School Leader

Online learning and the future of schooling, Part II

A few weeks back I began a two-part series of posts responding to Francisco Dao's assertion that "online learning is a fantasty."  Dao, a tech/innovation guru, argued that online courses lack the structure and interpersonal component to be effective for unmotivated learners, and will therefore be ineffective for "educating the masses" as some school reformers imagine (or as Dao seems to think some people imagine).

In my first post I concurred with some of Dao's concerns about online learning, based both on my experiences as an instructor in online classes and as a former principal who worked with at-risk high school students.  But I also challenged the notion that many serious thinkers actually believe that online learning - in general - is a silver bullet for solving all the problems in 21st Century education.

Moreover, Dao doesn't ask the most basic question about unmotivated learners: why are so many unmotivated in the first place?  Besides many other factors, what does the structure of schooling itself have to do with that lack of motivation? 

Dao's blog post misses a fundamental point: that schooling as we know it, especially at the high school level, is possibly broken beyond repair.  Or, perhaps more accurately: schooling as we know it no longer functions in any effective way for educating the vast majority of children, given our goals for education in the 21st century and the economic and moral imperative of improving student learning.  We should be seeking strategies and that would help us transform the very structure of schooling rather than continue to (expensively) tinker with a system Richard Elmore has a called "a dying institution."  In whatever renewed form schooling takes, technology is sure to play a key role.

As John Taylor Gatto points out, the present system of American schooling was based on an early 19th century, Prussian model that was designed to rank and sort students into effective roles for a compliant, efficient industrial workforce.  To the extent that this system ever "worked" for students, it did so by standardizing learning in a way that largely brushed over, neglected, or worked around individual student differences and needs.  Creativity, intuition, and especially student choice were largely ignored if not squelched outright. 

The NCLB era brought a demand that all students reach proficient levels of learning (whereas the older era accepted that large percentages of students would drop out or be minimally educated), and established rigorous accountability requirements for school improvement, but preserved the industrial structure of schooling that was never intended to educate all children, while also adding an obsession with standardized tests that remain a clumsy and highly limited measure of teaching or learning.

The 21st Century economy demands a level of individualization in student learning and a focus on innovation, creativity, and human relations skills that the present structure of schooling cannot accommodate.  Moreover, the 21st century digital culture means that families and students have become thoroughly accustomed to a range of individualized choices in all aspects of their life never before seen in the history of humankind.  It's not just that the current structure of schooling will fail to adequately meet student needs; parents and their children will not abide by the stifling, limited, one-size-fits-all format of the traditional school. 

Something will have to change in the way we "do" school, for moral, economic, political, and cultural reasons.

What will the future of schooling look like?  No one can accurately predict, of course, but it's becoming increasingly clear that the future of schooling must be much more highly individualized than in the past.  If we want a future generation with more capacity for critical thinking, perseverance, creativity, and collaboration, one-size-fits-all formats for schooling with fragmented, disconnected curricula must give way to approaches that emphasize student choice, self-pacing, and an integration of the academic disciplines. 

Trevor Eissler and his merry band of brothers have suggested the Montessori method as one strategy for renewing the structure of public schooling, and the National Center for Montessori in the Public Sector has been established as a clearinghouse for resources and information on this century-old approach to student-centered learning.  The Sudbury method, pioneered at the famed Sudbury Valley School, offers an even more radically student-focused approach.

But even within the existing structure of traditional schooling meaningful innovations are emerging, like the "Independent Project" at Monument Mountain Regional High School in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, where students are crafting their own curriculum, assessments, and learning strategies with the support of teachers who truly function as "guides on the side." 

To Francisco Dao's argument that online learning will fail to "educate the masses," at Monument Mountain, as in many other places across the country, technology is playing a key role in helping students and teachers craft new approaches to learning.  In fact, the notion that students must attend a brick and mortar (government-run) building to obtain knowledge and skills is as outmoded as the factory design of schools themselves.  Many states are now experimenting with "a la carte" options for student learning, heavily facilitated by technology, that allows students to supplement their education and add a high degree of flexibility and personalization to learning that doesn't necessarily mean the wholesale replacement of schools by computers.

As Sugata Mitra and Charles Leadbeater have vividly documented in their TED talks, adults grossly underestimate what students can do all by themselves given the right tools.

Ultimately, I don't believe these kinds of innovations can succeed in a system wherein the state has a total monopoly on schooling for the majority of families.  Of all the structures that must change to accommodate 21st Century learning, the notion that the government can adequately plan, direct, and deliver education is perhaps the greatest, and serves as the chief obstacle to moving us forward.  Meaningful structures of school choice must be developed and implemented so that a far wider range of educational options are available to families.

So is "online learning" the answer to education's ills?  Certainly not, if by simply grafting online learning onto traditional notions of schooling is what we mean.  But technology could play an essential role in the total transformation of schooling as we know it.  And that's what all of us should be working toward.

