More about the idea
What i2 Clusters ARE:
i2 Clusters ARE schools with a concentration of master teachers who mentor and develop the professional practice of new teachers.
i2 Clusters ARE schools in which teachers collaborate with researchers on innovations that meet the needs of students and teachers.
i2 Clusters ARE schools that serve as engines of innovation as newly trained teachers and innovative practices filter into schools across the district.
i2 Clusters ARE schools in underserved areas, so that investments in innovation prioritize the needs of these students.
What i2 Clusters are NOT:
i2 Clusters are NOT a proposal to treat schools as laboratories.
i2 Clusters are NOT based on the assumption that researchers have the answers to complex problems of practice.
i2 Clusters are NOT a technology initiative, although technology will be embraced when it serves the needs of students and teachers.
i2 Clusters are NOT an effort to create elite schools.
How would the i2 schools be staffed differently?
i2 schools would have a concentration of master teachers whose job description would include mentoring new teachers and working with researchers to improve teaching, learning, and the experience of being a student. There would also be a concentration of new teachers who would be mentored for two years, and whose first experience of teaching would include close inquiry into what kinds of practices best support student learning. By putting innovation and induction together, these teachers would internalize productive collaboration with other teachers and researchers as part of their professional identity. After two years, these newly inducted teachers would be placed in other schools throughout the district, naturally creating a scaling strategy for innovative practices, enthusiasm for professional growth, and knowledge of student learning.
Why would enrollment in i2 schools be optional?
Schools must be responsive to the families they serve. Giving families (and teachers) a choice about whether to be in an i2 Cluster school will allow buy-in that is critical to progress and hard to achieve otherwise. As with teaching hospitals, some people will choose these schools for their state-of-the-art practice, while other people will prefer to stay in traditional settings. Innovation is easier to accomplish and to study if everyone is on board. Thus, allowing for choice would serve the goals of all involved.
Why do we need to have separate schools?
When new teachers are spread across all schools, they experience practice as usual rather than practice as inquiry with carefully selected master teachers and researchers.
When researchers work with students and teachers in classroom contexts, the opportunities to advance practice using state of the art knowledge abound. But when researchers set their own agendas from arms length, the likelihood that the work of researchers will benefit student learning is greatly diminished.
When schools have the special designation and staffing to operate differently, data can be collected on the impact of instructional practices and programs on student learning both today and longer term.
Why would i2 schools be in underserved neighborhoods?
There is a well-documented phenomenon of schools in underserved neighborhoods emphasizing basic skills, while more advanced teaching practices that give students agency and build conceptual understanding are found in schools serving more affluent students. i2 Cluster schools would be located in underserved areas of the district to ensure that students who are least likely to have access to cutting-edge instructional practice are at the center of innovation rather than at the margins. Their learning would become the focus of attention.
Who would pay the higher cost for i2 Cluster Schools?
Some of the needed investments are already being made; they are just not organized for maximum effectiveness. Districts and states invest in induction, foundations invest in innovation, and researchers are already funded to conduct studies on teaching, learning, and teacher development. These funds could be redirected. But additional costs would be expected as well: for higher paid mentor teachers, for teacher collaboration time with researchers, for an expanded program of innovation and problem solving, and in some cases for extended (2-year) induction. We would seek state and federal support for these costs.
Is this a short-term project?
SERP and its partners will work to secure long-term, public funding for the i2 Cluster schools in the partner districts, and for replication of the model in other districts.
Both states and the federal government regularly funnel money to school districts to support induction and professional development. They are often frustrated that the resources have not had greater impact. The argument for increasing those funds will be more powerful if the funds can be directed to Clusters where they will yield a higher return.
The federal government now subsidizes the induction of new doctors by approximately $16 billion a year. In addition, it uses a funding formula to provide teaching hospitals with an additional payment for every Medicare patient who is treated in that hospital. Given that the quality of our K-12 teaching force will have a major impact not only on the success of today’s students, but on the future competitiveness of the nation, the case for subsidizing the training of teachers is very compelling.
The U.S. Department of Education funds research and development, as well as grants to districts to scale up research-based practices. Congress is often reluctant to expand the budget for these purposes because there is too little evidence of impact on teaching and learning in our nation’s schools. Creating the conditions for research dollars to be directed to innovation in the classroom along with evidence of impact in the vanguard districts would make a powerful case for expanding those resources.
What if we have partners working with us already?
We are proposing to organize the enterprise of innovation and induction more effectively in order to increase impact on teaching and learning. Those who will participate in the effort will be determined as the initiative gets underway; the necessary expertise will need to be recruited, and existing partners are a source of expertise of particular value because they have context-specific knowledge. We do not seek to replace productive district partners.
Would my district be a good candidate?
We expect that eventually a great many districts will have a set of i2 Cluster schools —just as there are hundreds of teaching hospitals today. However, there are several factors that would make a district an excellent candidate to serve as a model for other districts.
These include:
- Enthusiasm and commitment of district leaders at the highest level, and an expectation that the superintendent will continue to work in the district for several years to come;
- Demonstrated ability of the district to manage new initiatives;
- A school board (or other governing body) that is open to innovation and enthusiastic about their city being a model for the state and the nation;
- A positive relationship with the community, particularly in the area where the Cluster schools are likely to be located;
- Proximity to universities from which researchers can be drawn, and to teacher preparation institutions;
- A productive relationship with the teachers’ union.