Fixing Education in America: What's Stopping Us?

**Host:** 51% of Americans live in childcare deserts. It's a tragedy to deny a child access to high-quality early childhood education. A human's brain, 90% of it, develops in the first five years of their life. There are a few sectors in the economy that have proven to be very, very resistant to technological change. Education is high on that list. We tried to solve the achievement problem in the U.S. before we solved the engagement problem. School districts and state leaders operate in a highly political environment where taking risks is not rewarded. It's really no one's job to fix it. And so it's not really getting fixed. I've never seen this kind of apathy. I think it's going to be catastrophic for the United States if we don't find a way to end it. What we're seeing is that the best way to make inroads is partnerships with the private sector and the public sector to be able to fill in those gaps. We can get outcomes. We can get them fast. We can all take advantage of the American dream.

**Host:** There's been a lot of talk about the government recently. But wherever you sit along the aisle, one thing that almost everyone can agree on is the desire to set up the next generation for success, often through high-quality education or childcare. But despite increased funding toward these sectors, we're not really getting the results that we're paying for. We have now spent hundreds of billions of dollars and those funds are gone. And now what? But this is something that we need to figure out because, as one of our guests says, we are graduating generations of children who have no idea what they can do with their education. So in today's episode, we'll explore the history of education and where technology fits into that equation. I mean, why is it that 35 years into the modern internet, we've gained access to 5G networks, 3D printing, and augmented reality, yet so little has changed in the way we teach. Every year, we have the chance to rewrite how things are done and change the trajectory of millions. But it's a complex calculus involving federal, state, and local government, school districts, teachers, parents, and more. So how do you make inroads with the government and get a new product into a school or district? And what's working or broken about the incentive system, and whose job is it to fix? Plus, is risk ever rewarded? We'll explore all this and more with founders and policy advisors who have navigated this complex system. That includes Anarupa Ganguly and Chris Bennett, two founders currently trying to disrupt the status quo. Anarupa is the founder of Prisms, a spatial learning platform that uses augmented and virtual reality to teach math and science through physical human experiences. Chris, on the other hand, is the co-founder of Wonderschool, a platform designed to help educators build child care programs while supporting families in locating that child care. Joining this conversation as well is A16Z general partner Jeff Jordan, who led the investments in both Prisms and Wonderschool. Plus, Anna Edwards, co-founder of Whiteboard Advisors, a strategy consulting firm focused on, yep, you guessed it, education. All right, let's get started. As a reminder, the content here is for informational purposes only. Should not be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice, or be used to evaluate any investment or security, and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any A16Z fund. Please note that A16Z and its affiliates may also maintain investments in the companies discussed in this podcast. For more details, including a link to our investments, please see A16Z.com slash disclosures.

**Host:** As an outsider, it feels like education and child care in particular has stayed pretty consistent despite a lot of the remainder of our world changing with technology. And so why is it that so much of our world has changed, but maybe the classroom has not?

**Anarupa Ganguly:** I think about the inconsistency that lies in just what is the purpose of an education. If you ask the teacher over here versus a superintendent over here versus a chief academic officer over here versus a chief technology officer here, you will get a different answer from everybody. So there isn't a consistent narrative around is the purpose to expose kids to the jobs of today and tomorrow's workforce? Is the purpose to teach them the canon of all the discoveries in math and science thus far? Is the purpose global citizenry such that people can make educated choices and vote on issues pertaining to AI, the future of different advanced technologies. What is the purpose? And because that purpose is not clear across constituencies, you don't have a comprehensive set of state nor national standards. So what everyone does is we just fall back on the lowest common denominator, which are the state assessments. I was a math director in one of the largest systems. And all we did was drive kid outcomes towards the state tests, because that's the thing that we could agree on. Thinking back, there have been a lot of efforts to create new standards and the NGSS, which are the new science standards, the Common Core, which was a step towards the math standards, but they didn't go far enough. It was an incremental change. Instead of learning ABC, they should kind of also learn XYZ. But that's not what I'm talking about when I say the redefinition of purpose. It's saying 80% of the current jobs in the economy will be fundamentally reimagined by 2030. If that truly is the case, then we need to take a real scalpel to going back to the purpose and the delivery of our educational methods. And I think that's exciting, but a daunting task.

**Host:** Chris, as we address that question of where we are today, are things working? I know Anarupa just talked about maybe there's not even alignment on what that means, but are children thriving, faltering, and how should we be thinking about that?