One Size Does Not Fit All: A Student's Assessment of School

I started seeing Nikhil Goyal's name about a year ago and immediately took notice.  I follow the work of a group called the Alternative Education Resource Organization (AERO), which advocates root-and-branch transformation of education to make schooling far more democratic and student centered.  AERO had just published Goyal's book, One Size Does Not Fit All: A Student's Assessment of School, with a subsequent torrent of media attention. 

One Size Does Not Fit All is a scathing indictment of American schooling that synthesizes a lot of arguments familiar to people who closely follow the various streams of education reform.  But what makes Goyal unique is that, at the time of the book's writing, he was a 17-year old New York high school student.  Now 18 and a graduate, Goyal travels widely and writes copiously in his advocacy for new ways of thinking about schooling.  I've been pleased to follow Nikhil on Twitter and correspond with him via e-mail, and I was happy to finally get a chance to read his book.  While One Size Does Not Fit All has some flaws, Nikhil Goyal's message is worthy of every educator's attention and consideration.

Goyal makes the case that American schooling is stifling to children's creativity and treats learning as a kind of industrial, input-output process that promotes rote memorization and behavioral compliance.  Drawing inspiration from the work of John Taylor Gatto (whose book Weapons of Mass Instruction I reviewed here and here), Goyal explains how schools are still configured for the 19th-century industrial workforce and a mission based on ranking and sorting students.  He argues that if schools are going to properly prepare 21st century students, a shift to emphasizing innovation, creativity, and student-directed learning must take place, and here he borrows liberally from the work of school reformer Tony Wagner (whose book, the Global Achivement Gap, I reviewed here; I think the links between Goyal's interest and mine are probably becoming very clear).

Goyal lays most of the blame for the poor condition of schooling on the test-obsessed culture of education, which started emerging with A Nation at Risk and its concern for America's education standing relative to other leading countries, and then rapidly accelerated with the ill-conceived No Child Left Behind Act.  Goyal draws heavily here from the work of Diane Ravitch (more reviews here and here), who makes one of the best cases for how standardized testing has been misused to improperly measure student learning and mischaracterize the work of teachers and schools.  And like Ravitch, Goyal disparages the move toward for-profit educational alternatives and "corporate" educational reforms that he believes work hand-in-hand with the drive for test-based school accountability.

Goyal calls for a radical transformation of schooling to include far more student voice in school governance and especially in learning and a richer, broader curriculum infused with the arts and real-world learning, enhanced and facilitated by new technologies.  His vision closely aligns with my own interests in dismantling the structure of schooling and rebuilding it into something that is far more student centered (like the Montessori Method).

I would recommend, however, that Goyal rethink his allegiance to Diane Ravitch and her crowd of educational traditionalist because their ultimate goals and methods will not bring about - and in many cases stand diametrically opposed to - the kinds of changes in school that he envisions.  As I have written elsewhere, Ravitch makes a vital contribution to the debate on education reform by raising questions about the place of high-stakes standardized testing, but errs in conflating the school choice movement with testing and "corporate" interests. 

The transformation Nikhil Goyal is looking for will best be accomplished by establishing meaningful school choice options for all families that will foster new innovations in teaching and learning.  Simply paying teachers more, giving them more autonomy, and forgetting about testing and accountability will give us the educational outcomes of the 1970's - not a time when schooling was particularly student centered or conducive to rigor and higher-ordered thinking.

These disagreements notwithstanding, I am thoroughly enamoured with Nikhil Goyal and his book, in no small part because he speaks with the passion, and above all the authority, of someone who has just lived the experience of schooling as a high school student.  On a personal level he reminds me of myself at the same age, all full of idealism and hubris, but with far more drive, organization, and follow through (after all - how many high school students write books and then launch worldwide speaking tours?). 

Nikhil Goyal represents our future.  As one of the best and brightest - both because of and in spite of our flawed educational system - we need to heed his warnings, and his calls for how to make schooling better for all students.

 

What Ravitch Gets Wrong, Part II

In the first installment of this two-part review of Diane Ravitch's book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education, I gave credit to Ravitch for raising many important questions about the misuse of standardized testing and its impact on classroom practice.  While educators perpetuate many myths about the evils of testing, Ravitch makes a good case that we have indeed gone overboard in this respect, with many negative consequences for our schools and students.

But Ravitch makes a mistake in equating testing and accountability with the movement for school choice.  While there is considerable overlap between the two camps, they are not the same and conflating the two distorts the basic case for both.

As I noted in my first post, the case for school choice is based, in part, on the argument that public education as we know it is fundamentally flawed.  Not that it has no redeeming qualities.  There are many excellent public schools throughout the U.S.  But Ravitch and defenders of the educational status quo seem blind to the fact that millions of children are being grossly underserved by government-run schools, which are the only option for most families of modest means. 

