At this point our state's financial crisis, the last ray of hope for most educators is the flood of money from Washington DC that might save schools from the worst of the funding cuts. Secretary Duncan has insisted that they money will be used for support change, not more of the same.

I thought that Clay Christensen and Michael Horn correctly make the case for real reform and not just propping up failing schools with this new money in this CNN.com opinion piece.

Historically the federal government has been a small investor in the nation's education system. With the recent economic stimulus bill, however, this changed virtually overnight.

There is great danger in the sudden and massive amount of funding -- nearly $100 billion -- that the federal government is throwing at the nation's schools. District by district, the budgetary crises into which all schools were plunging created the impetus for long-needed changes.

The most likely result of this stimulus will be to give our schools the luxury of affording not to change. This is borrowed money that we're pumping into our schools, and it comes at a price. Charging education isn't changing it.

That our schools need to change should not be surprising. Just walk into your local school and enter a classroom. Odds are high that it won't look too different from a classroom from a generation or two ago.

Sure, there might be some computers in the back of the room and perhaps an interactive white board instead of a chalkboard, but chances are high that students will still be sitting at desks lined up in neat rows with a teacher at the front delivering the same lesson on the same day to all the students. This might be acceptable if society and the skills many people need to succeed in today's economy hadn't changed either, but they have.

While U.S. schools stand still, the rest of the world is moving forward, and this has a price tag -- not just for individual children, but also for the nation.

The authors suggest four criteria for new programs or grants using these new funds. They include (in my words):

• Don't push technology for technology's sake.
• Don't fund schools that look like every other school.
• Fund districts or schools that are actually going to change.
• Put more funding into R&D on student-centric learning software.

I share the author's concern that this funding, like previous school reform programs including II/USP, HPSGP, and QEIA will simply lead to more of what isn't working instead of spurring districts to try new strategies. With our state's faux school accountability system and generally strong parent support, districts have little incentive to change and little cooperation from staff to allow them to do so. Every group involved in the education system, except students, has a vested interest in maintaining the current models.

Still, even in California there are pockets of innovation. Some are charter schools and some are traditional public schools. In these schools, strong and confident leaders are helping educators, students and parents change their view of what a school should look like and what should be happening in effective classrooms. I believe this new federal money should be used to give these high-performing, high-minority, high-poverty schools a voice and an opportunity to share their experience and knowledge. We need to expand their reach so they impact more than just the classrooms at their schools. If we could do that, I believe it would have a much greater impact on student achievement than a new math curriculum, more computers or the latest fad in professional development.