Is Administration Moving The Ball With Innovation?
Over the next couple of years, roughly a billion dollars will be spent on innovation in education through federal grants and private initiatives. A significant chunk of that money, $650 million, will be distributed to the 49 winners of the Investing In Innovation (i3) competition announced last week. Some education analysts -- Rick Hess, Tom Vander Ark,Alexander Russo and others -- posit that the competition, as evidenced by the winners, is really rewarding best practices and credibility, as opposed to innovative or transformational education practices.
With the i3 program, has the administration invested enough in proposals that bring truly innovative practices to the education system? Is America doing enough to leverage the benefits of modern technology in the education sector?
-- Eliza Krigman, NationalJournal.com
Frederick M. Hess responded to Is Administration Moving The Ball With Innovation? on August 9, 2010 10:02 AM
It's the Name That's the Problem In terms of execution and track record, the list of i3 winners is a pretty solid lineup-- especially compared to what usually gets funded in eduation. And, pound-for-pound, the $650 million for i3 is likely to do far more good than is the $4.35 billion for Race to the Top or the tens of billions showered upon K-12 through ARRA and edujobs. The problem is really with the branding. i3 should've been called "Nonprofit and District Stuff That Seems to Work." After all, by narrowly drawing rules of evidence, emphasizing models that plug cleanly into conventional classroom-school-district structures, and stiff-arming for-profits, Congress and ED pretty much barred the door against potentially transformational "innovations". This matters because...
Diane Ravitch responded to Is Administration Moving The Ball With Innovation? on August 9, 2010 10:14 AM
The Fruitless Search for Innovation American education has been chasing innovation for over 100 years, when it should have been pursuing systemic improvements that would reshape the essentials of education: curriculum, instruction, and assessment. The first Bush administration, in which I served, launched a competition for "new American schools," which was supposed to jumpstart innovation. Nothing got a jumpstart except for various winners' bank accounts. That was almost 20 years ago. The history of education-in-search-of-innovation is a story of big ideas, big egos, and no results. We are looking for change in all the wrong places. It...
Chester E. Finn, Jr. responded to Is Administration Moving The Ball With Innovation? on August 9, 2010 10:15 AM
New American Schools All Over Again This week I'm quoting Mike Petrilli (in part quoting me!) from Fordham's Flypaper blog a few days back: Alexander Russo nailed it this morning* when he wrote that “old school reforms win big in i3.” Indeed. What hit me when I saw the list of winners–especially the groups that brought home the big bucks–was that this is New American Schools all over again. "Can you have a revolution via an RFP process?" Remember that initiative from the 1990s? (If not, read this excellent Jeffrey Mirel history, published by Fordham in 2001.) Here’s what Checker...
Tom Vander Ark responded to Is Administration Moving The Ball With Innovation? on August 9, 2010 12:17 PM
iPad more innovation than i3 The i3 program funded credible scaling efforts that will make incremental improvements to traditional schools—solid investments but not innovation. Optimizing the current system will not reach all students; it won’t close the achievement, teacher, or funding gap; and will cost more money. Innovation is more likely to come from outside the system—from gaming, social networking, informal learning, tutoring, or military training—than through grants to school districts. We’re more likely to spot the potential for innovation watching developments with iPad than i3; watching TechCrunch more than Ed.gov; watching NEA.com more than NEA.org. Other than Ed.gov, every other...
It's the Name That's the Problem In terms of execution and track record, the list of i3 winners is a pretty solid lineup-- especially compared to what usually gets funded in eduation. And, pound-for-pound, the $650 million for i3 is likely to do far more good than is the $4.35 billion for Race to the Top or the tens of billions showered upon K-12 through ARRA and edujobs. The problem is really with the branding. i3 should've been called "Nonprofit and District Stuff That Seems to Work." After all, by narrowly drawing rules of evidence, emphasizing models that plug cleanly into conventional classroom-school-district structures, and stiff-arming for-profits, Congress and ED pretty much barred the door against potentially transformational "innovations". This matters because...
Diane Ravitch responded to Is Administration Moving The Ball With Innovation? on August 9, 2010 10:14 AM
The Fruitless Search for Innovation American education has been chasing innovation for over 100 years, when it should have been pursuing systemic improvements that would reshape the essentials of education: curriculum, instruction, and assessment. The first Bush administration, in which I served, launched a competition for "new American schools," which was supposed to jumpstart innovation. Nothing got a jumpstart except for various winners' bank accounts. That was almost 20 years ago. The history of education-in-search-of-innovation is a story of big ideas, big egos, and no results. We are looking for change in all the wrong places. It...
Chester E. Finn, Jr. responded to Is Administration Moving The Ball With Innovation? on August 9, 2010 10:15 AM
New American Schools All Over Again This week I'm quoting Mike Petrilli (in part quoting me!) from Fordham's Flypaper blog a few days back: Alexander Russo nailed it this morning* when he wrote that “old school reforms win big in i3.” Indeed. What hit me when I saw the list of winners–especially the groups that brought home the big bucks–was that this is New American Schools all over again. "Can you have a revolution via an RFP process?" Remember that initiative from the 1990s? (If not, read this excellent Jeffrey Mirel history, published by Fordham in 2001.) Here’s what Checker...
Tom Vander Ark responded to Is Administration Moving The Ball With Innovation? on August 9, 2010 12:17 PM
iPad more innovation than i3 The i3 program funded credible scaling efforts that will make incremental improvements to traditional schools—solid investments but not innovation. Optimizing the current system will not reach all students; it won’t close the achievement, teacher, or funding gap; and will cost more money. Innovation is more likely to come from outside the system—from gaming, social networking, informal learning, tutoring, or military training—than through grants to school districts. We’re more likely to spot the potential for innovation watching developments with iPad than i3; watching TechCrunch more than Ed.gov; watching NEA.com more than NEA.org. Other than Ed.gov, every other...