History attests that monopolies - especially government monopolies - are not capable of the kinds of innovation, efficiency and improvement necessary if we are going to prepare future generations for the economic realities of the 21st century.  There is no reason to assume that the "great American school system" of Ravitch's title ever existed, or that throwing more money into the system with no mechanisms of accountability as Ravitch suggests will garner different results.

So while I share Ravitch's concerns about the misuse of testing, I heartily disagree with her proposed solutions and her emphatic mischaracterization of school choice, which she repeatedly frames as a "corporate" approach to education.

Ravitch and her allies must have done market research revealing that Americans have a basically negative attitude toward "corporations" (however they conceive of this word), and use this term to demonize those who advocate for school choice. 

Depending on how the enabling legislation is written, some schools of choice might indeed be run by for-profit entities, but just as many might be operated by churches, non-profits, or independent agencies.  Ravitch herself expresses admiration for Catholic schools, and in many communities (see Indiana's recent voucher program), Catholic schools - not for-profit corporations - are the leading providers for schools of choice.  It is reasonable to assume that in a genuine choice environment, a wide variety of schools offering a plethora of learning environments and approaches -- Montessori, career-based, STEM-focused, classical education, etc. - could be available to all families.  Some might be operated by corporations, but many would not.

Not that there is anything inherently wrong with for-profit outfits providing educational alternatives.  Innumerable for-profit vendors already provide a myriad of products and services to our schools.  The fact that education is a human service does not automatically mean that people who seek profits cannot provide high-quality schooling options.  (My doctor makes a healthy profit every time I see him, and I do not begrudge it as I value the service he provides).  The real measure is whether the school's client families feel they are getting a good value.

And this is another fundamental point that Ravitch and many other school choice opponents seem to miss.  Just like traditional public schools, some schools of choice will be successful, while others will fail.  The difference is that schools of choice that fail to satisfy their clients will go out of business, whereas failing public schools will continue to drain millions of dollars of taxpayer money forever.  School choice is not a panacea for all of education's problems, but it gives many families something they can only dream of under the current system: an option.

Ravitch's tendency to associate all choice advocates with the push for standardized testing and paint them all with a "corporate" label grossly oversimplifies the great diversity in the education reform movement and among school choice supporters in general.  Anyone even remotely familiar with choice proponents like Michelle Rhee, RiShawn Biddle, Neal McCluskey, Michael Petrilli, and Rick Hess will know that, while all of these scholar/activists might accept the label "reformer," they represent an array of different perspectives and frequently spar with one another over policy, strategy, and goals. Lumping them all together serves Ravitch's rhetorical purpose of painting school choice in the most negative light possible and represents one of the most potentially destructive aspects of her work. 

One of the things that struck me about The Death and Life of the Great American School System was the relatively measured, thoughtful, and respectful way Ravitch addressed her philosophical opponents.  This contrasts markedly with the rhetoric Ravitch uses on her blog, and in many of her articles and public comments, where she frequently engages in name-calling and demonization of anyone who disagrees with her.  I experienced this first hand when Ravitch dismissed me as a sexist when I used the word "hysterical" to describe opponents of a particular Gates-funded research study.  I noted then, and assert still, that such tactics are intellectually lazy and serve the purpose of cutting off meaningful debate and discussion of ideas.

Ravitch is influential, and her tendency for mischaracterizing and demonizing opponents has rubbed off on the whole anti-"reform" camp.  For evidence, see Anthony Cody's recent article alleging to contrast the "no excuses" (i.e., testing and choice) reformers (the bad guys) with the "social context" reformers like himself and Ravitch (the good guys).  Cody's description of the "no excuses" reformers presents a cartoon-like image of the diverse body of educators, activists and scholars who seek to make sweeping changes in the structure of American schooling.  As I noted in comments to Cody's article, thoughtful discussion between the two "camps" cannot even begin as long as the "social context" reformers refuse the acknowledge the nuance, complexity, and diversity of arguments on the other side. 

This, to me, is the fundamental flaw in Ravitch's work, the seeds of which are sown throughout The  Death and Life of the Great American School System.  While many of her philosophical opponents, including me, can appreciate the value of Ravitch's arguments and the indispensible case she makes about testing, she affords no such respect to the other side.  This is a great disappointment, given Ravitch's brilliance as a historian and the relevance of her concerns, as the only prospect for real progress in American education lies in our capacity to recognize what public schooling does well, what it cannot, and how it can be remade.  Ravitch has chosen to position herself as an opponent of the debate itself.

What Ravitch Gets Wrong, Part I

Almost a year ago a close colleague gave me a copy of Diane Ravitch's book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education.  He had just read this book and was enthusiastic about it, and knowing that I was a proponent of school choice, my colleague thought my perspective might be enriched by hearing Ravitch's argument.

