^{The Bottom Line} Uniform Schools Yield Uniformly Poor Results

Parents who have two or more children know how totally different children can be. Even with the same two parents, living in the same house, eating the same food, and having very similar learning experiences, children will still turn out to be different in personality, interests, and even appearance. So why would we stick with an education system that treats all children alike?

For too long, we have expected the same instruction, delivered in the same way, for the same length of time, to yield similar results in totally different children. Common sense should tell us that different children will learn in different ways and at different rates. In other words, to maximize learning, we need to meet a child where she is in her learning, rather than her age, to capture her interest and attention. Since children are interested in different things at different times, we should never assume that we can reach all children using a “one size fits all” approach. 

But that is what our education system does. We treat children like widgets. We organize them by age, prescribing what to do and when to do it. We further stifle creativity by regimenting the school day into 50-minute periods, ringing a bell when time is up, and moving children to the next subject. With little emphasis on what is learned, 77% of our children leave high school not proficient in the core subjects of reading, writing, math, and science. 

This miserable performance, which has been going on for decades, won’t improve until we take a drastically different approach to education. We need an education system that adapts to a child’s learning level and their interests and motivations, rather than their age — a system that focuses on learning rather than time, encourages creativity and innovation over discipline and compliance, and excites rather than discourages the learner. Basically, we need a new system. If that is the case, where do we start?

System change can only start at the state level — not the school, district, or federal government level. The reason is simple: states control most of the money, prescribe the requirements for employment for both teachers and leaders through certification laws, control curriculum by setting requirements for courses that students must take, and determine the graduation requirements.     

So, if we believe that our present system is not what we need, we must find one state that is willing to step forward and start changing its education laws and codes that are stifling learning. Specifically, legislators desiring to improve their state’s schools need to pass legislation allowing districts to waive some or all of the restrictive requirements mentioned above. Several states have done this with “districts of innovation” legislation. These laws allow districts to petition for waivers in order to change current practices and curriculum. Sadly, however, in some states, few districts apply, and those that do tend to ask for only modest changes to the existing system.  

 This lack of innovation raises other constraints to improving schools. The education field is virtually devoid of “change agent” leaders because we do not set about to find or create them. Instead, our public education system is full of people trained to manage the schools we have, not the schools we need. So, we also need laws that provide new procedures for selecting and training school leaders. In short, our current system gives us leadership by accident, not by design.

We can no longer accept this situation. Improving our education system will only occur when we have effective leadership at both the school and district levels. When one state takes the lead on changing its education laws and focuses on developing “change agent” leaders, then we will begin the march from mediocrity to excellence. Our children are waiting, and so is our country.