An Explosion of Pedagogical Agents by Ted Kolderie and Tim McDonald
The charge to america's public–education system has undergone a dramatic shift. For many
years, access was the maxim. Expansion into rural America, integration, busing, Title IX, and other
landmarks paved the road of compulsory schooling. Districts were responsible for making sure all
students had a desk, and it was the duty of the parent to make sure their young person showed up.
Whether a student learned in that desk depended largely on the effort he or she chose to put forth.
Many succeeded, yet many were left behind.
Attendance is no longer the measure of a district’s success.
Schools are now told that all students must learn. Curricula are
being standardized across school districts in an effort to ensure
educational equity; federally mandated testing is holding the
nation’s public schools accountable for basic achievement
benchmarks in core subjects; greater emphasis is being placed
on individualized and project-based learning plans in an attempt
to reach each and every student at his or her best level; and a
vast array of technology is being deployed to engage and monitor
today’s kids with the latest tools.
Into this mix, in recent years, the concept of an open sector
within public education has been taking shape, based on
the fundamental argument that it may be easier to create completely
new schools than to try to fix existing schools. This new
thinking, which is the chief mission of our organization,
Education|Evolving, is founded on several core ideas. Public
education should be:
- Open to new entrants–new schools should be created by
teachers, parents, community-based organizations, and networks
of schools;
- Open to new authorizers or sponsors–schools can be overseen
by entities other than school districts;
- Open to new learning programs–there are new ways to manage schools; and
- Open to all–as part of public education, these new schools should be available to any student who wantsto attend.
Inherent in the open–sector concept is our belief that these
schools should be allowed to operate under a different set of
rules than conventional public schools. Open–sector schools
should have the authority to shape their learning programs, select
their own staffs, and manage their own finances without
the restrictions that typically govern the operations of other public
schools. They should operate under a performance–based
contract with the authorizer, and they should receive funding
on par with other schools in their district.
In part as a result of this new thinking, chartered schools
and other in–district alternatives have been opening across
the country as educators and parents look for teaching and learning
alternatives to traditional schools and schooling. Increasing
focus on innovation–in the use of technology, the styles
of teaching, class sizes, educational focus, right through to the
management and administration of the schools themselves–
not only is providing new models of schooling, but also
more options for students, their families, and a certain kind
of teacher.
An Expanding Role for Educators
The job of teaching is in the early stages of an evolution that
is affecting change at the most fundamental level. Educators
in many open-sector schools are being afforded greater degrees
of self–determination over their work, increased specialization
opportunities, and improved professional development compared
to their counterparts in conventional schools.
Now that charter schools and in–district alternatives are strong
and growing–chartering laws have spread rapidly to 40 states
since first appearing in Minnesota in 1991–the professional
options available to educators are growing exponentially. At
schools such as Boston’s Pilot Schools, management decisions
are made locally by a board of teachers, administrators, and
community members. The Pilot sector, designed in part as a
competitive response to chartering, acts as a second, more responsive
arm of the Boston Public Schools. Each school has
control over its staffing, budgets, curriculum, assessment, governance,
policies, and even yearly calendar.
Treating educators in this manner positively influences motivation,
a principle factor of teacher performance. In teacherrun
schools, it is commonplace for educators to willingly work
significant overtime, put creativity into their teaching, and
innovate in curriculum and pedagogy. As the workers run
the school, they are responsible for policy, budgets, and management. There is
an element of control to each position, unlike conventional
models, where teachers are essentially employees of building
and/or district administration. Through power sharing, educators
act more as partners in a mutual operation, enlisting the
full range of their personal and professional potential and in
turn making the occupation more attractive to new and current
prospective entrants.
Changing Models Attract Educators
Two of the original intentions in creating chartered schools were
to expand choice and encourage innovation. While traditional
districts continue to improve, they are limited by structure and
convention. The opposite is true for charters and other alternatives:
They have the autonomy and authority to undergo
radical and unorthodox innovations in models of school and
pedagogy. At the same time, all sectors are seeing more opportunities
available to educators in the form of specialties such
as curriculum experts, learning coaches, cognitive specialists,
and community liaisons.
As the open sector expands and districts open smaller, semiautonomous
schools (usually as a response to charters), new
types of schools are emerging. These include teacher–led schools,
project– or theme–based curriculum schools (e.g., arts, sciences,
bilingual), online schools, and technology–oriented schools.
The state of Minnesota and the city of Milwaukee, Wisc.,
have had great initial success in launching an organizational
model called Teachers in Professional Practice (TPP). Under
this arrangement, teachers not only run their schools–they
are virtual owners in a partnership comparable to partners in
a law firm, private medical practice, or architectural cooperative.
