# data[].attributes.body
7. I think that there remains a gap between, on the one hand, what we *currently* produce and the guardrails (particularly around policy change) we put on our work, and, on the other, meaningful progress toward our vision. That said, this is clear that the vision isn't something that is under our direct control. And it generally reflects my understanding of our mission and how our activities match against it.

# data[].attributes.body
I read this doc as implying two levels of work:
- Incubation works at the level of institutions, schools, and school-adjacent organizations.
- RaSP (special projects) works at the level of systems (e.g. tutoring, or supporting CityWorks).
Do we expect those levels of work to come together? E.g. do we focus on Incubation investments that are aligned with issues RaSP invests in?
--Andrew

# data[].attributes.body
7. I think much was familiar and helpful; there were a few missing pieces and larger "whys" that I want to grapple with, but the framework felt right.

I feel some tension in the proofpoints outcome and the need to spell that out more, align internally on guardrails or our internal hypotheses.

# data[].attributes.body
If we embrace this frame, then we need to 1.) Develop much more robust programming/networking activities with our alumni. We shouldn't think of "empowering" entrepreneurs as ending with their participation in our incubation programming. 2.)  We would need to have a clearer and more robust sense of what ideas should be focused on in ventures, initiatives, schools. In particular, it wouldn't be enough to say that, for example, Montessori is in demand in DC and we should support it. We would have to say more about what has to be different about whatever Montessori school/venture/initiative we would support compared to the "Montessori status quo." (BTW, I think Wildflower passes this test, thanks to Maia.) But we would need to know about the frontiers of any given set of ideas to make these sorts of decisions. No small task!

# data[].attributes.body
-qualitative feedback on entrep experiences and belongingness; sense of community and empowerment;
-quantitative data on their launch of projects / ventures / schools.
-prioritize inputs on coaching, programming / workshops, and financial assistance. Cultivation and the alignment of our efforts in our early-stage work to get the right people in the programming.

# data[].attributes.body
6.5
Lots of great specificity here and making visible concepts that were previously implied or invisible. I think that the glue that is still missing is the question of "to what end/ in order to..." You mention the three aims of public education: economic power, civic power, and self-actualization... but which one do we believe in? I think that the equity statement helps answer that:
"In summary, when we say that we want DC to become the first city-level proof point for an excellent and equitable public education system, we are referring to the 5 bolded characteristics above."
... SO THAT students have the power of BELONGING... Belonging is being able to participate in the design of political, social, and cultural structures and having the right to contribute and make demands upon society and institutions.

# data[].attributes.body
there are a lot of assumptions baked into the PFDDDs... but we can get there another day.

Other assumptions:
-people want us / demand our programming. This is true this year, but will it be in the future?
-our funding will continue to be plentiful.
-our programming / staffing is right for our strategy.
-DC's political landscape is demanding / open to this strategy.
-We are going it alone in the realm of ventures instead of building coalition to incubate ventures as a DC community.

# data[].attributes.headline
that in-house incubation (e.g. when we seek out a leader to run point on a city-wide solution that we are incubating AND collaborating on) involves just grasstops

# data[].attributes.subject
that in-house incubation (e.g. when we seek out a leader to run point on a city-wide solution that we are incubating AND collaborating on) involves just grasstops

# data[].attributes.body
Agree it's not grassroots because we are coming up with a solution and incubating it, but I don't see the work as being just grasstops. What distinguishes this way of incubating solutions is that CBE comes up with the solution and (I think) the scale is citywide.

# data[].attributes.headline
An assumption is that we have a sense of the full tiers of support required to be an incubator across all the levels that E's may need

# data[].attributes.subject
An assumption is that we have a sense of the full tiers of support required to be an incubator across all the levels that E's may need

# data[].attributes.body
Is it enough to say that we support anti-racist / liberatory ideas? Do we also need to name white supremacy specifically and articulate that we are creating a counter narrative? That is, the doc makes folks of color visible, but are there risks to leaving whiteness invisible?
--Andrew

# data[].attributes.body
7
I think the mission and value of a national proof point is something that we say often although I'm not sure I actually see it In practice much in our organization (which begs the question, how important is it if we don't currently actively do it).

I also struggle with our particular definition of "incubator" and how that then applies to what we do-- an incubator does not build things, an incubator creates favorable environment and provides tools to help others build things

# data[].attributes.body
7 - the framing is helpful. I am still left wanting to see system defined. Is the system simply the SCHOOLS in it? I think this clarity can support how we think about solution-fit with ventures (if it doesnt help schools be these 5 things, we dont do it).

I am aligned and clear on the vision and mission and think this is at the level of detail needed for us to now into our work streams to do more work to further define.

# data[].attributes.body
I don't know that it did/did not align more than it provided clarity and specificity to ideas that for me were implied or unclear.

