What's up with innovation?*

It's occurred to me that much of the below on innovation is the sort of "inside baseball" story that this blog was designed to clear up, so in interest of that, a bit on innovation.
We've had in Massachusetts a series of names for what are basically in-district charter schools. Call them pilot schools, Horace Mann schools, readiness schools...the idea is that the energy and independence associated with a charter school in Massachusetts would be captured within the district, without the accompanying loss of funds, debates over populations served, and so forth. Innovation schools are just the latest name, coming out of the ed reform law that passed in January.
(Interesting to note, by the way, that in-district charters are what many states have as their charter schools. Leads to confusing national conversations.)
Worcester had, since the Readiness Project report was issued by Governor Patrick in 2008, been working on a readiness school proposal.  Because there was much emphasis in the initial presentation on having community partners, the South quadrant was targeted for this project, as there is much energy around community partners--not to mention different school arrangements--in the South quadrant. 
When the readiness schools became the innovation schools--largely in response to federal priorities changing and Massachusetts submitting an application for Race to the Top--that became an innovation school project instead.
There had been a few initial conversations and meetings around readiness schools. Then we had an administration change. Then we had Race to the Top. Then we had community meetings in each quadrant around different school arrangements. All of which--I think--led to this appearing to be further along that it actually is.
The other difficulty here is the tension between what was an administration project--
create a readiness school in the South quadrant--
and what is now a ground-level project--
create an innovation school somewhere in the district. 
I don't think that tension has yet been well resolved, and I'd add that it led to having a packed meeting yesterday.
It's been said plenty of times before, but I'll say it again: you aren't in teaching long before you get a bone-weariness of administrators coming in and saying, "Hey, here's a great idea!" You know, deep in your soul that this, yes, even this, is going to pass, and it will be something else, but in the meantime, this is going to mean more meetings and more paperwork to fill out...and you're still going to need to teach Shakespeare or algebra or World War II.
(note: The Mass Frameworks were an exception. Until they weren't.)
The trick then, is to capture the very real energy that is out there in education--from teachers, parents, and interested community members--without killing it with administrative enthusiasm (and PowerPoint presentations). This is, I think, the danger we're running with innovation schools. We've managed to freak out the teachers, irritate the parents, and basically create a lot of negative energy on what could--honest!--be a great project if we let the right people run with it.
This is why I'm concerned about the administration's proposal to have a "Partnership committee" make decisions around what the requirements would be for any innovation proposal. I completely respect the notion of getting more people involved, but having fourteen people appointed by a three member committee (superintendent, school committee member, teacher's union president) make decisions isn't democracy. It isn't even representative democracy. (And it isn't a republic, either.) 
Since the ultimate decision on innovation schools rests with the School Committee (who at least were elected), public hearings on requirements would be the best answer. Give anyone who is concerned, worried, angry, irritated, or enthused a chance to say so. Explain--in public and repeatedly--exactly what is and is not going on. This happened last night--at what was, note, a subcommittee meeting. More of this, rather than private meetings, would be a better answer.
And then let's make sure the innovation proposals really are a) grassroots and b) innovative.
 


*actual question I was asked this morning. And when I do annoying things like use "insider" terms, call me on it. Always happy to explain or clear it up.