In our scan so far, it seems clear that operators often focus on one or two key issues in their schools. They’re not trying to be a better option than traditional school for every family.
Public schools, by contrast, are tasked with meeting the needs of all families, regardless of background or circumstance. Traditional residential assignment requires this on principle. But a “one size fits all” approach inevitably will privilege some and marginalize others—which leads some families to seek out alternatives like those listed above.
Instead of assuming that the way to effectively meet diverse families’ needs is to make a better one-size-fits-all model, district and school leaders could explore ways to create different models for families with different circumstances and priorities.
Taking such an approach in public schools is not without challenges. There are risks for special populations: while some schools may be designed around the needs of students with disabilities or multilingual students, allowing other schools to screen out these students or decline services could mean effectively segregating complex learners. There are risks for the most vulnerable students, who may not have adult advocates at home thinking about what they need, or who may switch schools frequently, which research shows can lead to lower graduation rates. Even families who are paying close attention to their children’s education may not have the information, know-how, or resources to navigate the trade-offs of a confusing set of different options. There are also broader social and political risks: the flip side of pluralism may be self-segregation, where families opt into learning communities that share their values but minimize their exposure to different perspectives.
In a political climate where division is threatening democratic stability, we urgently need creative thinking about how a more pluralistic education landscape can still create common ground and strengthen communities even across differing viewpoints and ideologies.
While these risks merit further inquiry, public education leaders should consider the upsides. Greater autonomy at the school level can allow schools to make unique design choices suited to their communities’ priorities, such as a district portfolio strategy. An openness to creativity and experimentation, such as piloting microschools with a set of families opting in, might help target a narrower set of family priorities and student needs. A focus on equity can ensure that students with unique and complex needs are at the center of some schools’ designs—like Da Vinci RISE, a public charter school authorized by the Los Angeles County Board of Education, which focuses on youth navigating foster care and housing instability.
We’ll be digging deeper into these issues in future posts, all with the aim of surfacing promising ideas from outside the system to inform public education. We’ll also raise critical questions about where research, funding, or policy interventions are necessary to deliver more options that meet families’ needs and advance the goals of public education.
Unconventional private schools are attracting parents with tailored offerings. Public schools can, too.
Small learning environments that operate outside public schools—such as microschools, hybrid homeschools, and learning pods—exploded into broad public consciousness during the pandemic. While many children who were in these programs have now returned to public school, entrepreneurs continue to expand alternative learning options, and many families are interested in what they offer.
One thing is abundantly clear from the still-limited research on these learning environments: they’re enormously pluralistic. Instead of unifying around a shared philosophy, aim, or approach, one commonality among these alternative schools is that they operate outside the boundaries of the public school system, offering approaches that contrast with traditional education structures.
Our research adds another nuance: microschools and other unconventional learning environments aren’t trying to solve for every single reason that families opt out of “regular” school. They’re generally designed to solve one or two issues, such as how to reduce distractions and help students focus, or how to educate students through the lens of a specific value system.
Traditional public schools, by contrast, are expected to serve every family that walks in the door. This is how public education is supposed to work—by maintaining protections for students and families no matter their needs or circumstances. On the other hand, when every school is expected to meet every need at once, they can often end up serving no one very well. The pluralistic approach of these private learning operators is a reminder that district and charter network leaders can create a create a menu of school options within their systems while preserving the equity and democratic functions of public schools.
Unconventional education operators tap into families’ values and priorities
To dig deeper into the offerings of these unconventional operators, we scanned reports and websites from organizations that advocate for, fund, or study these private learning environments, focusing on schools that fit the definition of “permissionless” or “unconventional.” Then, we examined the website of each learning environment to get a sense of how they communicate their offerings to families and to create a data set of their features. These environments are independent (not public district or charter schools) and offer core education as an alternative to public school (i.e., they are not supplemental programs).
To be sure, what independent learning environments describe on their websites is no guarantee of educational quality or the robustness of curriculum the school can offer. But, we’ve read through dozens of school websites to understand how these systems communicate their offerings, what problems entrepreneurs are trying to address, and the solutions they’ve applied. How these operators communicate their purpose tells us about how they hope to appeal to families that are considering alternative educational options. Some major goals and values that emerged from our research include:
In our scan so far, it seems clear that operators often focus on one or two key issues in their schools. They’re not trying to be a better option than traditional school for every family.
Public schools, by contrast, are tasked with meeting the needs of all families, regardless of background or circumstance. Traditional residential assignment requires this on principle. But a “one size fits all” approach inevitably will privilege some and marginalize others—which leads some families to seek out alternatives like those listed above.
Instead of assuming that the way to effectively meet diverse families’ needs is to make a better one-size-fits-all model, district and school leaders could explore ways to create different models for families with different circumstances and priorities.
Taking such an approach in public schools is not without challenges. There are risks for special populations: while some schools may be designed around the needs of students with disabilities or multilingual students, allowing other schools to screen out these students or decline services could mean effectively segregating complex learners. There are risks for the most vulnerable students, who may not have adult advocates at home thinking about what they need, or who may switch schools frequently, which research shows can lead to lower graduation rates. Even families who are paying close attention to their children’s education may not have the information, know-how, or resources to navigate the trade-offs of a confusing set of different options. There are also broader social and political risks: the flip side of pluralism may be self-segregation, where families opt into learning communities that share their values but minimize their exposure to different perspectives.
In a political climate where division is threatening democratic stability, we urgently need creative thinking about how a more pluralistic education landscape can still create common ground and strengthen communities even across differing viewpoints and ideologies.
While these risks merit further inquiry, public education leaders should consider the upsides. Greater autonomy at the school level can allow schools to make unique design choices suited to their communities’ priorities, such as a district portfolio strategy. An openness to creativity and experimentation, such as piloting microschools with a set of families opting in, might help target a narrower set of family priorities and student needs. A focus on equity can ensure that students with unique and complex needs are at the center of some schools’ designs—like Da Vinci RISE, a public charter school authorized by the Los Angeles County Board of Education, which focuses on youth navigating foster care and housing instability.
We’ll be digging deeper into these issues in future posts, all with the aim of surfacing promising ideas from outside the system to inform public education. We’ll also raise critical questions about where research, funding, or policy interventions are necessary to deliver more options that meet families’ needs and advance the goals of public education.
AUTHORS
Chelsea Waite
Principal
Related Publications
Are unconventional learning environments serving special populations?
Chelsea Waite
PrincipalHeather Casimere
Research AssistantTeachers want to innovate. Schools that don’t let them are losing out
Chelsea Waite
Principal