I was aware of the basic outline of Ravitch's work, and her public shift from identifying with the "education reform" movement to becoming its ardent foe.  Over the year that it's taken me to read the book and gather my thoughts about it, I've become much more familiar with Ravitch, even wrangling with her publicly on the pages of my blog and hers.  What I have found is that, while she makes some thoughtful and powerful arguments that definitely need to be aired in our on-going national discussion about education, ultimately Ravitch misunderstands the point of school choice, mistakenly conflates it with the industry's testing obsession, and ultimately mischaracterizes her opponents in a way that poisons the possibility for meaningful dialogue on one of the most important issues of our day.

In this post I'll mostly discuss why Ravitch's book is important and what it has to offer, and in a subsequent post I'll discuss what's missing in her argument, and is even hostile, to real school reform.

While I disagree with Ravitch profoundly on many points, I do recommend this book.  Informed educators and parents will benefit from Ravitch's insights and her rich, narrative history of education reform in the United States.  The Life and Death of the Great American School System:

• Presents a succinct, clear, and mostly fair account of the origins of the school choice movement, and the admittedly mixed research on outcomes from students who attend voucher or charter schools. 
• Accurately recounts the myriad failures of NCLB, which will be familiar and affirming to frustrated educators everwhere. 
• Describes in great detail the frequently clumsy attempts by various urban school districts to improve teaching and learning, experiments that often involved rigid, autocratic approaches that alienated teachers and parents, and often garnered meager results.
• Identifies a core group of fantastically wealthy philanthropists who have contributed millions of dollars to fund some of the most sweeping school reform initiatives.
• And makes a compelling case for why standardized testing is an extremely limited measure of student learning.

It is this last point that, above all others, makes Ravitch's entire argument worth hearing, both in this book and in her writing as a whole.  Ravitch explains how using simple test scores to make judgments about the performance of individual teachers and schools is a patently unfair misuse of these assessments, and how the test-driven culture of schools contributes to cheating, an intense narrowing of the curriculum, and ultimately the demise of rigorous instruction.

In light of all this, Ravitch advocates an about-face in terms of education policy.  She rejects federal school accountability measures as they have been configured under the last two or three presidents and all school choice schemes (education reforms use test scores to bash public education in an effort to ultimately privatize schooling in general - or something like that).  Instead, Ravitch calls for a renewed focus on standards, improved instructional practice, higher salaries for teachers, and more money for struggling schools.

I find myself nodding in agreement to many of her agruments.  As I've written elsewhere, standardized tests are one of the least instructionally sensitive measures of student learning and teacher performance, and schools' perpetual testing obsession frequently leads to disastrous consequences.  I agree wholeheartedly that improving schools depends, in large part, on our ability to establish a guaranteed and viable curriculum, and in improving teaching practice in the everyday classroom. 

But for all of the flaws in current education policy, there is still a compelling need for school choice and for the wholesale remaking of American education.

Ravitch rarely acknowledges that our schools are, by nearly any measure (not even including test scores) failing vast swathes of American children.  And states (like Kentucky) have been busy trying to standardize curricula and improve teaching practice for decades now, often with very little to show for their efforts.  Many schools seem impervious to change or improvement and throwing vast sums of money their way is simply not working.  Ravitch is essentially a defender of the educational status quo: unions and tenure are not the problem; our schools would just be fine if politicians left us alone, if we paid teachers better and gave them a good curriculum, and if we poured more money into helping these poor kids who have such a difficult time learning. 

Where is the evidence this would lead to improved schools?  Ravitch is adamant that there is no empirical data to suggest that school choice would improve student learning.  Where is the empirical evidence that her proposals would either?

Just yesterday, Kentucky education commissioner Terry Holliday issued a scathing indictment of the Jefferson County Schools, the state's largest district, where 16 of 18 low-performing high schools have essentially made no progress after years and years of intensive supports and millions of dollars in school improvement money.  Note that this assessment is not based on test scores, but rather on a comprehensive audit of the school's culture, curriculum, instruction, and leadership capacity.  These schools have had every opportunity to improve the way Ravitch thinks they could and should and they have failed.

And what is to happen to the children who are forced to attend these schools?  Commissioner Holliday called it "academic genocide."  And that is the status quo in far too many schools.

In a follow up post, I'll respond further Ravitch's ideas, arguing that school choice is not incompatible with some of her points, and that it is, in fact, the only viable way to bring innovation, efficiency, and lasting change to the school improvement process.

Montessori in public schools

I was delighted to receive an email message yesterday from Trevor Eissler, author of Montessori Madness: A Parent to Parent Argument for Montessori Education.  Trevor had discovered my blog posts on Montessori learning, including my review of his book, and pointed me toward a relatively new organization called The National Center for Montessori in the Public Sector.

The Center, which is affilitated with the American Montessori Society (AMS), is an effort to promote the Montessori method in public school environments.  The Center's website provides a wealth of resources which I strongly recommend to other educators interested in this unique, student-centered approach to learning.  Some highlights:

• FAQ's on the differences between Montessori and more conventional methods of education and a useful one-page handout, "Students at the Center; Structure at the Forefront."
• Research on Montessori and student outcomes. 
• A map of public school Montessori programs in the U.S., profiles of select schools, essential elements of successful public Montessori schools, and a look at how the Montessori curriculum correlates with the Common Core Standards.

