As one of three co-founders of , a nonprofit organization funded primarily by several U.S.-based philanthropies that helps educational technology businesses get off the ground, Laurie Racine has been the group鈥檚 source of expertise on entrepreneurial theory. Ms. Racine is a self-proclaimed addict to startup culture, according to the website of the New York City-based group, and she has wide-ranging experience as a founder and fundraiser for new businesses herself. But Ms. Racine concedes she is still learning the nuances of the education market, and still feels very little is known about what business ventures in educational technology will prove most successful. Education Week Staff Writer Ian Quillen interviewed Ms. Racine to ask her about the difficulty of describing what Startl is to people who know nothing about it, the upswing in attention to education innovation over the past two years, and the biggest challenges facing businesses in K-12 education. (The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and the Lumina Foundation, all supporters of Startl, also provide grant support for Education Week.)
The idea behind Startl can be difficult for some people to wrap their heads around. If you meet someone who is unfamiliar with Startl, what is your elevator speech?
That鈥檚 been the problem of Startl since the very beginning. The intent of Startl originally was to spend two years exploring what would be the hot-button approaches, methodologies, to catalyzing innovation in the education space. What we didn鈥檛 count on is that we were quickly and only slightly ahead of the curve; that the market and the interest in innovation in education and entrepreneurism in education were going to happen so fast as we were doing this; that the three proposed models we were thinking about actually were going to be tough to launch in conjunction with each other. What education needs is a destination, an incubator-like approach that takes kids in their garages or kids coming out of their design schools or people who are more advanced in their career and want to make a switch and really want to focus on driving the next kind of technological innovation in education. That was the premise.
So you鈥檙e saying the way Startl functions now isn鈥檛 the way you envisioned?
What we wanted to do was run a vertical [a related organization] through another business incubator, but one that was just ed. tech. And then we also said, let鈥檚 do atraining kind of program. Let鈥檚 do a short kind of version of a boot camp, a boost, that will just look at various aspects of trends in education that we think are going to be hot. And then we started aligning ourselves with a couple of the big summits that were going on in education, and we started showcasing companies there.
What we came upon after all this time was what we think is a real interesting formula, that is very, very low-cost, which is this digital learning series we鈥檝e been running out of New York. Every six weeks, we invite five companies; we present them for 10 or 15 minutes; 100 to 150 people show up; we hold it at [a blended-model campus for technology, design, and entrepreneurship based in New York City], and it鈥檚 been very, very successful. We鈥檙e about to expand it. These companies that are in the very, very early stages, they need to get out there and they need to be networked.
How can you tell if the companies you try to help are going to succeed?
The truth is, if the companies are only a year or two old, nobody knows. What we鈥檝e used as a yardstick is whether or not they鈥檝e taken on follow-up funding. I don鈥檛 know if that鈥檚 correct or not.
And what criteria has Startl used to select those companies it has assisted?
Largely, it is: Is the idea interesting? Does it have solid technology or technological expertise in the team, and is the team somewhat cohesive? It鈥檚 kind of classic entrepreneurism. It鈥檚 also about, 鈥淲hat is the real problem we are trying to solve?鈥� It鈥檚 not, 鈥淲hat鈥檚 cool and sexy?鈥� It鈥檚, 鈥淎re we getting to anything that is solving a problem?鈥� And it鈥檚, 鈥淗ow do we measure whether that鈥檚 solving a problem?鈥�
Between [co-founders] Phoenix Wang, Diana Rhoten [who has since left Startl], and yourself, how do the three of you mesh?
Each of us has a very different expertise. Diana is a brilliant programmer. She is the heart of the pedagogical expertise of Startl. My background is really about entrepreneurism. I鈥檓 very interested in the team. That鈥檚 what I鈥檓 interested in鈥攚hat does a great entrepreneur look like? I鈥檓 kind of agnostic about the [education] space. I think this is the next cool space, but it鈥檚 also one of the most difficult spaces. And Phoenix鈥檚 expertise is she鈥檚 a brilliant tactician and strategist. She works with the foundations and at the policy level. She鈥檚 a big thinker. So we have a very different, complementary set of skills. But based on the fact that Startl was never sure about what it was going to be, it was hard to deploy those skills to everybody鈥檚 best effect.
So you鈥檙e saying there are changes afoot in how Startl operates. What will that shift look like?
It will be about what makes the most sense given where the field has come in the last 24 months. I think for whatever reason, whether it is the generation of people that are interested in creating new ventures that have a larger social meaning, or whatever brings people now to education where they might not have been in education 10 years ago, I have no answer to that. But what鈥檚 really interesting to me is its very, very early days, as you suggest, and I don鈥檛 think we know what is going to be successful and what is not going to be successful, even from a strictly entrepreneurial periscope. So, it鈥檚 a bit like throwing darts up against a dart board.
What is the most difficult challenge facing the people throwing those darts?
My instinct about K-12 education is that until we put something into place where every kid can have a really good [individualized education program], we can鈥檛 actually fix it. We actually can鈥檛 get to the core of the problem. No matter what you throw at the model, you鈥檙e just not going to fix the problem because you can鈥檛 get to it.
