There's nothing innovative about Innovation Schools - by Cynthia Rodrigues

"Innovation Schools" is a bad idea supported by people taken in by very seductive language, by those who really have not looked deeply into educational research and by those who clearly have an interest in supporting the continued privatization and corporate agenda in schools.

First, this is not an isolated initiative introduced into New Bedford as a creative alternative to public schools. It exists within a larger movement to privatize and corporatize education.

The very term "innovation" is one that has been imported into education from the world of business. In our culture, the CEO is, to many, the cultural hero, and what's good for business must be good for schools. So, why not remake our school system into a market model where the district administration functions more like a stock portfolio and schools like stock investments.

If memory serves me correct, it was the corporate elites who created the most recent financial crisis. Importing a business model and creating a market structure in our district invariably means the production of deviance. We will have schools that run less like schools and more like Enron.

Second, the creation of "Innovation" and Small Autonomous Schools across the United States has not been about "Innovation." It's been about the attempt to figure out a way to get around the charter school enrollment cap by creating "charter-like" structures (That's not my word by the way. You'll find it in the definition of Innovation Schools in the Massachusetts Department of Education).

The reality is that the "Small Autonomous Schools" movement, since its inception, has never been able to make claims to any "innovation" that did not already exist in the public schools. The notion that successful elements of these schools can be replicated in public schools is erroneous and disingenuous (and the same argument often made by charter school proponents), since the initial claim for allowing these schools to exist was that public schools are incapable of any "innovation," given that they do not have the autonomy to pursue them.

The only purpose is to further dismantle public education. You should support these schools only if you're willing to support the eventual closing of your local public school (the one that does not require a lottery — charters claim theirs are public).

Third, these schools are not seeking equity or democracy as a goal. Of course, some who push for these schools naively think that's what they are pursuing. What they seek is autonomy. If they were truly seeking equity, they would seek to pursue a path for the betterment of education for all children in the public schools. They would seek to deeply criticize high-stakes standardized testing and the barrage of tests and test prep that children in our schools must bear every day, which public schools are straight-jacketed into. These tests have proved to be culturally biased and a faulty way to measure the learning of all students. They would push for legislation to limit class size, forms of assessment outside the boundaries of bubble-form tests and strategic investments in all public schools.

The "Innovation" schools planned for New Bedford are conversion schools and not new schools. A 2005 study by the Council of the City of New York found tremendous flaws in the concept of space sharing and concluded in its executive summary that there were negative consequences for the city's school system. By simply branding these schools as "New " instead of what they really are, the design teams and their supporters have deliberately silenced the voices of the teachers who work at Gomes Elementary and Roosevelt Middle schools in New Bedford. Simply put, the teachers have been cast aside. Additionally, those who are pushing these schools are not following state-mandated timelines. There has been no open public meeting on the issue. Most of the public remains unclear about what "Innovation" schools are. And, teachers at these schools never had a vote on the matter. The initiative has been highly undemocratic — foreshadowing what's to come.

Fourth, the continued push for these schools means that we will continue to see "number crunchers" who are paid very well to produce reports of "failing" public schools. One of the strategies to get the public to buy into these schools is to further create crisis and promote fear. We've seen this not only in education, but in a variety of other fields. We don't need more reports that show us that youth who live in poverty are not achieving on standardized testing. Instead, they should put their "expertise" not in the service of the elite but rather in the service of the majority of the community. Show us how so-called "innovative" schools have worked in other areas and how they've benefited the entire system, not by highlighting the exceptional as a stand-in for the entire movement. Show us how schools can correct poverty, as some proponents of "Innovation" schools claim, when the overwhelming majority of children's time is spent outside of school.

A great deal more can be said. For the sake of space, I end here and ask that you begin just considering some of what's at stake.

Cynthia Rodrigues is president of Greater Southeastern Massachusetts Labor Council.