I must confess, as I shared with Trevor, that I am a bit skeptical about the capacity of traditional schools to faithfully implement the Montessori method (admittedly, I've grown pessimistic about the structures of public schooling in general).  I'm worried about schools that might try some half-baked version of Montessori ("Monte-something," as Trevor called it), see it fail, and then (like so many other poorly-implemented initiatives, say, "We tried that and it didn't work" (or worse, "It won't work with these kids").

But I applaud the efforts of public schools that are trying to faithfully bring the Montessori method to diverse populations of students, and the Center's goal is to promote authentic presentations of Montessori in public school environments.  In fact, until we have meaningful school choice options available to families of modest means, I am as enthusiastic about this endeavor as just about anything still contained in the structures of public education, and I'm eager to learn more and share what I can with other educators. 

Kentucky presently has three public school Montessori programs, all in the Jefferson County Public Schools.  I'm hoping to pay a visit to these schools in upcoming weeks.  In observation of international Montessori Education Week, February 25-March 1, I'll be writing more on this topic.

I also encourage parents and practicing and aspiring educators to visit Bowling Green's only Montessori elementary option currently available.  In its first year of operation, The Montessori School of Bowling Green's elementary program, 506 State Street, serves 13 children ages six through twelve.  Visitors are welcome, and especially during Montessori Education Week, the school invites observers.  Educators will be most impressed by the thoughtful strategies of differentiation and individualization of learning that are basic to the Montessori method.  Call the school at 846-1122 to schedule a visit, or contact me for more information.

UPDATED: Montell files Kentucky charter bill for 2013 legislative session

As expected, Kentucky Representative Brad Montell (R-Shelbyville) has filed a bill to allow charter schools in Kentucky.  This is a reprise of Montell's well-crafted bill from last year which was discussed (but not voted on) in the House Education committee.

Kentucky is now one of only eight states that prohibit the creation of charter schools.

I have written extensively in support of charter schools and school choice in general on this blog and hope that Mr. Montell's bill gets a serious look.  Incoming Senate Education chair Mike Wilson (R-Bowling Green) has expressed his support.

Read more on why I believe charter schools are the right way to go for Kentucky:

• The basic case for charters: they offer an optimal level of autonomy and accountability
• Anti-charter school forces frequently cite studies claiming that charter schools do no better than traditional public schools in terms of student achievement.  But a recent research review found that many of these studies have serious methodological flaws.  Research that is well-crafted has found that charter students do as well or better than their traditional school peers.
• Research also finds that teaching conditions in charter schools are as good or better than in traditional public schools, though charter teachers report higher levels of involvement in school-wide decision making.
• Charter opponents claim school choice would drain resources from under-funded schools, but last year's voucher program (which is, admittedly, different than a charter plan per se) in Indiana saved the state millions in taxpayer money.
• Charter opponents also suggest that charter schools will underserve at-risk students or students with special needs.  But experiences in other states (New York and Arkansas) suggest that some charters will actually excel at educating tough-to-teach students.
• Some charter schools will succeed, others will fail; that's the point.  Choice and competition are good things and they don't currently exist in our present system.

And finally, Kentucky's "districts of innovation" law does not in any way address the need for charters and choice in Kentucky, as I've discussed here and here.

UPDATE: I communicated with Rep. Montell today and learned that his bill differs in a few significant ways from the charter proposal submitted last year.  Chiefly, his current bill phases in charter schools with a five-year pilot period during which a maximum of 15 new charter schools could be opened each year, and at least half of those schools would have to be located within a three-mile radius of a school where at least 50% of students receive free or reduced-price meals.

We didn't discuss the rationale for this change, but it may be somewhat more acceptable to lawmakers and citizens concerned about a rapid influx of charters and to ensure that low-income families get the maximum benefit.

Education a la carte: Is this what the high school of the future will look like?

A very thoughtful Reuters news story out this week explores how several states are revolutionizing learning by allowing public school students to build their own curriculum by piecing together learning experiences facilitated by a wide variety of educational providers (including private vendors).

A teenager in Louisiana, for instance, might study algebra online with a private tutor, business in a local entrepreneur's living room, literature at a community college and test prep with the national firm Princeton Review - with taxpayers picking up the tab for it all.

The story notes that at least four states have implemented or are considering legislation that would allow or expand such opportunities for a wide range of students.

As students and regular readers of mine know, I've become increasingly convinced that after three decades of massive, top-down, state-mandated policy changes designed to improve schools, relatively little has changed.  It is starting to look like the very structure of schooling itself is an intractable obstacle to educational reform.  If public schooling, especially at the high school level, is to survive much longer, it needs to be dismantled and replaced by something totally new and different.  (You can read some of my key posts on this topic here, here, and here).

