Thomas Arnett from the Clayton Christensen Institute joined me to once again explore why families and students seem to be quite willing to try innovative microschools in the K–8 grades, but considerably more resistant when it comes to high school.
I'm definitely guilty of the dynamic Thomas describes. As excited as I am about the potential of new school models, I can also appreciate why, for most families, it's hard to walk away from an existing social network and the friendships and traditions that come with conventional schools. I do wonder though whether some of those tensions would fade if students started on an alternative path from the beginning, rather than switching later.
Yeah I think that's a very good question. We know some students who did unconventional but then still switched into traditional high schools but maybe it's start plus more than 20 percent of your community doing different things as well just creates more acceptance?
High school (and early college) core academics work well (I think better) without traditional "school." However, most parents/students want more than core academics, particularly school connected athletics, music, theater. Non-core academics (e.g. book clubs, debate, history reenactments, robotics competitions, etc.) can also be used to give students interaction with other students. To have a viable high school, you need to be big enough to have some athletics, music, etc. Big enough isn't very big. e.g. there are many successful low enrollment rural schools.
I did not have time to read the entire article. But I suspect like so many others, you are mistaken about how many people can afford a private school in this nation. As I see it, these ideas are for only the upper 25% or so of famies in this nation. And the more money you remove from public schools...the worse they become. The past 45 years of Republican underfunding ought to tell you that. Cue the "we spend far too much on schools" backlash.
I will say this...how come my high school teachers (grad'81) only had about 100 students overall, when I now struggle with 150 and some teachers with even more??
A few quick thoughts. 1) if you actually listen you'll see we're talking about low cost schools that are funded by public dollars. Not the private schools you're thinking of. 2) your statistics on school funding are at odds with the facts as well. That's beside the point of the discussion but there's a long literature on the increase in spending per pupil in adjusted terms. And where districts have chosen to allocate those dollars.
We fund most schools with property taxes, which means we have grossly unequal schools. I notice you did not bring up the most glaring inequality I know all too well personally. Do you not think that the fact that I have 2 more classes than affluent districts might make a huge difference? Especially when you think about over the course of 12 years. And the children and teens in poorer districts have far more problems that we have to deal with than their wealthier counterparts.
Great conversation. Thank you
Really enjoyed this conversation.
I'm definitely guilty of the dynamic Thomas describes. As excited as I am about the potential of new school models, I can also appreciate why, for most families, it's hard to walk away from an existing social network and the friendships and traditions that come with conventional schools. I do wonder though whether some of those tensions would fade if students started on an alternative path from the beginning, rather than switching later.
I actually wrote about many of these same questions a few weeks ago, so this discussion really resonated with me. https://maxk1.substack.com/p/will-my-kid-be-weird
Yeah I think that's a very good question. We know some students who did unconventional but then still switched into traditional high schools but maybe it's start plus more than 20 percent of your community doing different things as well just creates more acceptance?
Sounds about right!
High school (and early college) core academics work well (I think better) without traditional "school." However, most parents/students want more than core academics, particularly school connected athletics, music, theater. Non-core academics (e.g. book clubs, debate, history reenactments, robotics competitions, etc.) can also be used to give students interaction with other students. To have a viable high school, you need to be big enough to have some athletics, music, etc. Big enough isn't very big. e.g. there are many successful low enrollment rural schools.
Good points that many small places accomplish this already
I did not have time to read the entire article. But I suspect like so many others, you are mistaken about how many people can afford a private school in this nation. As I see it, these ideas are for only the upper 25% or so of famies in this nation. And the more money you remove from public schools...the worse they become. The past 45 years of Republican underfunding ought to tell you that. Cue the "we spend far too much on schools" backlash.
I will say this...how come my high school teachers (grad'81) only had about 100 students overall, when I now struggle with 150 and some teachers with even more??
A few quick thoughts. 1) if you actually listen you'll see we're talking about low cost schools that are funded by public dollars. Not the private schools you're thinking of. 2) your statistics on school funding are at odds with the facts as well. That's beside the point of the discussion but there's a long literature on the increase in spending per pupil in adjusted terms. And where districts have chosen to allocate those dollars.
We fund most schools with property taxes, which means we have grossly unequal schools. I notice you did not bring up the most glaring inequality I know all too well personally. Do you not think that the fact that I have 2 more classes than affluent districts might make a huge difference? Especially when you think about over the course of 12 years. And the children and teens in poorer districts have far more problems that we have to deal with than their wealthier counterparts.
Thanks for your note. Where are you based?
Also, just so we're working from the same data, here's how spending broke down:
For U.S. public K–12 school systems in fiscal year 2024, the latest available nationwide data:
Funding source Share of total revenue
Property taxes ~27.3%
State government 45.2%
Federal government 11.6%
Other local sources ~15.9%
Also, check out this report: https://fordhaminstitute.org/sites/default/files/publication/pdfs/think-again-education-funding-america-still-unequal-final-7-11.pdf
The title is: "Think Again: Is education funding in America still unequal?"
The relevant data here (which came from a U of Penn/U of Delaware study) showed the following:
Schools serving poorer students spent $529 more per pupil annually on average than schools serving wealthier students within the same state.
There were some exceptions of course to this in particular states like IL. Hence my other question.