Market Pressure to Innovate: A Lesson from Public Charter Schools?

In The Profit of Cheap (Greenberg), Nicholas Negroponte, founder of the nonprofit One Laptop Per Child, defends the work his organization has accomplished. While many look at their results and call them a failure, he believes they have changed the status quo of what's possible. Negroponte says he did not have to meet the target, or build the laptop; just attempting it created enough market pressure to entice other manufacturers to try. He says, "We're at a stage now where we just have to threaten to build it." How brilliant is this? It's the exact opposite of what we all know to be true. It's the epitome of over-promising and under-delivering; and while it does draw some criticism, it brings much, much more- a competitive desire to innovate. The US charter school movement could be an interesting illustration of this theory. Charter schools were created in the early 1990s as an alternative to failing traditional public schools. The concept: charter schools are public schools that receive public money just like any other district, but are not controlled by the same rules and regulations of district schools. While there were and continue to be many reasons why charters schools were created, the reason most related to this conversation is the pressure these schools would apply on the traditional school system. By law charters are designed to be laboratories of innovation. Charters must prove they are doing something unique to achieve (hopefully) better results than district schools. Also, they must do so without any more public money than the school district; in fact, many times, they operate with a lot less. So, like Negroponte, do charter schools even have to meet their goals to apply pressure to districts to innovate? Yes and no. Unfortunately, while the charter movement has really grown over the past 20 years, little systemic change has occurred in public education. Instead of applying real market pressure to districts, too many successful charters have become islands of hope; only a few have risen to national model status (ex. KIPP schools). And unsuccessful charters? Well, unfortunately, they have just created more bad schools, usually filled with our most vulnerable students - those who are poor, those with special needs, and those who are African American, Asian and/or Latino. So should the charter movement be a warning to Negroponte and others like him who want to push people to innovate? Perhaps, but probably not. In the end charters have pushed many districts to innovate and have certainly pushed them to be smarter about the work they do if for no other reason than to keep students in the building. Also, the current Education Secretary's agenda is completely focused on innovation in education and he has publicly pushed schools to be more like charters. Has the social innovation of charters given us the type of systemic change it will take to completely alter education in this country? No. At least not yet. Just as good charters have created avenues to opportunity and success for our young people most in need, the work of Negroponte and other social innovators have done the same. Isn't that really what social innovation is all about? Providing opportunity where it did not exist before and changing someones' life trajectory for the better. Does it have to lead to systemic change or can it just improve the lives of a few? And what is that "few" is the 1.7 million US students in charters. Does that count? This brings up the question of scalability, a key element in innovation, but I believe that question of scale will always be somewhat arbitrary. It is clear that the OLPC work has changed the way education is delivered in some of the most remote places in the world. Achieving that alone is reason to call Negroponte's work a success.