INNOVATION VERSUS REFORM – WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED?
by Louise Sundin (lsundin@mft59.org)
Opening TURN’s general session, Joe Graba, Louise Sundin, and Lynn Nordgren, “The Lake Woebegone Players”, expanded TURNsters thinking about ‘innovation’ – what it is, what it isn’t and how is it different from reform. It is particularly important that educators understand how innovation is defined by the new administration to qualify for the competitive innovation grants, Turnaround grants, and Race to the Top grants now offered by the USDE.
Joe began with definitions and the ecology of innovation. Innovation is the introduction of a new idea, method, or device. Replication is the spread of successful innovations but is not really considered innovation in and of itself. Reform results from the spread of successful innovations. Innovations vary in magnitude. Those that improve what exists are usually incremental and are called sustaining innovations because they tend to sustain what already “is”. More fundamental innovations actually replace what “is” with different approaches. These are sometimes called disruptive innovations.
The ecology of innovation is the environment in which innovation occurs. A healthy ecology of innovation encourages the development of innovations and makes it possible to both sustain and replicate successful innovations. Generally, education has a terrible ecology for innovation. Most educators don’t accept the need for different approaches to school design, school curriculum, teaching methods, use of technology, or fundamentally different ways of thinking about learning. There is generally low tolerance or capacity for ‘different’ in both districts and unions. There is also low tolerance for failure among educators, parents and policy makers. And, there is very limited understanding of how difficult it is to sustain innovative approaches over time.
Education needs both types of innovation: new improvements in “what is” and new models of “what is” and then replication of both types of innovations. The ultimate effect or success of innovation is dependent on a capacity for sustainability and for replication. If an innovation won’t last and won’t spread, it can’t reform education.
Louise wove a “A tale of two Detroits and two Saturns. Her premise is that the Detroit auto industry created its opportunity to lead and survive back in l985 when GM and the UAW signed a remarkable, revolutionary Memo Of Agreement to create a new kind of car and a new kind of workplace. Their mission was to develop and produce a US-made small car fully competitive with the best imports and to affirm that American ingenuity, technology and productivity can be a model and inspiration for the rest of the world.
However, as early as 1991, because of changes in leadership in both institutions, internal jealousy inside the bureaucracy, resentful competitive dealers, and different philosophies, the Saturn was killed internally at the height of its popularity and the peak of its success. One of the many lessons for GM and for education leaders is that “when they launch daring innovations, they need the will and a way to ensure that those ideas don’t get drowned by the bureaucratic mainstream.” On the morning of this TURN presentation, GM announced that Saturn had been sold.
The second Saturn is an example of the failure of a school of the future. The Saturn School opened as a part of the St. Paul, MN district in 1990 with great fanfare and broad support from reformers, business, and techies. Located in a downtown facility overlooking the Mississippi River, it was the most technologically advanced school of its time. Its history reflects similar histories of other innovative Schools of the Future that began in the Minneapolis district and were sucked back into the system to look like all the rest within five years of opening. Some examples include: Public School Academy, Chiron School, School of Extended Learning, Professional Practice School, and others described by Lynn Nordgren, President of the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers.
Lynn listed some significant barriers to the success of the innovative schools that include the district’s inability to share and relinquish control; the fatigue of external partners/funders; the changes in leadership in the district, school board and union; and the inability of parents to take responsibility for the success of their children.
President Nordgren outlined new legislation in Minnesota enacted in May of 2009 designed and supported by MFT, Local 59, the MN Business Partnership, and Ed/Evolving to empower and fund Self-Governed Schools that would be district schools but would be one-step removed from the district bureaucracy. This legislation creates a process whereby teachers and parents can create Self Governed Schools. One of the main features of the legislation is to create significant autonomy for these schools. The new law assumes that these schools will be free from many of the rules of the district and the law also waives the same state laws and regulations that are waived for chartered schools. A group of parents, teachers, and others can present a plan for a school to a joint committee of union, district and community reps who would develop an MOA between the district and the school that the school board and the union sign and get out of the way. There are now four such schools being planned in the Minneapolis district.
Login to comment
Comments
Dear TURN Colleagues: this is the last day of our first experiment with interactive TURNews. I want to thank Joe Graba, Lynn Nordgren, and Louise Sundin for responding to questions and giving us an update on the self-governing schools movement in Minnesota.