**Chris Bennett:** It's probably working for like a small percentage of the American population, but for the majority of folks, it's not. And when I think about early childhood education, one of the things I'm coming to terms with is that it's really no one's job to fix it. And so it's not really getting fixed. If you look at the agencies involved in early childhood education, HHS serves low-income families. And what we find is that a lot of states aren't able to generate enough funding from the federal government to be able to serve all the families that need it. For working-class families and just all children in general, there's actually no agency and there's no one's responsibility to actually fix the child care problem. And so it's left to sort of the private sector to fix it. But what we're seeing is that the best way to make inroads is partnerships with the private sector and the public sector to be able to fill in those gaps.

**Host:** Anna, you work across both of those sectors. And so maybe at a high level, are there any other data points or trends that really grasp you, whether it's data points that garner promise, or maybe also concern. It could be a shortage. It could be test scores going down. What are you paying attention to here that kind of signals what we should be focusing on?

**Anna Edwards:** I actually see so much hope at a moment where you could be really discouraged because we have massive declines in student achievement that are still pervasive coming out of the pandemic. 51% of Americans live in childcare deserts. And we had this massive investment in federal funds during the pandemic that actually resulted in a 20% increase in purchasing power over four years for the K-12 school districts and states, and then additional investments that went into early childhood. We have now spent hundreds of billions of dollars and those funds are gone. And now what? But I think we're at an interesting point where because those funds really did help to infuse a lot of innovation. I think we'll start to see a real close look at what's actually now producing results. And then that evaluation will help to inform the new federal education law that we hope to see in the future and alignment in what new standards should look like. And I think we are at an interesting moment. It's hard to say exactly what the outcome is going to be, but I think states and districts and child care providers are going to have to be a little bit more discerning in what they decide to scale. That's where I think we start to see some of the promise. There are a few sectors in the economy that have proven to be very, very resistant to technological change. Education is high on that list, but there's nothing in my view structural that should keep that from happening. So the bets on what is working in other parts of the economy can have a large impact in education, which is at a point in time where they really need impact.

**Jeff Jordan:** Yeah, I think another thing that we've witnessed over the last few years is a shift, right? COVID was part of that, but technology is being more integrated. We're seeing different remote hybrid learning environments. And so as that has changed over the last few years, what have we learned?

**Anarupa Ganguly:** Yeah, I think that the question of technology in classrooms is an interesting one to me because there's the technology, but then there are the methods and the principles and the teaching practices that they allow. And most technology that's introduced, there's no real discipline around what are we trying to achieve here? What's the problem statement that tech is trying to solve? So I'm taking VR, AR into schools. I'm not really interested in the VR and AR. What I'm interested is in first person embodied real world problem solving. It happens that I have to use the modality of VR because that's the fastest way to scale and democratize access to high quality experiences for all kids. So I think that what's really fun about EdTech 3.0, which is what we all kind of in the field call it fondly, is that best practice pedagogy is going to win. It's how do we scale student-centered learning? Learning as in the basis in Baltimore where you go to neutralize a chemically contaminated water not off of a word problem on a piece of paper. So I think that what going to be really exciting about this wave of educational technology is we moving away from the idea of like Chromebooks computers, that's not really the object of affection. The object of affection is a teaching principle. In my presentation, I don't have VR anywhere, because it's kind of irrelevant, right? It's just a secret sauce that, oh, by the way, you need devices because your kids have to be embodied in these real world problems. So I think that's where it's going is that more and more entrepreneurs, leaders, teachers and educators focus on method. There will be no resistance because the focus is on the relationship between teachers and kids versus a forcing function of a particular technology.

**Jeff Jordan:** The other piece is that school districts and state leaders operate in a highly political environment where taking risks is not rewarded. And so I think having the data and their research to show the impact of the technology and changes in instructional modality has been a missing piece that hasn't been there. The entrepreneurs that are really going to succeed are the ones that also are doing massive efficacy studies or even real-time evaluation of the efficacy of their solutions. That gives the comfort and peace of mind for risk-averse decision makers to actually say, okay, let's bring this technology in. The other thing parents want is if something is working somewhere else. I would like my child to experience it. And so our dream is the world flips and that there's a new modality. It's working. We need it. Bring it in kind of thing. Why isn't that at my kid's school? Completely. What's been really fascinating for me has been student voice. In one of our districts, it's a very large urban system. We were in credit recovery for Algebra 1. And these kids took to Instagram and they started to post, I've learned this five or six times already. I never got it. This is the first time I understood it. And it turns out the board chair read that Instagram post and we went from 120 kids immediately to 5,000 students two weeks later, right? So I say this because I think now you have so many more voices and efficacy is not just achievement on standards line assessments because we tried to solve the achievement problem in the US before we solved the engagement problem. We have to get our kids engaged again in their education because I'm walking me pulling teeth in the way that we are right now. So I just wanted to kind of add into that idea of measurement. There is so much more anecdotal and this very strong student presence that I was not as privy to when I was an administrator.

