I recently proposed a radical plan that would use incentives and competition to speed school restructuring. These principles are familiar enough in the business world - our economy runs on them. But most people are used to public schools as bureaucracies, places where everything must conform to centralized rules. So my plan raised a lot of eyebrows - and questions. I'm going to answer a few of these questions, but first summarize the plan. 

Each school participating in the competition will function as a team. At the end of five years, the IO percent of schools showing the greatest gains in student achievement according to good assessment measures will get at least $15,000 - 30,000 per staff member - the yield from investing a modest sum for each of five years. Each school will have a fair chance of winning because low-or high-achieving schools won't be competing with each other but with schools like themselves. 

Participation will be voluntary for schools, but there are some conditions. The school board and union must ratify the plan. The school board must agree to let the competing schools manage their own budgets and also give them an increasing share of the central office budget over the five years. The board also must agree to grant them waivers from central regulations, except for those affecting health, safety and civil rights. As for the union, it must agree to grant waivers from contract provisions to the faculty in the competing schools. Finally, because each participating school will be different, parents should have a choice of using another public school within the district. 

I made this proposal to the 4,000 participants at the AFT's educational issues conference. And I made the proposal at the beginning of the conference so there'd be plenty of time to raise questions. Since the purpose of the conference was to share reform ideas, it's not surprising that this was the first question I got: 

Q: Wouldn't this mean we'd never have a conference like this again? If schools were competing, wouldn't people keep their ideas a secret instead of sharing them? 

A: If that were so, there wouldn't be conferences and periodicals in the business or medical or research worlds. People in competitive sectors do exchange information, in part because they get new ideas in return. And people know that sharing an idea doesn't necessarily give a competitor the know-how to apply it or adapt it to a different situation. With this proposal, there'd probably be more conferences and reading up on education because there'd be an incentive to be informed. 

Q: You called on President Bush to commit the $500 million in his proposed merit schools legislation to your plan. What if he refuses? 

A: If the President agreed, it would be ideal. But the plan doesn't depend on him. Congress could get behind it and fund demonstration projects. States could do it. Management and the union could work out a competition among a district's schools or several districts could join to run one. If public funds weren't available, local business or foundations could provide the money. There are many possibilities. 

Q: This competition may excite schools that are already performing well, but what about the others that have lots of problems and are too discouraged to try? And even if they try, won't they be devastated if they lose? 

A: First, low-achieving schools won't be competing against the superstars but against schools like themselves. Second, one of the reasons that staff in problem schools are discouraged is that they have almost no opportunity to do anything about the problems in their schools. The rules and programs come from above. Staff work in isolation, so if anyone has an idea the best she can hope for is to try it in her classroom, which can't overcome school-wide problems. Sure, these people are discouraged: It's horrible to have to do things that you know don't work and be powerless to try something different. But participating in this competition would change that because the school staff would be working as a team and be free to change things. And they'd have control of their budget and some extra money to do it. 

Finally, there's no doubt that losing after you've made a big effort is discouraging. But winning isn't everything. In the process of trying, school staff will have had the experience of working together to improve student learning. They probably will have improved many of the lousy conditions schools now work under. Their schools will have become more satisfying places to be in. All of this is very difficult to achieve now. I'm confident that these rewards will outweigh the pain oflosing for most people. And then there's always the next competition .... 

Q: Why should the $15,000 (or more) bonuses go only to the teachers? And isn't your plan insulting by implying that teachers will only work hard if you dangle a cash incentive before them? 

A: The entire staff - teachers, paraprofessionals, secretaries, nurses, bus drivers and principals - is part of the team to make the school successful, so they should all share in the bonus if the school wins. And no, my proposal doesn't imply that teachers are holding back now. Most of them are working desperately hard. What the plan implies is that working hard under the crush of bureaucratic rules and at the same old thing isn't working - not for students and not for staff The idea is to work differently. That's the only way to get major breakthroughs. 

Working differently means taking risks. No one likes to do that, which is why in most other sectors of our society there are incentives to encourage people to do so. Even the communist economies are coming around to that view. But in schools today, you have to be a hero or a fool to take risks. The incentives are all against it. And that's why we have massive school failure. 

Public education doesn't have a choice about changing. The question is whether we'll take some risks and do it ourselves or have it done to us by one of the foolish or anti-democratic plans gathering steam. I cherish public education too much not to take risks on its behalf So raise your eyebrows and questions about my plan - but don't kid yourselves about the risks we face if we don't act.