Hundreds of new technology companies are launched every year. Most have some sort of short-term success. But then most fail long-term because their product/service was not scalable. The inability for a technology company to scale means that it was not able to innovate ahead of the evolving needs of society. Therefore that technology company is not relevant to society in the future.
All foundations know that they are completely out of their league to even try assessing what current technology company can be scalable and therefore relevant to society in the future. This is sensible because organizations like Venture Capital firms that specifically specialize in this technology space, and have financial incentives to get their assessment right, are usually wrong most of the time.
In contrast, foundations take the absolute opposite approach to education programs. Foundations think they know what type of current education program will be relevant to society in the future. This is of course ludicrous because the same requirements that technology companies have to scale also apply to education programs. So if an education program can"e;t scale it will not be relevant to society in the future. This means that foundations have no more rational insight on the future of education than they do on the future of technology.
The failure of foundations to understand this reality starts with the very top leadership team and trickles on down. This is because all those individuals have gone through an extensive education and feel their success is due to that experience. That experience is then misconstrued as expertise and projected onto the education space. This misconception is further reinforced by hired 'education experts' who mold guesses on the future of education into the desired perspective the foundation seeks. This leads to a completely false sense of direction that manifests in the foundation"e;s created guidelines and short-term benchmarks for their desired education programs. Then non-profits scheme their proposals around those conditions to get funding. Afterward, benchmarks are achieved and success is hailed all around. Wonderful. Except that none of these education programs are scalable. Therefore none of these education programs are relevant to society in the future. Period.
These irrelevant programs then contribute to a U.S. Education system that is already over a century behind in its approach. Therefore, foundations cannot continue the same process of funding education programs and expect different results. The dual system of LED accelerator will break this paralysis.
LED accelerator will innovate ahead of the evolving needs of U.S. Education, its parent organization. In turn, the continually changing learning strategies and achievement results will provide for administrators evidence-based data on which aspects of LED accelerator can be implemented in general education. So the current process of relying on failed guesses of 'education experts' to originate future curriculum and doctrines will cease. The internally generated evidence-based data of LED accelerator will be the impetus to continually advance the entire U.S. Education system alongside evolving social, economic and government needs.
Consequently, foundations that fund the launch of LED accelerator in school districts across the U.S. will be the only ones that achieve a relevant impact on society in the future.