**Host:** You've got so many stakeholders. You've got parents, you've got districts, you've got other legislators. And then as you mentioned just now, you've got the children. And of course, in lieu of just being able to put a headset on every single person and have them experience that, I'm curious what you have learned about the methodology to convince. Is it just getting the right study out there or are there other learnings?

**Anarupa Ganguly:** Yeah, for the last four years, I've been pitching and pitching. And I have this VR headset in my backpack and it never comes out. And I'm like, why am I taking this dead weight on these trips with me all the time? And it turns out, Steph, that what people are drawn to is the thinking. It's an aspiration. It's this movement away from passivity that's come into our education system versus the active, the kinesthetic, the constant movement. Our kids are most engaged in PE, right? Let's be clear here. And so what they're actually really excited about is the learning methodology. It's the problem-based learning. And so our entire conversation is about the hope and the aspiration and what's possible. Most of the people put a headset on after the deal is closed, everything has been signed at Teacher Institute, which is typically four months after those first conversations. And I think that's relevant. What is K-12 really starved for? It's not starved for technology. You walk in, there's computers everywhere, laptops everywhere, robotic arms everywhere, Raspberry Pi everywhere, there's tech everywhere. What there isn't is innovative thinking and really doing something differently because digitization is fundamentally different from innovation.

**Jeff Jordan:** I probably spend the majority of my time talking to legislators, staff of governors, and a lot of agency leaders. And what I'm noticing is folks are just looking for results. There's been a lot of money spent, but a lot of the systems just haven't delivered results. And that's what's led to a lot of our adoption. We started working with governments in 2020 during the pandemic because states were scrambling to get people back to work. And they were noticing that they couldn't get people back to work because of childcare. And so we started working with states and we've seen them partner with these like huge multinational services companies that charge them an arm and a leg, are late on delivering the technology. And then the price of the technology to modernize a state system can sometimes 4X, 5X. So what we started to do is build technology to help a lot of childcare administrators get data on what's going on in respective childcare programs to understand what parents need when they're searching for child care. And what we're finding is agency leaders are starting to use our technology to figure out where to start child care programs. And this is leading to we're starting child care programs all over the country. In Mississippi, we were able to start 37 programs in a week. And this is like mind-blowing for a lot of state administrators because that's just not something that has really been done before at the speed at which we're doing it. We're focused on delivering outcomes and getting these programs up and running instead of just what's happening right now is teaching people how they could potentially start a childcare program.

**Anna Edwards:** This was super interesting to me because the target market was not governments as conduits into childcare. It was families and individuals. And the pull from governments was so substantial that it led Chris to changes go to market emphasis. It was so counterintuitive to me, especially running a consumer company at the time. Steph, I'd love to come back to your question about convincing. Ultimately, workforce and economic development are the main drivers of governors and state legislators and what they're thinking about and the investments that they're making. So Anarupa can contextualize what she's doing in creating future employees that have the STEM skills to fill high-tech jobs that the governors are trying to recruit in their states. Similarly, Chris is able to talk about the reason governors and state leaders might not be able to recruit employers is because there aren't enough child care slots to help their workers actually go to work. And so this is a way to tap into an untapped workforce by providing enough child care slots. And so I think that is a really compelling part of the narrative that's driving a lot of state interest.

**Jeff Jordan:** Something we're kind of meandering our way into is this idea of selling to the government. I think, Chris, what you just shared there is so interesting that a lot of people do kind of stay away from selling to the government because they think it's unintuitive, long contract cycles, really hard to penetrate. How does a product actually make its way into a district? Like, what do you need to do to get a product like Wonderschool or Prisms into a classroom or to set up one of these child care programs?

