When Adrian Fenty lost the mayoral primary in DC, it was clear that Michelle Rhee's days were numbered. I was working late when the news of her resignation broke--a flood of Facebook posts and chats appeared from distraught friends who are teachers, former AmeriCorps volunteers, and Teach For America alumni. The news wasn't surprising, but still raised unease as to who would be the next face of education reform in America.

I had the pleasure of working with Rhee's staff when my nonprofit, The Generation Project, launched to DCPS in fall 2009. The Generation Project empowers donors to create a personal difference for low-income K-12 students and, in turn, we offer free opportunities that educators can immediately access. With national attention on Rhee and DC, numerous donors earmarked their gifts for DCPS.

The other co-founder of The Generation Project and I are both Teach For America alumni. The Chancellor stacked her staff with alumni of the program and, as such, support for The Generation Project came quickly. The central office was even more helpful than anticipated -- they identified and cultivated 13 schools that would put our donors' gifts to good use. Rhee's office conducted outreach on our behalf, followed up with schools at least twice, and even made some direct calls to principals. Of our four original cities, we had the most support from her district and spent the most staff time on outreach in DC. In the end, however, DC had the lowest teacher usage rate of any city where we were operating (including Chicago, Detroit, and New York City).

This outcome can be attributed to numerous factors. The tenure fight, school closings, and principal firings were, I'm sure, weighing heavily on some administrators. I can imagine that sharing word with teachers of The Generation Project's launch was not many principals' top priority.

Even given the climate, I was still very confused as to why it was so difficult to share FREE opportunities in the district that was inspiring reform efforts across the country. Something was awry.

For many living in the District, and specifically for those connected to DCPS, Rhee appeared to care more about cleaning house than supporting children. If you follow education, you know about the broom. You may have heard that she fired her own children's principal and many of us saw howshe fired principals in "Waiting for 'Superman.' "

Maybe DC needed a hatchet lady. Student achievement is up. Low-performing schools shouldn't be allowed to fail students year after year. And those gripped by "Waiting for 'Superman' " will remember Rhee claiming that this would be her only superintendency -- giving her the freedom to act quickly and aggressively. But to what end?

Nationally, Rhee was an education superstar. But in DC she was polarizing. I believe one of the biggest reasons The Generation Project didn't gain more traction in DC last year is because the communication we shared with schools came directly from Rhee's office. Principals already spurned by her lack of empathy and tact didn't listen as closely to the offer for free opportunities as those in Chicago, Detroit, and New York City. On the whole this might not seem like a big deal. But these were completely free opportunities claimed by teachers in other cities that could have gone to support the education of students in DC.

I deeply respect and admire Rhee's tenacity and dedication to children. But I was disappointed by her approach. Her reforms were never going to be sustainable without support throughout her ranks. Providing access to a brighter future for kids is the responsibility of school systems. It seems Rhee forgot that parents and educators comprise the system. When they are made to feel disposable, lasting reform will never happen. This was Rhee's downfall and it affected more than her success or failure; it impacted our work and the efforts of the broader community.

The national sentiment about her resignation is different than the opinion of many in the District. I always supported Rhee and I know people, as hyperbolic as it may sound, who thought Rhee was the "Superman" of our generation. Because Rhee didn't lead in a way that was respectful of students, families, and educators, though, there is a real, entrenched backlash. Perhaps Rhee's successor would be well-advised to remember this by channeling the motto of her peers at the KIPP charter schools: "Work Hard, Be Nice." Rhee worked hard, and it showed, but in education, being nice is half the game.

I look forward to supporting Kaya Henderson as she works to build on Rhee's critical reforms and hope, if selfishly, that she'll walk softly so The Generation Project and organizations like ours can reach more students in the District.

Follow Jessica Rauch on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@thegenproject

 Mark Zuckerberg's recent $100 million donation to Newark's public schools was a big surprise. Some believe it was a publicity stunt aimed at diverting attention away from any negative publicity from "The Social Network." For Newark, no matter the motive, this infusion of cash will likely make a difference in schools. At the same time, this donation has again raised the question many people seek to understand: Is throwing money at the system the answer?

There is an ongoing debate about whether more money will solve our nation's education woes. Over the last 30 years, per pupil spending has doubled while student achievement has flat lined. One logical reaction might be to think that money doesn't matter. Specifically for individuals who want to support education, it can be difficult to know whether donations to schools are going to make a difference. My experience in education suggests that money can make a difference but it's not that simple.

I started my career in the Bronx as a fourth-grade teacher with Teach For America. For one of my students, we'll call him Andrew, school was unbearable. He struggled with a graphomotor disability and severe ADHD. Luckily we had a computer in our classroom which allowed Andrew to type his papers and daily journal entries. Further, by incorporating art in my curriculum, Andrew was able to experience immediate success while better focusing on the subject at hand. Having both the computer and well-stocked art supplies were crucial to Andrew's ability to concentrate and learn. Sports and the occasional field trip further engaged Andrew and permanently altered his attitude toward school.

Andrew's year ended much differently than it started. His confidence grew dramatically and he was selected for a significant honor. He represented the school as a docent at the Guggenheim Museum where his art and the art of a few fellow classmates was being displayed. Andrew became a top student. He just needed more supports to make learning meaningful.

With spending at an all-time high, there is little proof that more money equals better education -- forcing districts and states to make difficult funding decisions. In this era of wide-spread budget cuts, however, the experiences that make school fun, meaningful, and accessible to students are the ones that are most often on the chopping block. Cutting art class is easier to justify than layoffs. Thus, the responsibility to provide an exciting and supportive educational experience often falls to educators. They have to be savvy to find ways to get the materials and experiences they need for their students. This process can be time-consuming, expensive, and requires knowledge of where to find resources.

The lack of resources creates a dilemma for educators. At the same time, concerned individuals are finding it difficult determine how to best support public education. We receive conflicting messages about whether money really matters, yet it's clear that money is needed to purchase art supplies and to take students on trips. There needs to be a way for concerned citizens to support public education on a very local level by connecting directly with schools in need.

In fall 2009 I launched The Generation Project, a nonprofit that supports low-income public school students through an innovative approach to giving. The Generation Project allows donors to design and fund meaningful educational experiences and provides teachers access to the free opportunities our donors sponsor.

The Generation Project has become more than a way for teachers to find free opportunities for their students. Philanthropists at all income levels are sharing their passions and exposing students to a range of experiences that would not have been available to them otherwise. It is providing a platform for individuals to invest in schools. Anyone can utilize the platform atwww.thegenerationproject.org to create their own impact to benefit low-income K-12 students. Past gifts range from tuition to a fine arts camp, sponsorship of a baseball program at a school, and funds for a computer and art supplies.

Zuckerberg's answer to the dire state of education was to give Newark a wad of cash. Most of us don't have the deep pockets of a social media mogul, but with some thought, the right platform can make a direct impact for students in need. By harnessing the passions of individuals to benefit kids, The Generation Project is creating a new way for teachers to make the learning process fun and meaningful for their students. Donors who are giving back through The Generation Project and other community-based organizations give me hope that individuals can make a real impact in education. They are part of a larger grassroots movement of concerned citizens that refuse to wait for education to change. We don't have to fully understand how money affects learning to make a difference. There are ways to support education today while the larger money issues are being sorted out.

Follow Jessica Rauch on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@thegenproject