# data[].attributes.body
Assumption: We can, as an early stage incubator, decide which ideas are likely to become proof points.
Assumption: proof points/exemplars can move the broader needle (they can generate demand for similar products which will have to be met, they can build compelling cases for how systems have to change in order to allow them to flourish.)
Assumption: we can influence conditions for equitable innovation.

# data[].attributes.body
Prioritize support (this could be coaching, financial, etc) after programming

# data[].attributes.body
Strong framing. I feel like the school-heavy language diminishes our Ventures play. Would like it to be more specific about how programs/orgs in the space are part of the system we want to create. If we are clear that the school is the unit of change, what do we believe (and therefore select for) about the Ventures we incubate?

# data[].attributes.body
- hearing the experiences or stories (qualitative measure?) of our entrepreneurs in the long-run - it doesn't feel enough to see the success in the short-term, but how are we seeing the impact of our work in the long-term and actually impacting the community?

# data[].attributes.body
I know this is a topic for another day, but I'm also left wondering about what ideas we believe are important to invest in.

# data[].attributes.body
I appreciated the naming of the 5 characteristics we are referring to when we talk about our vision - DC becoming the first city-level proof point for an excellent and equitable public education system.

I am wondering if we are all in alignment about the definition of an excellent and equitable public education system. Even if it is not within our locus of control,  how does this/could this influence our work and things like the mentioned criteria.

# data[].attributes.body
Assumption: that we can create the structures and processes to choose the high-leverage equitable ideas to invest in.

# data[].attributes.headline
7 - I agree with much of what has already been said about it serving as a solid framework, but there is still a lot of "PFDDD" that I think must be answered before I can say it fully aligns or even provides full clarity about our ToC. Some of the PFDDD points feel like critical points we need to come to an agreement on internally 

# data[].attributes.subject
7 - I agree with much of what has already been said about it serving as a solid framework, but there is still a lot of "PFDDD" that I think must be answered before I can say it fully aligns or even provides full clarity about our ToC. Some of the PFDDD points feel like critical points we need to come to an agreement on internally 

# data[].attributes.body
Assumption: There is an audience for "proof points". To whom are these proof points directed? who didn't believe it before? it sounds like there's a deficit mentality that we're working on overcoming

# data[].attributes.headline
"We build things that have a tangible impact" is clear, AND 

# data[].attributes.subject
"We build things that have a tangible impact" is clear, AND 

# data[].attributes.body
Are the empowered people a "thing" that we help "create"? If so, then the success is what these people do to shift and shape the 5 points above. If that is the case then we have to do two KEY things: 1) build a function that tracks ppl after the incubator 2) an alumni support mechanism
-RJ

# data[].attributes.body
Activities to prioritize: programming and networking that gets ideas to travel, spread, and take hold beyond just the programs and convenings that we build.

# data[].attributes.body
Should there be emphasis on what feels like a strong desire / MO to reserve capacity (time, staff, $) to be able to respond quickly to urgent city needs? Maybe that fits more into the HOW we get things done but would be helpful to get really clear and loud about that

# data[].attributes.body
Ways to continue having folks we support bump into one another and keep working, collaborating, and pushing one another to practice the skills, mindsets and processes that we teach.

# data[].attributes.body
Assumption: That we are connected enough to students, families, and caregivers to do this work well.

# data[].attributes.body
8 - overall, this seemed to align well with my own understanding, as others have shared, the concept of "proof point" could be drawn out a bit more - does "proof point" mean that any other city could adopt this same model anywhere else? not sure if that actually would translate well in other city contexts

# data[].attributes.body
My logical mind thinks therethink there is strong alignment in a

# data[].attributes.body
of people who participate in programming & say X about their mindset/skill set/ evolution of their idea when they leave
- # of non-educators who come to our convenings (particularly repeat attendees) + similar exit ticket about their mindset/resources/connections when they leave

# data[].attributes.headline
downloads/shares of X (equitable innovation) resources/templates that we put on some kind of share-site

# data[].attributes.subject
downloads/shares of X (equitable innovation) resources/templates that we put on some kind of share-site

# data[].attributes.headline
external convenings can influence leaders/impact the system (grasstops)

# data[].attributes.subject
external convenings can influence leaders/impact the system (grasstops)

# data[].attributes.headline
that the products/solutions coming out of the "grasstops" pathway are created with our core equitable innovation principles at the core

# data[].attributes.subject
that the products/solutions coming out of the "grasstops" pathway are created with our core equitable innovation principles at the core

# data[].attributes.body
How does eXd / community-driven approach play into how the next CTDC-equivalent "solution" idea is created? If we say that is the core of who we are / our approach, how does this pathway (and the ideas that we incubate) reflect that?