 | February 15, 2008 @ 8:04 pm