When I say this to practicing educators, the first response is usually to ask what exactly the new structures of schooling will look like.  And on this count, I'm not prophetic enough to know, except to say that I think we need meaningful structures of school choice to make it happen, that the alternative must be radically student-centered, that technology is going to play a key role in whatever emerges, and that smart educators will try to position themselves as social entrepreneurs on the cutting edge of these developments.

This news story on "a la carte" approaches to educational delivery seems to offer a specific example of what the emerging experience of "school" might look like.  And its author, Stephanie Simon, deftly points out how the educational establishment is already digging in its heels in opposition:

The concept alarms many traditional educators. They fear public schools will lose funding to private vendors and will end up with such crimped budgets that they won't be able to provide a full range of academic classes, much less extras like sports, clubs and arts. That, in turn, could accelerate the exodus of students and the cutbacks in funding.

Teachers, superintendents and school board members also warn that an a la carte system could leave behind children from poor or unstable homes who may not have computers to take online classes, transportation to reach far-flung vendors, or adult guidance to help them sort through a dizzying menu of options. The system also has the potential to leave students unsupervised for large chunks of the day, which could raise safety and discipline concerns.

I'll give these "traditional educators" the benefit of the doubt and assume they are really motivated by a concern for students and not just maintaining a grip on the monopolistic educational structure that guarantees a government salary and generous benefits for school employees. 

Here's the thing: a loss of funding for traditional schooling is only a problem as long as you try to hold on to the structure of traditional schooling.  If we recognize that traditional schooling is at the heart of the problem itself, then we cease to fret over what is going to happen to our schools.  And why do we assume that traditional schooling is the only way to expose kids (including poor kids) to the arts, sports, and diverse learning experiences (the latter of which we aren't doing very well anyway)? 

In her recent article in First Things on educational pluralism, Ashley Rogers Berner explains how many other countries understand that education can be a public good, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you need a government-run institution to support it.  We could allow every student an allotment of public dollars to pursue educational services from a vast array of sources (which would ultimately have to be approved by the state, of course).  The devil of how that works would be in the details, but the point is that there is no reason to assume that you need the massive, costly, structures of the public education system to meet the learning needs of poor children.  In fact, it's that one-size-fits-all system that potentially hurts poor kids the most.

And I thoroughly reject the educationally paternalistic argument that we can't trust kids (or their parents) with this level of flexibility in their time or learning.

Read the whole Reuter's story for a good presentation of the arguments on both sides, and the many challenges raised by such an approach, from technology access to accountability.

Is this the solution?  I don't know.  It's a solution that recognizes the need to completely rethink our approach to public schooling, especially at the high school level.  I'm just pleased that there are states and policymakers bold enough to try a new approach.

UPDATE: I think it's worth pointing that, as the story notes, these new approaches to educational delivery do not preclude a role for "schools."  One person interviewed mentions the possibility of students still having a school as "home base," or a "hub," some place they regularly go for counseling, support services, and even (perhaps) to learn. 

Hear me discuss districts of innovation, charter schools on Innovate Kentucky podcast

I was happy to be interviewed recently about Kentucky's new "districts of innovation" law and the prospects for charter schools in a recent podcast from Innovate Kentucky, a WKU-based initiative to promote creative and expanded delivery of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) subjects in schools.

Hosted by Innovate Kentucky's Josh Raymer, the program features interviews with me and David Cook, Director of Innovation at the Kentucky Department of Education.  You can listen to the complete podcast here (total program just under one hour in length; my comments start around 36 minutes in).  Read some of my previous thoughts on districts of innovation here.

I've known Mr. Cook professionally for several years and he has done a terrific job crafting the regulations that will govern Kentucky's new districts of innovation initiative.  In the podcast he explores the kinds of flexibility districts of innovation will be afforded, and some of the creative approaches they might use in developing new approaches to teaching and learning.

I do, however, have to take exception with David's assertion that the districts of innovation law is very much like charter school legislation.  "I don't like to hear that this is so far from charter legislation that it isn't even close," he said.  "This is actually charter legislation, it's just written for a different audience if you will."

But, frankly, it is not even close.  House Bill 37 does give districts of innovation the kind of flexibility that charter schools are afforded in other states, but what makes charter school legislation a really powerful tool for educational innovation is that families of modest means might finally have a choice in where their children attend school.  There are no choice mechanisms in HB 37.  Families stuck in lousy schools will remain stuck.  Moreover, well-crafted charter legislation (like that proposed by Rep. Brad Montell) holds charter schools accountable in the ultimate way: such schools that fail to post high levels of student achievement (or that fail to attract students) will be closed down.  Under our current regime, even with districts of innovation, poor performing schools will simply continue to suck up tax-payer dollars as they always have.

