All of the schools had capable, hand-picked leaders and talented, hard-working staffs who cooperated to meet student needs and solve whatever problems came up.  The schools had protection from central office mandates and got some extra attention to things like facilities, maintenance, and transportation.  Every school had a strong culture. 

Most importantly, unlike the majority of schools in the district, these schools succeed at their main business of creating student achievement.  Students are engaged and learning, almost always making up the significant learning deficits with which they arrive.  State test scores--in every case much higher than district averages for similar students--confirm that the schools are successful (although the ultimate bar is not doing better than other district schools, it's competing directly with suburban schools.  Some of the schools are already there, and all are getting there). 

The performance of these "innovative" schools is plainly wonderful, and is a testament to what a little organizational functionality can do.   But with a few notable exceptions, including a high profile, fabulously expensive, STEM high school on the GE research campus, which was pushing the envelope on project-based learning and had figured out with GE how to engage GE staff in real instruction, these schools were all running on the same old chassis--using the same basic structures and instructional methods we have been using since the dawn of universal public education.  I don't think Cleveland is unique. Most of the "innovative" schools in public education look a lot like Cleveland's.  I think we should tell it like it is:  the most innovative thing in public education today is giving high poverty students an adequate education.  That's not bad, it's terrific.  But it's not innovation. 

I'd love to see some actual, disruptive innovation in education, as described by Clayton Christensen in "Disrupting Class."  Here are a few ideas I'd like to try:

1. Take two or three groups of 15 middle or high school students and pair each group with an excellent, experienced, courageous teacher.  Give each group a copy of the relevant state learning standards.  Embed each group in a creative and fast-paced organizational culture - say one group with Apple, one group with Facebook, and one group with the leading developer of on-line gaming (and isn't it telling that a lady who claims to know educational innovation doesn't even know who this is?).  Give all the adults some "skin in the game," with much glory for the winning group and real commitment by the organizational sponsors (maybe the companies give employee commitment rather than educational grants that year). Then let the groups compete to figure out how to design a way for the students to learn the most, with the only condition being that at the end of 6 months everyone in the group must meet the state standard for proficiency in the relevant learning standards.  If they do it, they can spend the next 3 months on any projects that interest them and get credit for the school year.  If they don't, they have to go back to regular school.  See what they come up with. Then build on it to create an entirely new model for school.

2. Try the modern version of the old apprenticeship model.  Let a group of proven teachers advertise themselves to students, taking on only those students who choose them, and paying them only for the students that they take on.  Make them completely responsible for the students' educations, with access to good technology and the flexibility to work out the best education plan for each student.  Test the students occasionally to be sure that the teachers are getting results, and rate the teachers publicly.  The best, most motivated teachers could take on as many students as they could handle, while others might choose to take on fewer and work less.  You could offer differential compensation based on students' needs and starting points.  Students could stay with their chosen teacher for many years.  Run the whole enterprise out of one building so everyone would have a home base, access to equipment and technology, and some group learning, social and extra-curricular activities. This is how many professionals that we trust with children's lives already work--think pediatricians, psychologists, dentists. 

(Thanks to my brilliant, innovative, young friend Jonathan Skolnick of New York City schools for this idea. Jonathan calls this is the "piano teacher" model.  He points out that "piano teachers have created a successful model in which they take on as many or as few students as they want and can attract. They don't have piano teachers' degree mills that force them into needless debt, and they don't even need a piano teachers union! A new piano teacher can ease into the job, building a practice over time. Everyone talks about how we need to pay teachers more, but what if it's actually the opposite?  What if we paid "teachers" less but allowed them to be responsible for only 10 students per year? This would allow stay-at-home moms, busy professionals, and college professors to get involved in teaching.  I guess city kids don't deserve private lessons, just government-distributed mediocrity."  You can see why I love Jonathan.)

3. Build school around a sport rather than the other way around.  We already know that sports engage kids much more powerfully than school does.  So set up a separate school for the football or baseball team.  Put a great coach in charge. Make it the coach's responsibility to ensure that all team members are making educational progress.  Let the coach and players figure out how to integrate learning into the sport, rather than how to integrate the sport into learning.   (Thanks to Coach Ted Ginn, founder of Ginn Academy in Cleveland and one of my biggest heroes, for showing me how very powerful this idea could be, especially for young men of the inner city.)

Most of our urban districts are spending in excess of $13,000 per student.  Why can't we take this money and redeploy it to fund completely new models?  These models could build on what we know engages children, using the teaching power of video games and relying on talented, committed adults who know how to motivate and communicate with children and are willing to be fully accountable for their learning.  We have a natural and appropriate reluctance to experiment with children, and that is as it should be.  But with high schools that are dangerous, mind-numbing places, with graduation rates under 50%, and elementary schools where less than a third of students are proficient, what, really, do we have to lose?