This evening, I will flip the switch and you will no longer receive email copies of comments posted to the Innovation vs. Reform thread. However:
Bright and early, Monday morning, I will send a VERY BRIEF follow-up survey to gather participant feedback. Please give it the highest possible attention.
Thanks, again, for participating in this experiment to make better use of the TURN exchange.
Gary
Dear TURN Colleagues: As I was writing about the recent overwhelmingly positive vote at North High, I couldn’t resist retracing the path that brought us to this point with self-governing schools.
It was 7 years ago that a group of teachers were sitting at the MFT talking casually about how the union (teachers) could stop the downward spiral of enrollment and student performance. The concept of teachers running schools and getting out from under the district bureaucracy rose to the top of the brainstorming efforts.
Knowing collaboration would be essential, the union invited union-friendly district administrators to be a part of the conversation as well as the Minneapolis Business Partnership and Education Evolving. We ended up creating a group that formally became the Self-Governed School Committee in 2005.
In 2007, leaders of the District Parent Advisory Committee were also invited to be on the committee. Monthly meetings ensued. With all these voices at the table, it took the SGS Committee a bit of time to bond over what a SGS should be – but it finally happened!
Now all we needed were teachers who wanted to be a part of this revolution.
In 2005, the SGS Committee worked to get Self-Governed Schools legislation passed that simply said teachers could go forward and if 60% of the staff wanted to transition to become SGS, they could go forward and apply to the state.
A $50,000 planning grant was available the first five schools that applied. Only one school did it. The problem was that, even if teachers applied, there was no guarantee that their districts would allow it to happen.
In 2009, the SGS Committee worked to create a more level playing field for teachers to be able to bring SGS to life around the state, and, selfishly, in Minneapolis. New legislation was born which gave much more depth and breadth to the concept of Self-Governed Schools. The union lobbied heavily and successfully alongside Education Evolving who helped MFT craft the SGS bill. The bill provided support and confidence to all to move forward and push to make SGS a reality.
At the end of August 2009, first drafts came in from the applicants. An SGS sub-committee is currently reviewing the drafts and will provide feedback to ensure the applications are strong. The formal scoring is done by an outside team of experts.
Applicants will also be interviewed as a part of the process. Once the process is completed, those that “pass” will have their applications submitted to the MPS School Board for approval. If the School Board agrees, the SGS will be officially “born”!
As I mentioned, earlier, we are hoping for at least 2 SGSs to open in the fall of 2010. If any current applicant does not make it through this round, they can keep moving forward and try again in January of 2010, when we will start the process all over again.
Lynn
If you don't know him, let me give you a little background.
John was involved in the creation of the first Teacher Professional Partnership (TPP), in the fall of 2001 - a K-8 school in Milwaukee - using a teacher cooperative model for its staff governance. He was drawn to the work because of his daughter (a teacher in the Milwaukee Public Schools and one of 12 teachers and about 20 Parents who were interested in having their own school).
John was subsequently involved in the development of 10 additional schools employing the same model. From January 2005 through Sept 2007, he was contracted by EE as the Director of the Teacher Professional Practice and is now on retainer with EE to work with unions and groups of teachers. John's involvement in Minnesota started when he participated in an MFT-formed committees that eventually focused on self governed school. That was a couple years ago, but he still remains keenly interested in their efforts - which is why he's "listening in."
I've asked John to share some insights about the nitty-gritty work of capacity-building in self-governing schools.
Gary
The call just came in from the union steward, last Friday....
89.6% of North High teachers voted YES! to becoming a Self-Governed School.
What relief! What excitement! The first big hurdle has been successfully jumped!
North High is a school that has been losing students and been on the chopping block for the past several years. A once jam packed school with nearly 1900 students – North High hallways rattle with quiet. Only 400 students attend. The only way the School was saved this year was because a charter school moved into a section of the building. North is in a tough neighborhood – lots of crime, violence and poverty.
Many of the students struggle in life and in school. Over time, the school developed a reputation as a tough place to be and slowly, began to lose students. Many of the teachers stayed during the changes and tried to keep the place afloat. But with more and more stifling top down decision being made about teaching and learning, with the constant turnover in school leadership, with the media focusing on only the bad side of the community, it seemed like there was no hope for North High. This is the proverbial story we hear about all too often across this country.
Enter Self-Governed Schools (SGS).
