Aurora Institute is one of my favorites when it comes to imagining what learning could be like in this country. Susan Patrick, President and CEO of Aurora Institute, and her group are the best at linking learner-centered policy to practice, trying to convince traditional public schools to change.
If only the traditional system paid more attention.
In June of 2021, Aurora Institute released a report titled “Innovation Zones: Policy Flexibility to Reimagine and Modernize K-12 Education Post-COVID-19”. I thought it might be nice to look back to see what might have been possible for our young learners if this report would have had any impact on traditional school space.
In the introduction, the report’s authors proclaimed that,
“Innovation, working in concert with more than $190 billion of K-12 federal relief, can be a method to improve outcomes and tailor whole-child efforts to support learners without any system constraints. In particular, state-constructed innovation zones can provide school districts with a mechanism to identify policy barriers and improve flexibility from state regulations and statutes that impede implementation of new instructional models for the 21st-century learner.”
The report goes on to described what is meant by an “innovation zone” by writing,
“Innovation zones offer certain flexibilities or exemptions from administrative regulations and statutory provisions that help remove barriers to modernizing education delivery. The term innovation zone, also know as districts of innovation, refers to the idea of creating space for districts and schools to innovate by identifying constraints from current laws and regulations and providing flexibility. In exchange for added flexibility, schools and districts commit to innovating to improve curriculum, instructional approaches, professional development, use of time and talent, and other strategies that meet the unique needs of students and teachers.”
The report highlights ten states and their innovative attempts. Here’s a sample of what they report considers “innovative”:
“In 2013, Arkansas created a program to support districts of innovation in which a school district may petition the Arkansas State Board of Education for all or some of the same flexibility granted to an open-enrollment public charter school. The authorizing legislation states, ‘The Commissioner of Education may approve a public school as a school of innovation for the purpose of transforming and improving the teaching and learning under Sec. 6-15-2803.”
“In 2008, Colorado’s Innovative Schools Act enabled the creation of innovation schools and innovation school zones within school districts. Upon designation as a district of innovation, the Colorado State School Board may waive any statutes or rules specified in a school district’s innovation plan. These may include policies related to school staffing, curriculum and assessment, and class scheduling. Specifically, the Innovation Schools Act of 2008 states: ‘Each local school board may seek for its school district designation by the State Board as a District of Innovation…A local school board that seek designation as a District of Innovation shall submit one of more innovation plans or plans for creating an innovation school zone to the Commissioner for review and comment by the Commissioner and the State Board.’”
“In 2016, the Idaho State Department of Education was authorized to approve 10 innovation schools per year, over a five-year period. The state department funded each innovation school team with a $10,000 planning grant. Idaho code of law says, ‘Participating schools and districts will evaluate existing laws and administrative rules to receive flexibility from laws and policies that impede local autonomy, allowing them to be agile, innovative and empowered to adapt to local circumstances.’”
“In 2021, New Hampshire passed legislation that allows multiple schools in a district or an individual district to become an innovation school or innovation zone, respectively, with approval from the state board of education. The legislation allows flexibility on policies such as the length of the school day or school year, student promotion, and graduation policies. The new law also encourages schools to engage students and families and solicit their support to become an innovation school. For example, the innovation plan can include, ‘A statement of the level of support for designation as an innovation school or school zone demonstrated by students and parents of students enrolled in the public school, and the community surrounding the public school.’”
The report concludes by writing,
“In the past year, America was abruptly confronted with entrenched systemic injustice and inequity, especially the disproportionate impact COVID-19 has had on students of color and low-income populations. This devastating pandemic, however, generated increased interest in innovation, both as a concept and a strategy to rethink systems that inhibit access to future-focused learning for students who have been historically underserved. Now it the time to provide flexibility so that all learners can gain access to educational experiences and build skills needed to be successful over a lifetime.”
It sounded good at the time.
But all of this “innovative” policy really didn’t result in any improved practice, or learning, in any of the states referenced in the report. At least I didn’t see any news over the past 18 months suggesting otherwise.
So we must ask ourselves – why? Why haven’t innovation zones, approved by legislatures and state school boards across the country, made a difference?
The answer is that most of the folks who approved these innovation zones and were responsible for them have turned out to be strong advocates of the current traditional public school system. And, most of the schools eligible to become part of an innovation zone were low-performing schools to begin with, using “innovation” as a last ditch effort label to see improvement inside their campus.
True innovation does not and cannot exist within the traditional school system. In order to innovate, you must move outside the traditional system. If you stay within the system, you waste time and put even more young learner’s future, especially those who are black, brown, and poor, more at risk.
Til tomorrow. SVB
A Better Path to Learning 
Leave a comment