**Chris Bennett:** Yeah, and I think it's a misnomer that sales cycles in K-12 are long. That's actually not true. The way that typically our motions run is unless you get the executive, i.e., the superintendent, you will have a fracturing of the implementation. So I always start with the CEO, who's a superintendent of, let's say, Broward County, Miami-Dade, West Palm Beach. Once that executive is in line with your vision, you then have to go to their academics leaders, right? So you have the chief academic officer, math director, science director. That's the next level of cabinet that sits underneath a superintendent. But then you have your instructional coaches that will actually oversee the operation implementation. You've got to get them on board. But last but not least, you have your principals and your teachers. So we will not close a deal unless we've gotten full buy-in of all teachers. They put their hand up and said, we opt in. Because if you don't get that, you will not get the expansion. You will not get the renewal. You're going to get a lot of pushback and implementation. Now, you might say, oh my gosh, those are a lot of presentations. No, they move really, really quickly. Because our problem statement is aligned to their problem statement. That's a very important part of this. The tech reviews takes about a week. The biggest question is around the RFP process. If there is an executive champion and they want it, they're going to make sure it closes. So that's just kind of a high level emotion. But I wanted to talk a little bit about the state. For example, in a state like Florida is we launch across all the large urbans, tons of rurals, the panhandle. We're in so many districts in just about a year and a half. So then we were then able to go to the Senate president and then the House Speaker and say, hey, Senate president, you have a real focus in rural counties. You're from Miami. You care deeply about urban education. So then you're able to take the successes and the outcomes and the results that you've been collecting at the district level and you take that up to the state. And now we're doing a pretty significant statewide deployment across Florida, but it was completely grassroots. It started at the district level. We delivered outcomes. We had to pick those right senators who were the right voice for what we were trying to do and then push an appropriation through. And I think what's really interesting also, I thought I was gonna be going to the DOE. I'm not going to the Department of Education. Everything is through either the workforce development infrastructure channel. In the case of Oklahoma, it's directly with the governor. In Rhode Island, it's directly with the governor. And it's all around regional workforce development strategies in light of both fear and anticipation of what AI is going to do to their local economies. This is classic bottoms up because you're starting at a few schools in the district. And if you produce results at those districts, you know, it's the classic land and expand, riding it all the way up.

**Jeff Jordan:** I remember once when I was at Salesforce the first big bottoms up company of the Internet era Mark Benioff met with my boss Meg Whitman and said I just wanted to thank my largest client in person. And Meg very gracious with Mr. Benioff walks back to my cube and goes, we're Salesforce's largest client? I'm like, I didn't know. And go back, we were a very large client because it was solving individuals' work needs. So the hope in the case of Prisms is if we can do a great job at a subset of schools, it becomes super compelling to expand into more schools in the district. We're doing a great job at district. It becomes more compelling to evolve at the state level. So it is a classic sales strategy done in the VR, AR world. And Chris, how do you think about that and making your way, whether it's into the district or the state? And then how do you think about building a product that in some sense needs to be scalable, but then also needs to fit these unique needs?

**Chris Bennett:** There are a couple of agencies that we can sell into. So Department of Education, Department of Early Childhood Education, Department of Labor, sometimes work directly with the governor. And what we found is we have a number of products and our land and expand motion is usually we start with one or two of these products and then we show success. We show outcomes with the state and that ends up leading to states wanting to essentially adopt more of our products so that they can help solve the child care crisis. Your customer is typically the state and then it's just how much they're buying, whereas in Arrupa often we'll start with a subset of the state's district schools.

**Jeff Jordan:** Exactly, Jeff. For Wonderschool, child care is actually managed by Health and Human Services. And so a lot of our go to market doesn't really have a district model and child care is regulated by the state. So we end up spending the vast majority of our time working with states.

**Anna Edwards:** It's such a good question and have been doing this for 20 years. So it's kind of all I've focused on and worked on for a long time. We love data and companies that love data. And so So first identifying ideal customer, just like an indie industry, and then thinking about the characteristics and the market environment in which those customers are going to be able to make purchases is really key. So we like to do 50 state analysis, looking at what makes for a favorable market environment and start to work with entrepreneurs to figure out we want a solid budget situation. Maybe we don't. Maybe if there's a budget crisis, it's easier to go in and sell. I do think that there's at the state level an X factor that is really important to know that is particularly as a company is getting started with the first set of one to five states to really launch a state level program, which is really strong and innovative leadership. There are state leaders willing to take a risk that know that they have a problem that they need to solve. They don't want to wait around and pass it to the next governor that comes after them. And so really figuring out who those innovative leaders are, building relationships with them, understanding their challenges and articulating the solutions in the context of those challenges is really important. And then to Jeff's point about kind of land and expand, once you have the first five states going, it starts to become a trend. And then the neighboring governors are all watching their PRC success. And the governor of Alabama is looking at Mississippi and saying, he launched 37 programs in a week. And we haven't launched 37 programs in a year of our current investments. What is Mississippi doing? And so that's when it starts to really take off. And some of those state leaders that might be a little less reluctant to innovate will start to catch on. We spend a lot of time looking at org charts and the timelines of appropriations and legislative sessions. But ultimately, there is this X factor of innovative state leadership and tapping into those leaders is really critical for getting going.

