As a school explores a schedule change, leadership often appoints a committee to oversee the process. ISM’s research found 63% of schools formed a “schedule change committee” before revising their schedule, whether they used ISM to design their schedule or not. They do this for at least one of three reasons: to gather data, to cultivate ideas and perspectives, and to facilitate teacher “buy-in.” A committee or its members might collect survey data, visit other schools to observe an “innovative schedule” in action, attend an ISM scheduling workshop, and run discussion groups. It may also be charged with developing and modifying prototypes, and then recommending a design to the leadership.

You, the School Head, employ a 10th-grade female English teacher. She earns $65,000 and has 15 years of experience. You also have an 11th-grade male science teacher. He also has 15 years of experience, but because science teachers are difficult to find and retain, you pay him $80,000 per year. Is this fair?

Dramatic change happens slowly in education. The last major innovation, one that changed the nature of schooling, was the invention of the Carnegie unit in 1906. It was adopted so long ago, and has become so ingrained in the way education is done, educators are astounded that 120 hours of instruction is still the unit of measurement for determining students’ progress for the next level. While many people thought the technology revolution would create disruptive innovation for schools, the personal computer and the internet have not impacted the education industry in the way they have in the working world. Online, blended, and computer-adaptive learning have remained largely a supplementary experience, and have not reduced faculty or even the need for brick-and-mortar schools as some had thought. The school experience is still one teacher, in front of a group of students, in a room, delivering a largely standardized curriculum.