Interview: Progressive Policy Institute’s David Osborne On Creating New Innovation Schools Guide At A Moment Of Crisis

Interview: Progressive Policy Institute’s David Osborne on Creating New Innovation Schools Guide at a Moment of Crisis

In our current education systems, the concept of innovation schools and zones is crucial because they provide the necessary flexibility to create and replicate a variety of diverse learning models. Our research indicates that these schools allow the individuals who are actually involved in running the schools, such as principals, administrators, and teachers, to make key decisions. They have firsthand knowledge of the students and their specific needs, so it is important that they have the autonomy to address those needs. Cookie-cutter approaches that come from centralized offices often do not work for all schools.

Many people assume that principals have a lot of power, but in reality, they have limited control. In urban districts, they often cannot choose their own teachers as they are assigned by the central office. They also face restrictions when it comes to firing tenured teachers, affecting the pay scale, rewarding staff, adjusting the school day or year, and implementing additional support like Saturday morning school sessions. They typically have control over less than 1 percent of the budget. This lack of decision-making power hinders their ability to effectively address the unique challenges faced by students, especially those in low-income areas. By sticking to a centralized, standardized approach, we are limiting the potential impact of these school leaders and, ultimately, disadvantaging the students. This is why it is not just an education issue but also an equity and justice issue.

In our guide, we recommend that education leaders consider promoting teacher-run schools within their innovation schools portfolio. Teacher-led schools have shown to contribute positively to overall student achievement. When teachers have the authority to make decisions and lead the school, they can create an environment that aligns with their expertise and the specific needs of their students. They are able to implement innovative instructional methods and tailor their teaching approaches to meet individual student needs. This autonomy empowers teachers and allows them to be more effective in their roles, ultimately benefiting the students and their academic success.

Reimaging Education in America: Exploring Innovative School Models

In America’s education landscape, traditional symbols have become obsolete, giving way to a diverse range of models. Across the country, there are about 150 teacher-run schools, with a majority being charter schools and the remainder district schools.

As the world grapples with the global pandemic, discussions around reimagining education have gained momentum among education leaders, practitioners, and stakeholders. Looking ahead, do you believe that more school districts throughout the country will embrace the idea of implementing innovation schools?

My belief is affirmative. Even before the pandemic, there was a growing wave of interest in this concept. Roughly 20 urban districts nationwide were either deeply invested in this approach or experimenting with it in various forms. However, the specific implementation varies according to local politics, leadership, and other factors. Nevertheless, the pandemic has made it undeniably clear to all, especially parents, that numerous public schools and districts were ill-equipped to swiftly and effectively transition to remote learning. To say the least, it was an immense challenge. In systems where decision-making and authority primarily lie with the central office, teachers and administrators are not accustomed to rethinking their approach, hindering their ability to adapt quickly and efficiently. Consequently, such systems often fail to attract entrepreneurial individuals who thrive in autonomy-driven environments. If we aspire to have visionary individuals leading our schools, granting them substantial autonomy is crucial. Unfortunately, in the absence of this autonomy in the past, these capable individuals are unlikely to hold positions of influence.

Furthermore, I recently came across a survey that indicates charter schools, on average, have responded more promptly and effectively to the shift towards remote learning compared to district schools. This anecdotal evidence reinforces this observation.

However, on the flip side, are you concerned that the pandemic and subsequent school closures may result in significant setbacks? Particularly considering that many districts will likely prioritize reopening and focusing on fundamental aspects, rather than seeking innovation or experimentation?

Absolutely. Since March, discussions regarding substantial structural changes within school districts that could significantly impact student learning have been put on hold due to the overwhelming challenges posed by the pandemic. I believe these discussions will continue to be delayed until a vast majority of students have been vaccinated and life can gradually return to a semblance of normalcy. However, once we reach that stage, there will be countless frustrated parents who have witnessed firsthand the inadequacy of their children’s education. Hopefully, district leaders will actively seek ways to accelerate progress and help their schools bridge the gap caused by the learning loss, as their children will have fallen further behind their grade level.

The data strongly supports this notion. When focusing solely on public schools within urban communities, the more autonomy they are granted, as long as it is combined with accountability measures, the more successful they become. A careful examination of the districts that have shown the greatest improvement over the past 15 years reveals statistical evidence favoring cities like New Orleans, Washington D.C., Chicago, and Denver. Notably, all these cities achieved progress through different models of autonomous schools. In New Orleans, for example, all schools are charters, while in Washington, D.C., charters comprise 47% of the schools. In Chicago and Denver, a significant number of autonomous district schools, often referred to as innovation schools or contract schools, have played a pivotal role. Thus, there is no debate about the efficacy of these models. We know that they work exceptionally well for urban students, and it is our hope that more district leaders will seek effective solutions once the era of COVID-19 concludes.