**Host:** You talked about how finding perhaps the right legislators is important. Are there any frameworks, things to pay attention to there? Is it just really like being on the ground and studying what these people are saying? Or how do you identify who's really willing to stick their neck out and try some of these programs?

**Anna Edwards:** There are certainly networks of state leaders. So you've got the National Governors Association, and you can look at who's really leading on education and workforce and child care issues within that organization. There's the National Conference of State Legislatures. And so you can start to see the leaders that are rising among their peers nationally and outspoken on certain issues. So that would be a way to start to identify where there might be a state based on leadership that would be good to focus on. A lot of it is having conversations because the number of at-bats you have increases the likelihood that you meet with a state leader that immediately catches the vision and says, let's go and let's move fast. It's a combination of paying attention to what's happening nationally, who is outspoken in terms of state legislators or governors on the issues that you're working on and getting in front of them because they're the influencers. And then the last piece is there are local consultants that are great that can help with understanding dynamics locally. And so knowing where there are states that you can tap into local consultants that really know the players and know the process can also help to accelerate things.

**Host:** How much does the pricing model matter here when you're talking about government and reshaping these things? How do you think about framing your product as you're trying to break into these new districts or states? Do they really care if this is going to be more expensive or less expensive, or are they really focused on the outcomes?

**Anarupa Ganguly:** The reason why I was convicted to start a company around this versus a nonprofit or another entity is unbeknownst to many, there's a lot of money in education. It goes to all kinds of tools. If you go to an average district, there's somewhere between 3,000, 4,000 ed tech tools being used. So the money's there. The big question is, how do you redirect it towards a strategy and really bring a cohesive vision? And that's what great entrepreneurs do. The K-12 operating budgets are typically what we use for the software, the services. There are other like plush funds and other CapEx budget sources, title one through four that can be used for the hardware. But going back to the question of outcomes. If we can deliver what we are endeavouring to deliver, which is I'm going to close your achievement gap in algebra one, the number one predictor of future life wages. The Brookings Institute founded, it's a big problem the US has been trying to solve. They will pay for that problem. We already put billions into this problem. So I don't think it's a money issue. I think it's an implementation issue. It's getting the right person to drive fidelity of implementation and get those outcomes. But you can get all those players in their roles and situated. I just have not seen price sensitivity at the state level that I have seen a bit at the district level, which we, again, were able to now supplement the funds that you don't have at the K-12 level with state funds. So it's a shared revenue model. Districts are paying for a part of it. States are paying for a part of it. Education's a state mandate. But Title I through IV is all federal funds, though that's the money that all of our districts currently use. So the feds also have a big role in supporting innovative solutions.

**Anna Edwards:** The way Wonderschool has approached these state partnerships is truly as a piece of the puzzle of solving this crisis of child care. The fact that a number of the slots that you open up for child care, parents that receive subsidies then access the child care. And when the subsidies run out, then they're like, well, maybe we don't need to open more slots. And so Chris not only has to go in and advocate for a state partnership and help increase supply, but then in many cases, also to advocate for increased subsidies so that then families can continue to have the demand and take the slots. And so I think you're really smart to think about the solution also amongst other solutions that help to solve a crisis. And then Anarupa, I loved your point, the idea of like reprogramming budgets. There are longstanding investments, whether it's districts or states in certain programs. And it can be hard because there are entrenched staff members inside the agencies operating the programs that have always worked with these programs. And so there's a lot of infrastructure that's been built around the status quo. And then what's happening at the state level in reprogramming budgets ultimately helps to inform what we see at the federal level as well. So we're hoping that all of the state innovation and what we saw, for example, in the shift from No Child Left Behind in terms of accountability to ESSA was that what states were doing actually helped to inform what the new version of the federal law looked like. The hope would be, and what Governor Polis as chair of the National Governors Association would tell you with his big education initiative, which focuses on early childhood and K-12, is that what states are doing and leading on then helps to inform the next iteration of the federal law and ultimately federal spending. It just takes a little bit of time, but states really are leading the way. And by the way, I have yet to see a governor's webpage that didn't emphasize early education as one of the priorities. It does solve a whole lot of their long-term problems. Both these companies are selling into an eager audience If we are able to shift this I know we early and you expanding and hopefully we do this again in three years and you in many more districts or states but what would change?

