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. 

Comments

[Derek Luke]

Thank you for your take on the article - it is much appreciated.

I am currently in the process of obtaining a masters in educational leadership and through my studies I've come to similar conclusions that the (outdated) structure of education is a large part of why not much has changed. We need more of a revolution and less tinkering at the margins.

I couldn't agree with you more, "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."

[Kevin Angell]

An a la carte model is exactly what I am looking for for my children. Thank you for verbalizing and exploring this non-traditional educational approach. My wife and I recently began homeschooling our children because we wanted them to have more enriching experiences outside the classroom walls, to choose curriculum that better matched their interests and learning styles, and to progress through that curriculum at their own accelerated or remedial pace. Our experiment has succeeded in many ways, but we would welcome more opportunities for group instruction for such things as foreign language conversation, literature discussions, chemistry labs, and musical/performing arts.

I love the concept of a hub school where students can optionally take some classes in person and meet regularly with a guidance counselor to ensure they are making adequate educational progress. I also think it would be an efficient use of resources to hold some classes just one or two days per week. For example, students could study chemistry independently for three days and meet in person for labs twice during the week. Independent study may include use of prerecorded lectures, computer-based instruction, and completion of assignments and self tests, either at home or in a study-hall setting. This approach could potentially expand the capacity of existing school buildings and reduce transportation costs.

This a la carte approach may not appeal to all students or their parents, but the point of educational choice is to offer a variety of options so that students are more likely to find an option that works for them. As President Obama famously said, "If you like your plan, you can keep it." This may not have worked perfectly for healthcare, but I don't see why it wouldn't work for public schools.

I recently discovered and have enjoyed reading your blog. Please keep pushing for educational reform in Kentucky, and perhaps your efforts will enlighten minds here in Virginia as well. Many thanks.

[Gary Houchens]

Kevin, thanks for your comment. You offer a great description of "a la carte" education yourself, personalized to your family's situation - and ultimately that's what it's about, I think. Many blessings on your family's learning endeavors.