Innovation Schools:Teachers are right to be concerned.

Innovation has many powerful advantages over progress and hard work. It is exciting, it is simple and easy to communicate, while hard work, by its very nature, usually tends to be detailed, nuanced and complex. 
Promises of change and innovation require little evidence beyond a feeling that, oh well "it is worth a try" ( in the words of Craig Dutra), or a sense that it is popular amongst the power brokers ( as seen by the political show of force at this week's stage managed conference). 

Even if evidence is offered, it need not be accurate. See, SC member Pollock's comments about Paul Dakin and Revere's innovation school, none of which are remotely accurate. See the same comments on local cable about 44 other innovation schools, none of which have the slightest bearing on the two proposals being pushed in New Bedford. 

This week, the 40 community group members pushing for a rapid blank check approval for the Innovation plans have only to repeat their slogans and buzz words about equity and dramatic improvement and they come across as well intentioned. 

Last week, when the same number of actual teachers in the actual school buildings make separate statements to the school committee, they get little coverage. When the Association that represents 1,000 local teachers argues about the specifics of the Innovation law and process as it applies in New Bedford, they get labeled as obstructionists. 

This is not a light detail. Pointing out that the School Committee process varies from the law in several respects is likely to harm your professional prospects when a district's governing board is ruled by political pressure groups the UIA and CSJ. Such groups can quickly deliver mass petitions, pack meetings, fund and train religious street organizers, hold pickets, write letters by the dozen, and generally drown out and intimidate the opinion of the working teachers who are actually affected by the Innovation Proposals. 

As these tactics are endlessly repeated and rapidly promoted by a local editor who dedicates a reporter to their cause, the legal and practical concerns can be buried deeper and deeper. An alternative image can be promoted, where the actual arguments against the Innovation plans are ignored and something uglier put in its place. Why listen to the Roosevelt teachers when you can claim that an anonymous blog insult is the teachers' opinion? Why detail the specific concerns of a Gomes teacher at a public forum when you can claim that a teacher at a meeting sneered at an Innovation school proponent. The latter is much, much easier. It requires no evidence, no specifics and builds enough of a mood and narrative to whitewash any legitimate concern. It is the written equivalent of crying or yelling to win an argument. This is precisely what Bruce Rose and Kate Fentress are doing with their letter today. 

This is now the tactic to be used to wear down regular teachers who attempt to discuss the details of the proposals. 

Teachers are right to be concerned. These are political players. If you are a five or even ten year teacher you have no idea who you are dealing with. Very few of the 40 community brokers at this week's conference are new to this. They are mostly top level executives at amply funded non profits or tenured higher education posts, with all the state and local connections that that brings. They attend the fund raisers when Gomes and Roosevelt teachers are grading papers. They cut the $25 to maximum $250 checks to candidates when teachers are buying classroom supplies. They decide who gets woman of the year, youth of the year, whose stories get published with positive spin, who gets interviewed, what the headline and op ed will say. From Pollock, Mojica and CSJ attacking Longo in 2002, to Bruce Rose charging Lang and Francis in 2010 to Blake Souza and Robertson Laurent stalking Bruce Oliveira today, it is the same machine. If the democratic choice of a committee displeases them, they can picket its meetings, charge them with racism, and guarantee enough smoke to feed a fire of editorials and letters that undermine the work of any committee, mayor or superintendent for months and even years. 

And, they won’t stop here. They will be with us during the next schools issue, and the one after that. They are the real political power that unashamedly cries about the political powers ( Dutra, quoted this week) who oppose them. Their projects and ideas never have to work. A level 3 charter school, a failed superintendent search, dozens of pointless "non profit" programs, the point is not for them to make any positive impact. The point is to reward and praise the community power brokers who came up with the idea, the Innovation!! Awards quickly follow at fundraisers and press conferences by which point the teachers can deal with day to damage that is very hard to undo.