School & District Management Opinion

Making Room for Innovation

By Tom Vander Ark — February 21, 2013 3 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

Despite steady progress on achievement and graduation rates, big gaps remain.

Earlier this month Ted Kolderie, Education Evolving, addressed state charter school leaders. He made six
important points:

1. The need for innovation.
Ted notes that “Today’s dominant strategy --theory of action--has accepted the givens of traditional school; bets the nation can reach its goals by adding
accountability, standards, measurement and consequences.” The dominant mindset is improvement--just do it better.

“Chartering started out to create an R&D sector, but then turned to a similar effort to do traditional school better.” He points to scaling of
‘no-excuses’ charters in 2003 as the end of innovation in the charter sector.

2. Our difficulty in getting innovation.
Ted points to Clayton Christensen’s distinction between sustaining innovation that improves an existing model and disruptive innovation that departs from
the givens of the existing model.

Ted argues that innovation is being suppressed by the notion that ‘reform’ has to be a comprehensive transformation politically engineered and a “reverence
for research.” Insisting that all change be “evidence-based,” while it helps with improvement, blocks off the innovation that introduces the truly

3. The danger in failing to innovate. “
The current debate is just not commensurate to the scale of the challenge we face. Almost all the ideas currently on the mainstream table leave the basic
structure of American schooling fundamentally unchanged,” Ted quotes The Futures of School Reform (Meta,
Schwartz, Hess). “Given the scope of the problem these incremental reforms will not bring about the better schools we want. If we keep doing what we’re
doing, we’re never going to get there.”

“A one-bet strategy is a risk,” said Kolderie. “It is not a necessary risk to be taking, since we could at the same time be running multiple strategies.
And since it is not a necessary risk to be taking it is not an acceptable risk to be taking, with the nation’s future and with other people’s children.”

4. A new theory of action: innovation-based systemic reform.
Ted proposes a ‘split-screen’ approach of allowing new models of education to emerge. “Early-adopters pick up the new, however primitive. Those who prefer
the traditional may stay with the traditional, but may not suppress the innovative for those who do want that. Over time, as the new models improve, more
people switch. At some point the curves cross; a transition is completed.”

5. So: what do the states and the national government do?
“It is time now for the states to create an innovation sector that will ask schools to design and test alternatives to the givens of traditional school.”
Ted suggests experimentation in six areas:

· Age-grading: students progressing at their own pace.

· Whole-class instruction: the personalization that digital learning provides.

· The role of teachers: diverse roles including teacher led schools.

· The definition of achievement: an analysis that tests the full range of knowledge and skills.

· Instruction, as the way students learn: free to test other approaches to learning and other sites for learning.

· The ‘boundaries’ of school: start at age three and move those college-ready students at 16 into college.

6. What role does the charter sector play?
When Ted helped write the nation’s first charter bill in 1991 it created a window for innovation, but Ted argues Chartering has drafted
away from innovation.” He thinks a focus on innovation could change that and urges an inventory of innovative school models (using the six categories
above) to start. He sees teachers increasingly demanding professional roles and innovation in digital learning resisting centralization.

States could add an application and authorization pathway for innovation schools. They could use a request for proposal and grant program ( like NGLC) to encourage applications in
Ted’s six categories. An innovation charter could have a shorter contract (e.g., 3 years rather than 5 years), could incorporate alternative measures, and
could involve more oversight.

I appreciate Kolderie’s “can’t get there from here” observations and his advocacy for innovation. He makes a good case that we can and should focus on
improvement and innovation.

Related Tags:

The opinions expressed in Vander Ark on Innovation are strictly those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinions or endorsement of Editorial Projects in Education, or any of its publications.