Q:
How would you characterize your Reinventing Education
partners?
A: Our Reinventing Education partners share a
number of characteristics. First and foremost, they
have a commitment to high academic standards for all
students. Each also has a track record for innovation
and improvement and a comprehensive vision for structural
and systemic change that includes a technology plan.
Our grantees also have strong leadership; partnerships
with other businesses, foundations, and community organizations;
broad-based parent involvement; and a drive to improve
educational opportunities for disadvantaged youth and
those with special needs.
Q:
What do you mean by structural and systemic changes?
A: There is broad consensus about the types of
changes that are required to fix schools. Indeed, many
model schools have been created that succeed quite well
in breaking away from the rules and traditions that
strangle most education systems.
However, we believe that it is not enough to make changes
in a few model schools, while the vast majority of students
and teachers are struggling against bureaucratic constraints.
Systems designed during the first half of this century
cannot support the innovations required by the society
and world markets of the coming century. Structural
and systemic changes are altering standard operating
procedures and providing an environment for improvement
that will reach every school in a district or state
or country.
Q:
What specific kinds of changes do you consider radical
and systemic?
A: Our Grant sites are considering every process
within their education system for wholesale change.
For example, they are committed to:
substantially
raising academic standards for all students and providing
more challenging classroom projects and activities
to spur achievement;
revising
student assessment and tests to focus attention on
problem-solving skills required for success in the
work place, not on rote memorization;
extending
the length of the school day and school year and breaking
the tyranny of the inflexible 50 minute class period;
changing
the roles and duties of teachers and principals to
make them professional decision-makers with authority
to change and improve their schools;
adding
incentives for improved performance to staff evaluation
and compensation systems and judging administrators
according to their success in supporting school reform;
and
eliminating
regulations that inhibit innovation or fail to consider
the unique circumstances and creative solutions of
individual schools and communities.
In
essence, our partners have applied the lessons school
reformers have learned about what works in individual
"break-the mold" schools and are applying them throughout
their school systems.
