« Help Wanted | Main | Edujobs, Fiscal Relief, Child Care, and Distribution »

Everybody's Talking About Innovation

I predicted recently that the love for i3 was unlikely to hold up once the winners actually were announced. And, indeed, it looks like there are plenty of complaints out there.

A number of folks--including Rick Hess, Alexander Russo, and Mike Petrilli--have already complained that i3 isn't really all that innovative. i3 is also the topic at National Journal's Education Expert blog this week--where the response has been largely critical, with only AFT President Randi Weingarten (whose organization's affiliated foundation won an i3 grant for teacher evaluation work) and NSVF's Ted Mitchell (whose organization did not win an i3 grant*, but funds a number of organizations that did) sticking up for the program.

While most of the critics echo the "i3's not really that innovative" criticism, give Diane Ravitch credit for taking a different line, arguing that "It is not innovation that we need, but an effective educational system, where teacher recruitment and preparation are highly valued, where the teaching profession is respected, where principals are known as master teachers, where the curriculum is rich and broad, where assessment eschews bubble-guessing, and where attention is paid to the quality of children's lives." Mass Insight's Justin Cohen does a nice job explaining why this is a strawman argument.

And we haven't even really gotten into a conversation about scoring yet: Ed Week's Michele McNeil notes that it's pretty darn near inscrutable (how did St. Vrain School District score over 116 points on a 105 point scale, again?). And NAF's Laura Bornfreund raises some sharp points about inconsistencies in how reviewers scored the early childhood competitive priority points. Expect more attention to scoring issues in the future, once the Department releases the full applications of the validation and development winners, as well as scores of the non-winning applicants.

The whole "not innovative enough" conversation seems awfully stale to me: People who were paying attention when the regs came out this winter could have predicted how this could play out. In i3 the Department of Education faced a tough trade-off between funding "innovation" and funding projects with evidence of effectiveness. They chose to fall more on the side of evidence of effectiveness--a sound and defensible decision, given that we're talking about significant amounts of taxpayer dollars here, but one that tips the balance away from the most groundbreaking ideas. I think that's ok: For the foreseeable future, the lead role in seeding innovative ideas in education probably needs to come from philanthropy and the private sector, with the federal government playing a more aggressive role in identifying and helping to bridge the most effective innovations to broader adoption. Philanthropic funders have been playing a significant role in scaling the work of charter networks and TFA, but are reaching the limits of their capacity there. As the federal government moves into more of a scaling what works role, that could free up philanthropic funds to play a greater role in seeing innovation--provided some philanthropic groups are willing to buck their naturally risk averse tendencies here. At the same time, i3 illustrates why both social entrepreneurs and philanthropists in the education space are going to need to get much more serious about solid evaluation of the work they undertake or fund.

*disc: I consulted on NSVF's i3 grant applications.

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.

Advertisement

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

Tags

AFT
Alex Grodd
Ana Menezes
Andrew Kelly
appropriations
ARRA
Aspire Public Schools
authorizing
Better Lesson
Bill Ferguson
certification
charter schools
child care
children's literature
choice
civil rights
CLASS
Core Knowledge
curriculum
D.C.
democracy
early childhood
Early Learning Challenge Grant
economics
elections
English language learners
entrepreneurship
equity
Evan Stone
fathers
finance
fix poverty first
Hailly Korman
harlem children's zone
HEA
Head Start
head start
health care
Higher Education
home-based child care
homeschooling
housing
How we think and talk about pre-k evidence
i3
IDEA
income inequality
instruction
international
Jason Chaffetz
Jen Medbery
just for fun
Justin Cohen
Kaya Henderson
Kenya
kindergarten
KIPP
Kirabo Jackson
Kwame Brown
land use
LearnBoost
libertarians
LIFO
literacy
Los Angeles
Louise Stoney
Mark Zuckerberg
Maryland
Massachusetts
Memphis
Michelle Rhee
Michigan
Mickey Muldoon
Neerav Kingsland
New Jersey
New Orleans
NewtownReaction
Next Gen Leaders
Next Gen leaders
nonsense
NSVF Summit
NYT
organizing
parent engagement
parenting
parking
pell grants
politics
poverty
PreK-3rd
presidents
principals
productivity
QRIS
Race to the Top
Rafael Corrales
redshirting
regulation
religion
rick hess
Roxanna Elden
RTT
san francisco
school choice
social services
SOTU
special education
Stephanie Wilson
stimulus
story
Sydney Morris
tax credits
Teacher Prep
teachers
technology
Title I
unions
urban issues
Vincent Gray
vouchers
Waiting for Superman
Washington
West Virginia
zoning