After 5 years of working passionately to get the concept of SGS accepted by the School Board, District Administration, politicians and the teachers, the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers (MFT) with the support of Education Evolving was able to send out a request district-wide in the Spring of 2009 to see if any teachers were interested in starting a SGS. Information forums were held and about 65 teachers attended. In mid-June, 2009, seven Letters of Intent were received from 5 schools and 2 from groups of teachers wanting to start schools from scratch. Out of the seven, four were approved to receive funding to help support them through the summer application effort. The funding was procured through a grant from the Minnesota Department of Education for such purposes. Even though the others did not receive funding, they were still able to move forward and receive assistance from the SGS Committee. (Lack of funding did not seem to dissuade any of them…money or no, they all kept moving forward.)
North High School was one of the four approved sites and a team of 15 teachers worked over the entire summer using the $20,000 grant to pay themselves.
We are hoping for at least 2 SGSs to open in the fall of 2010. If any current applicant does not make it through this round, they can keep moving forward and try again in January of 2010, when we will start the process all over again.
Lynn
HI Lynn,
Thanks so much for this background information. It is so helpful to understand how these "revolutions" get started! A group of passionate people who believe they can make a difference!
This is an important story to share as their journeys continue. We can learn much from both their successes and challenges in accepting the responsibility to lead out these new schools.
Mary
There are a couple things I would say about the Self Governed Schools initiative. First, it is important for all involved, especially the teachers, to realize that designing new & different schools requires a lot of time and effort. That is why we feel so strongly that planning funds must be made available for this purpose. We also feel that extra funding is needed for the first 2—3 years of implementation. There are always extra costs connected to the start-up of new schools.
Secondly, I want to emphasize the need for meaningful autonomy for these new & different schools. All organizations have cultures that are developed around the common ways that organization has of doing things. When a new entity is created inside an organization that uses different ways of doing things, it is very difficult for the parent organization to tolerate. This is true of all organizations, not just school districts. This inability to tolerate something new & different is what caused so many of the schools that Louise mentioned in the article to be pulled back into the traditional form. Some times the new suffers from the lost of the people that created it or supported its creation. More common though, is the slow erosion of the distinctive features of the new & different over time. This is usually not malicious or even intentional but central offices have a strong tendency to want to treat all schools in their jurisdiction alike. Most central office requirements were designed and implemented around the traditional approaches to doing things and they almost never recognize that requiring the new & different to follow the same processes is damaging to the new & different. This is what causes the slow but damaging reduction of the distinctive features of so many new models of schools.
One of the difficult aspects of this is that these central office requirements are almost never seriously damaging individually. Most of the individual requirements do not erode major features of the new school but the accumulation of dozens of such requirements over time is what makes maintaining the truly innovative features over time so difficult. If each central office requirement had significant negative effects it would be easier for the new school to argue against but this is generally no the case. This is why the Self Governed Schools legislation speaks so strongly to the need for autonomy around key aspects of operating these schools.
Joe
HI Joe,
Self-Governed Schools. Site-Based Management. Shared-Decision-Making. Shared Leadership. Partnership Schools. I've had some experience working with and in systems where these concepts became part of the accepted culture....for a time. It is so difficult for an "escapee" of the system to find enough space and oxygen to survive and thrive when it becomes the exception to the rule. Patrick Dolan speaks so strongly about this issue in his book, Restructuring our Schools, and the need for some kind of district level leadership structure where union, district and board leadership convene regularly to examine the work in these schools, learn from them, broadcast and communicate that learning and remove barriers that hinder their efforts to move forward. District administration and union leadership in these structures collaboratively find ways to release self-governed, site based schools from the "tight" confines of district/board policies and contractual agreements while ensuring that fundamental rights and responsibilities are assured. How does that legislation define and safeguard this "autonomy"?
Mary
Hi Mary: I am attaching a copy of the actual self-governing schools legislation but it might be easier if I just make a few statements about the autonomy addressed in the law.
The school sight will have the ability to create its own site governing council, select the schools leadership form---select the principal if there is to be one or decide to have the school be led by a Teachers Professional Practice. The school will also control its budget, learning model and curriculum. The school council will control its student policies, establish the school calendar & also control staff selection subject to laws and collective bargaining contracts. It is assumed that some MOUs will be needed for these schools. It is important to remember that each such proposal will require the support of the district board so there will need to be agreement on many of these at the beginning of these new schools. If we are able to obtain financing for the planning and for implementation, these proposals will also need state approval.
I hope this clarifies at least some the various areas of autonomy that are contemplated by this legislation.