Where David Cook and I agree, though, is that there's no need for "either/or" thinking on this matter.  I am happy to have HB 37 and I hope many districts achieve genuine innovation and sharp gains in student learning through their participation (though I remain skeptical that HB 37 was really necessary to do these things, but no matter: more power to districts that can leverage this law to do something good for kids).  I just remain firmly committed to the need for school choice because HB 37 did nothing to address the lack of competition and accountability that undermines public schooling in Kentucky and elsewhere.

Can "educational pluralism" end the schooling wars?

In the December 2012 issue of First Things, Ashley Rogers Berner argues that the United States' government monopoly on education sets it apart from the most other liberal democracies, many of which practice what Berner calls "educational pluralism."  She makes a case that educational pluralism can not only lead to better educational outcomes and a stronger civil society, but might also bring an end to many of the bitter policy disputes that divide Americans over the role and purpose of public education.  You can read the full text of Berner's comments here.

Berner, who is co-director of the Moral Foundations of Education Project at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture (an outfit at the University of Virginia), defines educational pluralism as "government support for diverse institutions that reflect a wide variety of beliefs and commitments."  Given the examples she cites, it's fair to say educational pluralism is a kind of philosophical basis for various approaches to school choice, a mechanism by which public funding for education follows the student, through vouchers or other means (perhaps like charter schools).  Students may use this funding to attend a wide variety of schools, from traditional public schools run by local school districts, to private secular or religious schools.  The specifics would vary depending on how the enabling laws might be written, but the idea is that while education might be a public good, it doesn't necessarily follow that it may only be delivered by the government.

Educational pluralism of this sort is the norm in many modern democracies (Berner notes Switzerland, Ireland, and Hong Kong as examples).  And while Americans cherish the First Amendment disestablishment of religion as a core political value (there is no formal "separation of church and state" in the U.S. Constitution), the 2002 Supreme Court decision Zelman v. Simmons-Harris stressed that as long as a government policy is neutral toward religion, there is no fundamental barrier to a voucher program (for example) that allows students to attend a religiously-based school.  The government benefit in this case (educational funding) supports the child, not the religion (though, as Berner notes, numerous state constitutions are more restrictive in this regard).

Berner's goal in supporting educational pluralism is not to promote religious-based schools per se, but to foster and encourage a wide diversity of educational options for families.  Berner cites research indicating that non-state schools are just as capable of raising the achievement of poor and minority students as traditional public schools, and that graduates of non-state schools have equal or stronger levels of civil engagement, tolerance for others, and commitment to public service.

Berner devotes much of her article to chronicling the century-old struggle to define the goal and purpose of public education, and how the state monopoly over schools exacerbates these deep divisions in the public conscience.  To those who would argue that public schools provide a pedagogically and philosophically neutral approach to teaching and learning (as opposed to the sectarian and faith-based approaches of religious schools), Berner calls hogwash because modern public schooling is based on an explicitly secularist, humanist philosophy with very specific assumptions about the nature of humanity and human knowledge:

Secularists view the child primarily as an autonomous individual who must, therefore, be entirely uncoerced in decisions as personal as religious belief. Although an educational secularist may be religious himself, he fears the possibility of religious indoctrination and therefore believes the teacher’s role is to train the child’s emotions and intellect while remaining completely agnostic about religious faith. Religious people assert that children are spiritual as well as intellectual and emotional beings and that omitting questions of belief is itself indoctrination of another kind.

Progressive approaches have dominated colleges of education and school districts since the 1920s. The current debate over academic standards needs to be seen in this light: Today’s educators have often been trained in progressive pedagogies, but state legislatures are now asking them to teach a more prescribed curriculum and to participate in high-stakes academic assessments. This has caused a struggle in nearly every state.

Educational pluralism offers a way out of these conflicts—over what education is for, who the child is, and what role teachers and schools should play—since it refuses to privilege one view over another. Instead of progressive and traditionalist educators competing for ideological dominance, they can populate and influence schools that want their particular approach. Instead of pretending to be ideologically neutral, public schooling could offer parents a variety of choices that reflect their beliefs and their children’s pedagogical needs. In short, educational pluralism opens up this conversation in a way that purported neutrality and uniformity cannot.

I personally question the assertion that American schools are (or ever were) under the sway of Dewey and the progressives.  In my experience, schools seem structured for the century-old purpose of indoctrinating a largely passive industrial workforce and sorting and ranking the rest for univerity and careers (for more on this, see my previous posts on the work of John Taylor Gatto).  The emphasis in traditional public schools is, for the most part, on conformity and rote memorization of an incoherent, largely arbitrary curriculum.

The single biggest predictor of the philosophy at work in any classroom is the implicit pedagogical, political, and moral assumptions of the individual teacher for that class.  Whatever the operative philosophy in any given classroom, it is foolish to suggest that public schools operate with any kind of neutrality to religion, politics, or the nature of human beings. 

