Don't change the innovation eligibility
7.30.2009

Though this Ed Week article is ostensibly about the Department's desire to expand the list of districts eligible to apply for the $650 million innovation grant program, it includes a much more news-worthy and troubling story line. Discussing how the Department wants to alter the program, the article reports:

The proposed amendment also seeks to clarify that nonprofit organizations are eligible for innovation grants, but only if they partner with school districts.

I believe that this would be a huge mistake. As is, the legislation explicitly states that nonprofits can partner with networks of schools OR districts. This would enable, for example, a nonprofit to use a grant to help some????great????charters replicate or to team with some charters to launch a new teacher prep program.

The Department's amendment would require that such proposals get the benediction of a traditional school district. I go into detail here why this change is misguided, but here's the short version:

  1. Districts, thankfully, are no longer the exclusive providers of public education

  2. Districts often oppose valuable reforms

  3. Districts might have their own ideas and not want to partner with others

  4. Major innovations seldom run through dominant, established entities

  5. Most districts wouldn't be unwilling to partner with private and faith-based schools

Since most kids are still educated by district schools, some philanthropies have made the mistake of thinking that the only way to get real reform is to get districts to change. This mindset unfortunately may have made its way into the Department. Not all technology innovations came through IBM, and not all automotive innovations came through GM, both of which were once the dominant players in their respective industries. Similarly, it is critical to acknowledge that neither KIPP nor TFA nor Achievement First nor NewSchools Venture Fund nor any of the other meaningful reform initiatives of the last generation emanated from traditional districts.

I'm not opposed to districts competing for these grants; I'm opposed to requiring their participation in all applications.????District reform is not synonymous with education reform.

I hope the Department keeps the language as is.