Could you provide insights into the challenges associated with the innovation school model?

I would highlight that the most significant challenges are primarily political in nature. Whenever the notion of providing school leaders, be it principals or groups of teachers, with the authority to hire and fire staff is proposed, it is met with opposition from teachers unions. They argue that safeguarding their members’ jobs, including shielding teachers who may not be competent, falls within their responsibilities. Consequently, they actively resist any attempts to remove underperforming teachers.

The existence of autonomous schools poses difficulties for central offices, as they now have to navigate two sets of rules. Traditional schools follow one set of rules, while autonomous schools operate under a different set. This divide creates challenges for the central office, such as the allocation of funds for professional development. In some cases, the money is directed towards autonomous schools, granting them the authority to decide how to allocate it. As a result, the central office faces a reduction in its budget and must respond to the needs and demands of these school leaders. This process of adjusting the mentality of the central office takes time and is an ongoing struggle in districts like Denver and San Antonio, as well as others.

When it comes to implementing innovation schools, education leaders must strive to gain support and buy-in from all stakeholders within their educational communities to prevent resistance. How can this be achieved? Have any successful examples been observed?

Let us now delve into the different stakeholders, starting with teachers. Engaging teachers in the innovation school model can be accomplished through various approaches. However, one particularly effective method is through teacher-powered schools. A prime example is Springfield, Massachusetts, where an empowerment zone consisting of 11 schools exists. Each of these schools has a leadership team comprising five teachers. One teacher is elected by the principal, while the remaining four are elected by their peers. Together, they collaborate with the principal in developing the school’s annual plan and participate in decision-making processes regarding its future direction. This level of involvement in shaping the school’s trajectory is highly appealing to educators. Furthermore, teachers appreciate autonomy, as they often feel confined by bureaucratic limitations within their respective schools.

Another successful approach involves using innovation schools as a means to turn around failing schools. Indianapolis, for instance, allows strong district schools to become innovation schools if the teachers express a desire for greater autonomy. In fact, out of the 20 or 21 innovation schools, five initially operated as conversion schools. Currently, the number of innovation schools stands at 26. Teachers who have experienced this transformation firsthand usually become strong advocates for the concept. Since they were previously district teachers and union members, their endorsement carries credibility among their colleagues. Thus, innovation schools can facilitate the conversion of both failing and strong schools, ensuring continuity with the existing teaching staff.

In terms of families, the lesson learned is clear: when establishing an innovation school or transitioning from a district school to an innovation school within the same building, community engagement is essential. It is crucial to communicate with families, address the issues present in failing schools, and introduce them to the new leadership overseeing the school’s operations. Furthermore, leaders must exert significant effort to establish connections with families. If these leaders are affiliated with organizations that manage other schools, they could offer to give families a firsthand look at those institutions. This experience can be eye-opening for parents, as they witness the noticeable improvements in comparison to their child’s current school. Winning over parents becomes relatively easier when they can see the tangible benefits of the new school. Unfortunately, in public education, there has been a tendency to assume parental passivity, relying on the notion that once children are assigned to a school, parental involvement ends. This mindset must be challenged, and education leaders should actively promote and advocate for these new schools, highlighting their merits to parents.

Apart from teachers and families, the business community represents another important stakeholder group. They have a vested interest in supporting innovative schools as a means to cultivate a better-educated workforce. Usually, convincing the business community becomes relatively straightforward, especially when backed by data showcasing improved student performance.

As for the incoming Biden administration, it is crucial to assess its educational mindset and how it may impact the innovative schools movement.

In the federal government, there is currently not much enthusiasm for implementing a program similar to Race to the Top. This program was characterized by a proactive approach to guiding districts and states in a particular direction. However, there was a significant backlash against some aspects of Race to the Top, such as the implementation of the Common Core and the use of student test scores for evaluating teachers. This backlash has made the Biden administration cautious about actively pushing state and local districts in a specific direction.

While I would personally appreciate it, I am somewhat doubtful that the Biden administration will promote the creation of innovation schools. It is important to recognize that our education systems are primarily governed at the state level, and the federal government’s role is relatively recent and limited. Therefore, the main battle for autonomy and accountability in public schools will continue to take place at the state and local levels.