Joe
HI Joe,
Thanks for the clarification and passing along the SGS Legislation. I'd like to take a look at the ways we can help ensure the autonomy for these new concept schools. Your efforts in supporting this initiative in the state of Minnesota have been so helpful. I'm very interested in collecting samples of policies and agreements that unions and districts can review as others consider significantly different and more effective ways of serving our children in public schools.
Mary
Gary asked (by email) whether I might provide some background on the relationship of Education Evolving to the self-governing schools movement in Minnesota, especially as it relates to the inevitable need for capacity-building. I am very happy to do so.
We view ourselves as a small policy think tank dealing with K-12 policy issues. We have been somewhat (not me but some of our people) involved in helping MFT on the front end of their implementation but that because of our special relationship with Lynn & Louise but that is not our usual role.
Since almost all of the education law in this country is in state statutes, we spend most of our effort with state policy makers. We also work with groups that can affect state policy such as unions, foundations, admin. groups, ECS, NCSL etc. Our preferred approach is to try to get some innovation started in Minn. and then if it looks good, try to get it moved to other states. We have made several presentations in other states about the SGS legislation and various of us are scheduled into some more states this fall (like the presentation I made at the January, 2009, meeting of TURN in Memphis).
We are funded by foundations so we don't need to sell our services. We do like to explain the rationale behind our proposals and try to influence implementation so it conforms to our proposals but we have not gotten into other forms of capacity building. We do sometimes try to encourage others, including funders, to get into bldg. capacity in areas that we are convinced need such help.
Joe
Thanks, Joe, for providing the additional background on the relationship of Education Evolving to the self-governing schools movement in Minnesota. It's personally quite interesting to learn about your work, because it fills in some history. I met your colleague and EE co-founder Ted Kolderie many years ago - probably 20 years (as I recall, it was at a conference on parent choice).
Speaking of Ted… this might be a good segue to mention the set of video clips about Teacher Professional Partnerships in which Ted (and others) talk about their experience with professional partnerships.
As you explained to me earlier, Joe, there is currently no state law (in Minnesota) that allows TPPs to design and run schools, but that you anticipate that the new Self Governed Schools law to lead to their development within districts (i.e. union settings). Therefore, anyone following this thread who may be exploring the idea of self-governance it would be worth your while to view the clips and consider sharing the link (you'll also find contact information for ordering DVDs).
Gary
I've learned a lot about the self-governing schools movement in Minnesota by reading the Education Evolving website. The main content of the site is structured their six assertions:
If you drill down through the fourth assertion, you get to an important sub-assertion: "We can now have schools that motivate professional teachers" that includes a collection of related documents.
So, if you are interested in digging deeper into issues related to self-governance, I just saved you a bunch of time.
Gary
For the next 10 days, we are hosting follow-up conversation on a topic that was discussed at the June 4-6 meeting of TURN members and guests, at the Tamaya Resort in Bernalillo, New Mexico.
Innovation vs Reform: What have we learned? was delivered by Joe Graba, Louise Sundin, and Lynn Nordgren, otherwise known as “The Lake Woebegone Players” (click here for Louise's summary of the presentation):
We want to begin the conversation with an update on the self-governing schools movement in Minnesota. I've asked Joe, Louise, and Lynn for their perspectives on what's happened so far and what they are doing to assure that the legislation is being implemented as intended.
In the meantime, if you wish to post a question/comment for the Lake Woebegone Players, you have a couple options. First, and preferred, is to follow the link at the bottom of this email, log in, and post your question. If you prefer, you may send questions to me and I will pose them to our presenters.
Our plan is to focus this week's conversation on what's happening in Minnesota and take a broader look, next week, at what's happening in other TURN locals. So, you might be thinking about news you want to share as well.
Here's to innovation!
Gary Obermeyer
Gary,
I don't believe it is a surprise but one of the disappointments this past spring was our inability to get any planning and/or implementation funding for the new school development under the new legislation. While this was disappointing it was also understandable given the huge budget shortfall the state faced in putting together the budget for the coming two years.
Minneapolis had received a state grant for new school creation from earlier funding so that is what they are now using for the planning of their new schools. Since the MFT had been working on this effort for several years and since they were deeply involved in helping with the drafting and passage of the new legislation, Minneapolis is out front in developing plans for new schools.
We are still in the process of communicating the opportunities that are now available to teachers, parents and administrators around the state. We are seeing quite a bit of interest from teachers and districts. We are also trying to convince our state education leaders to include some funds for both planning and implementation of new schools in the state request for "Race to the Top" funding from the federal government.
Joe Graba