**Anarupa Ganguly:** Yeah, a big reason why I started this company is I had a couple of key moments leading up to starting it. One of them is I met a woman, Laura Jonna, met her at the TED conference, and she's a Harvard-educated pediatrician. And she decided to leave her career and start a child care program in her community because she came to the conclusion that she could have a bigger impact running a child care program than being a pediatrician. Another thing I saw is this guy named Harris Rosen. He runs the Rosen Hotels in Orlando, has made a good amount of money in real estate. And he noticed that a lot of the service workers in his hotel weren't putting their kids in early childhood education programs. And the K-12 system wasn't great. And they just had all these pretty poor outcomes. And there was a lot of crime and a lot of folks like selling drugs. He ended up going into the community and giving all of the children free access to childcare out of people's homes and supported a lot of the teachers in the area to support the children. And over a 30 year period, the crime rate essentially like went to zero. A lot of those children, he offered to give them scholarships to college. And he found that I don't think any of the kids actually needed them because they did so well in the K-12 system and they were able to get their own scholarships. And so I went to go visit him and he said, Chris, there's all of these nonprofits that come here and visit us. And no one actually ever does anything. They just come and visit and you guys are actually doing something about it. And what I've come away with is that if we could give access to high quality early childhood education to all children, a human's brain, 90% of it develops in the first five years of their life. If everyone gets access to it, then so many more of these children will be able to go to the K-12 system and get better use of it. And then essentially go on to be a productive American citizens, productive folks in the workforce, and frankly, just live better lives. There's so much research that supports this. And so what we found is that the best way to actually achieve this in a capitalist society is to empower business owners to start these businesses, to create wealth for themselves, but also give back to the community. We work with probably about 30,000 childcare providers right now. And some of our child care providers are earning over $2 million a year. We have child care providers that are making $100,000, $200,000, $300,000. We have child care providers buying homes in the Bay Area based on everything that they've done, starting their own child care programs. And when I talk to parents, they're just so happy for these child care providers because they're getting so much of a benefit by putting their kid in these programs. So it's such a clear win for everyone. That's amazing. Sheer value creation all around.

**Jeff Jordan:** Yeah, I think asking what is the value or impact of a good education, it's like a vast ocean. I'll hone in on a couple of things that Chris talked about. I ran and supported the college process in Boston and New York. And when I would help kids with their personal statements, I would ask them, what do you want to contribute to? What do you want to build? And kids could say musician, athlete, doctor, lawyer, they could name five jobs in the most sophisticated economy in the world, the U.S. economy. So we are graduating generations of children who have no idea what they can do with their education. So I'll share a few different disparate thoughts and then bring it together. In terms of my origin story, it started at MIT where I saw huge drop-offs of women, students of color, students who experience poverty. And by the time I got to grad school, I was literally the only woman in my classes. And what I began to find is a very homogenous conversation about the direction of technology. If you look at artificial intelligence, VR, AR, there are very few women in these top roles directing how these technologies ought to be modulated and how they can be utilized to build the next generation of our infrastructure. Third thought is when I walk into public schools today, I'll never forget, I walk into Anne Arundel, it's a school district in Maryland, lovely district, lovely leadership, beautiful children. And you walk into classes and the kids, they're just heads are on the table, headphones in scrolling on Netflix. I've never seen this kind of apathy. And I was a public school teacher in Title I districts in the Northeast. So that level of I just don't care. I don't have a passion. I don't really have curiosity. I don't want to build. I think it's going to be catastrophic for the United States if we don't find a way to end it. So all of that really brings together what I'm trying to achieve, which is building an education system where we are building builders. The purpose of school is to build, is to create. You talk about value creation, is to figure out how you're going to create value. And for that, you have to help kids fall in love with the problems that they're going to dedicate their lives to. Me and Chris are sitting here on planes all the time, not sleeping wide, because we fell in love with what we do. And there aren't enough moments where children get to fall in love in their K-12 schooling. And just to kind of bring back to why math