The nation is about to embark on a path toward economic recovery and reinvestment in the future. I am confidant that we can do this. But to listen to some of the Governor’s these days, you would wonder what they are thinking, and why they are letting the citizens of their states down at the time that we need hope and inspiration. Well, there is hope, and there are people who not only have transformational ideas, but are ready to move on with it. Let’s talk about this.

In today’s New York Times, Thomas Friedman has a very relevant article related to this issue. His piece, entitled “Start Up the Risk Takers,” argues the point that we should be supporting the risk-takers (innovators, if you will), not bailing out failing corporations. Friedman is suggesting that the government should be investing in “real innovators” who can help lead the country away from a coal-based economy to one that is based on alternatives including biotech, info-tech, nanotech and clean-tech companies.

Friedman cites BrightSource Energy, a company that builds utility-scale solar power projects that convert sunlight to electricity. One example of this a project that it has with Southern California Edison to create 1,300 megawatts of clean and reliable solar thermal power for nearly 900,000 homes. Up until last week, this project and many others like them were on hold because there was virtually no funding from Wall Street. With the passage of the Economy Recovery and Reinvestment Bill, all of these projects and many others are now “online.”

BrightSource Energy's Luz Power Tower (LPT) uses mirrors to harness solar energy to reflect ray's onto a boiler, where steam is piped to boiler to generate electricity.

Friedman puts it this way:

These jobs will be in engineering, constructing and operating huge solar systems and wind farms and manufacturing new photovoltaics. Together they will drive innovation in all these areas — and move wind and solar technology down the cost-volume learning curve so they can compete against fossil fuels and become export industries at the “ChinIndia price,” that is the price at which they can scale in China and India.

Education needs to invest in innovation as well. We do not need more of the same kind of education that emphasizes note-taking and test-taking. We need inquiry-based, innovative approaches, and teachers supported to create risk-taking environments for students to become the kind of learners that needed in an innovative culture. Last week, I had the pleasure of teaching about 40 7th-graders at the Greenbriar Middle School (Evans, Georgia). The lesson that I presented to the students was entitled Darwin, Fossils, and Other Stuff. Yesterday I received thank you letters from the students. Being truly appreciative of the students’ letters, I realized that what the students thought was important to them was being truly involved in learning, indeed inquiring into the nature of fossils, and how they were related to the idea of natural selection. What the students were saying was that they wanted to be involved in an innovative approach to education, and that they were ready for it.

It’s this kind of innovative thinking that needs to supplant the kind of rhetoric that we are hearing from several governor’s who say they will refuse some of the stimulus funds. I wonder how innovation will fare in their states? And what is the status of education in their states?

There are two huge parts of the stimulus bill that relate to what I am talking about here. The U.S. Department of Energy will have billions of dollars to invest in the nation’s energy infrastructure by leveraging innovation in the electricity grid (Smart grid), encouraging innovators, supporting technologies that will lead to alternative energy sources, and more. You might visit the DOE site and share with your students how it will be done.

Another major part of the stimulus bill is in the U.S. Department of Education. Not only for school districts to improve their infrastructure, but at the innovative level to encourage teaching and learning environments that impact students. The major concern I have here is that much of this might support education that is based on performance standards and testing, not innovative teaching and creative approaches to working with students. It will take some brave educators to break the mold.

We’ll keep a watchful eye here to see what is happens.