I am not a fan of "innovation" as defined by edu-folk.
Innovation as defined by edu-folk: "letting schools and teachers try things" without informed consent from parents.
I'm against it.
here's an innovation
My district, a few years back, purchased Open Court, one of three Scientifically-Based Reading Research (SBRR) curricula that qualified for Reading First funding (pdf file).
Next year we're dumping Open Court and buying Fountas & Pinnell, a curriculum that did not qualify for Reading First funding and is deemed "Not Acceptable" by the National Council on Teacher Quality (pdf file).
Any particular reason why we're doing this? Any data or evidence that Fountas & Pinnell produces better results than Open Court?
Hasn't come up.
These 19 curricular projects have essentially been experiments.
Westchester schools & their curricula