As to the first recommendation for legislative action . . . It is ineffective —and unfair—to leave the responsibility for major change with the superintendency; with an appointed individual whose legitimate concerns about job and career are bound to limit the willingness to propose and the ability to secure substantial change in the district organization and its schools. Vesting the responsibility for policy leadership in an elected board chair will produce far better results.

As to the second . . . The nature of an administrative bureau is to regulate, to control, to standardize. It makes no basic sense to expect it to welcome in the organizations it oversees changes that depart from the uniform arrangement. The innovation that is now essential will develop only when innovation is affirmatively encouraged in schools willing to try the new and different. These today include some but not all of the chartered schools; some of the 'alternative schools and now a few of the districts. Part Five suggests where the Legislature can find entities to provide this encouragement.



Not to change is itself a major decision . . . one now carrying a substantial risk that a public system continuing to resist change will find itself quickly bypassed by private education and commercial digital schooling.