Acknowledging the diversity of worldviews that is already present in our schools actually proves Berner's point: educational pluralism already exists, but the processes of schooling are largely controlled by state-run institutions, with the problems that go with monopolies of all kinds.  Openly embracing the kind of structures of educational pluralism Berner advocates would help maintain the public financial commitment to education, but would go a long way toward solving some of these bitter policy debates by allowing each family to choose the school that best matches their own particular worldview. 

If this seems like encouraging people to further divide themselves into disparate philosophical enclaves, consider the reality of our present situation: we force children of wildly differing philosophical backgrounds into a one-size-fits-all government school which teaches them its own specific worldview, all the while insisting that it offers no worldview at all.  The idea of the public school as the meeting ground of all creeds and cultures is a myth that stands in the way of genuine innovation and progress in educational policy. (But again, see the research Berner cites on the level of civic engagement and tolerance of students educated in non-state schools as further evidence that you don't need a government-run school to create a society that values cultural and political differences).

Working all this out in practice, of course, would be far more complicated than some advocates of school choice may realize or acknowledge.  Berner notes, for example, that pluralism doesn't always mean a true diversity of pedagogies, as many non-state schools offer an approach to teaching and learning that largely mimics the industrial model of traditional public schools.  This is certainly my experience, having worked in private religious schools where the shared faith culture was a tremendous asset, but the actual quality of academic instruction and learning was probably no better (or different) than in a high-performing public school.

Moreover, Berner notes that other countries still struggle, as would the United States, over the common criteria that all schools receiving publicly-funded students must meet.  Battles over curriculum, testing, and reporting (all of which can reflect some of our deepest educational divides) would remain even in a school choice scenario, and might even intensify the level of acrimony in our public debates (see the recent flap in Louisiana over voucher schools that allegedly teach "creationism.")

Despite these serious limitations to educational pluralism, I agree with Berner's thesis wholeheartedly.  While school choice is no magic bullet that suddenly solves all of America's problems, it opens up a wider array of educational options and choices for families, including choices that reflect the great diversity of worldviews present in American society.  It also breaks the government's stranglehold on educational delivery, which may ultimately allow for innovations in schooling yet to be conceived, and which certainly can't be conceived under the present educational regime.

Berner's article provides a strong philosophical foundation for the school choice movement, and I hope it garners a wide audience.

UPDATE: Happy my thoughts here were picked up on the First Things blog.  Here Executive Editor David Mill's comments here.

UPDATED: Districts of innovation regs released; still no substitute for school choice

Yesterday the Kentucky Department of Education unveiled administrative regulations for the implementation of House Bill 37, the new "districts of innovation" law.  I was honored to be interviewed by the Louisville Courier-Journal for its coverage of the announcement, which you can read here.

Districts may apply for "innovation" status (or may apply on behalf of individual schools) and, if granted, will be given wide leeway in bypassing a number of traditional educational regulations.  Schools might use this freedom to innovate the structure of the school day, experiment with various technology-facilitated approaches to learning, develop creative ways of assigning and utilizing staff, and significantly alter the school calendar (read more here).

I'm genuinely pleased with what I've read so far about KDE's approach to the new law.  In an address to Louisville educators yesterday, Commissioner Terry Holliday emphasized that he expects to see expansively creative thinking in the proposals submitted by districts, advising them "not to apply at all if all you want to do is move the chairs on the Titanic."

As I emphasized in my comments to the Courier-Journal, while I'm excited for the possibilities the new law offers, districts of innovation are not a meaningful substitute for charter schools, or more specifically, school choice in general.

In a columns I wrote for the Lexington Herald-Leader earlier this year (here and here), I made the case that charter schools offer a level of autonomy and accountability that traditional schools just can't muster.  In addition to their freedom to innovate, they bear the ultimate form of accountability: charter schools that can't draw students, or that fail to demonstrate steady progress in student achievement, will be shut down. 

While the districts of innovation bill partially addresses the first point (autonomy), it does nothing to address the second point (accountability).  While traditional schools face mounting scrutiny and pressure to improve every year, there is still no mechanism by which poor and middle-income families can seek educational alternatives for children trapped in failing, tax-dollar-draining schools. 

Let me be clear: Kentucky has many terrific traditional public schools that have nothing to fear from charter schools.  But in other communities both urban and rural, parents deserve options.

There is nothing magical about charter schools, of course.  Expanding educational choices for families won't magically cure every educational challenge Kentucky faces.  But in every other realm of life, choice and competition have brought new innovations, reduced costs, and provided a vast array of options that otherwise wouldn't exist.

I hope Kentucky's new districts of innovation do creative and amazing things on behalf of kids, and I wish them great success.  But all such districts will maintain their monopoly over education for the vast majority of families, and that will ultimately place limits on their innovation, and on the choices and opportunities for Kentucky's kids. 

(An inventory of reasons why, as a veteran public educator, I favor school choice, here).

UPDATE: Apparently, official regulations for the districts of innovation law have not been released, but will be shortly.  The information shared last week was a preview of the regulations and guidelines for application.  Read more on this, including a look at specific requirements for innovation status, here.