When there are administrators, they work for the teachers.
Budget and managerial duties are distributed among the
partners. (For more information and a comprehensive list of
teacher–led schools, read our publication, Teachers in Professional
Practice: An Inventory of New Opportunities for Teachers.)
The model shows great promise. In addition to national
expansion from California to Boston, Mass., teacher interest
in self-run schools is high. A 2003 survey of educators by
Public Agenda found 58 percent of educators to be "very"or
"somewhat" interested in working in a chartered school run
and managed by teachers. The response likely would have been
higher if the question had left out the "chartered" qualifier.
Both the Minnesota and Milwaukee variations of the TPP
model finished–in 2005 and 2006, respectively–as part of
the final 50 of the annual Innovations in American Government
Competition at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.
As the education leadership in major cities look
increasingly toward new-school creation, the Professional Practice
model is in prime standing to see further growth in popularity
among city leaders, business, and educators.
Each of these new models of schooling attracts different kinds
of teachers. Some educators may want to teach in a school that
is less bureaucratic, but with traditional management structures.
Many chartered schools look like this. Some may want
to start their own schools in a cooperative, professional partnership.
They can do that now in Milwaukee or Minnesota
(see box above), and Massachusetts, California, Georgia, and
New Jersey are looking seriously at this model. Either way, entrepreneurs
and creative minds now have an outlet in the
structures of public schooling.
Teacher-Led Schools
A sampling of teacher-led schools includes:
California
Maybeck High School,
www.maybeckhs.org
Synergy School,
www.synergyschool.org
Walden Center & School,
www.walden-school.net
Minnesota
Avalon School,
www.avalonschool.org
El Colegio Charter School,
www.el-colegio.org
Minnesota New Country School,
www.newcountryschool.com
Wisconsin
The Alliance School,
www.allianceschool.org
I.D.E.A.L Charter School,
www2.milwaukee.k12.wi.us/ideal
It used to be that each school would have a handful of
nontraditional educators: a mid–career accountant making a
vocational move; a mother who decided to enter teaching
after caring for her children at home; a businessman who sold
his company to retire early and give back. By increasing the
professional teaching options available, we believe that new
entrants will continue to be more entrepreneurial, more innovative,
and possibly of a higher academic caliber. Bright young
college graduates will give teaching a more serious look, and
professionals from mathematics, engineering, information
technology, and the sciences will find greater incentive to
enter the profession. Technology–based schools already have
borne witness to this, as have teacher-led cooperatives that draw
educators from outside the traditional mold.
The new entrants have
had a discernable effect on
pedagogy. Support staff and
specialists are redefining
special education; teaching
is becoming a more specialized
profession; and
educators are taking on an
expanded range of responsibilities.
And with increased
autonomy comes increased
accountability. Since the
teachers run the school, they
all have a stake in its success.
With teacher–led schools,
as with all chartered schools,
there must be routine
review for quality, support,
and–when necessary–
closure. The chartered sector
is, fundamentally, one
of new school creation and
research and development.
Too often this point appears
forgotten by those both
inside and out.
So the question is:
What do these schools,
based on power sharing,
bring to the students, their
parents, and families?
Foremost, as a result of
their structure and smaller
size, these schools have a
strong sense of community
and connectedness. The environment is stable. As one retired
music teacher put it at a dinner in Minnesota, having traveled
between four schools in a week, "I could tell within 10
minutes of entering a building what sort of principal they had."
This is, of course, a qualitative and selective statement. Other
qualities that may positively affect student achievement include
a more responsive environment, flexibility of curriculum,
and the inherently innovative nature of a free faculty. Parents,
especially in urban settings, appreciate the law and order
of teacher–led schools where all educators are responsible for
discipline. Students are likewise engaged in learning and even
operations. In some schools, students are allowed to sit in
on administrative and budget meetings, and sometimes also
have a vote.
In a visit with Minnesota educators and policy leaders,
a partner from a TPP school in Milwaukee, Wisc., remarked
that, "In my old school there was little responsiveness…
here if a student has a problem, or if there is a problem among
staff, it can be solved on the spot. If student needs aren’t
being met, we–the adults–can do what it takes to meet them.
We have control over the budget, the management, and regulate
ourselves as the staff... [T]his makes a difference."
A Profile of Teachers in Professional Practice:
Minnesota New Country School
The Minnesota New Country School (MNCS) is a teacher–led, project-based school located
in Henderson, a small town of 910 people in southern Minnesota. MNCS was one of
Minnesota’s earliest chartered schools, authorized by the LeSeur–Henderson School District,
and opened in the fall of 1994. The school now serves approximately 120 students from
grades 6–12.
MNCS contracts with EdVisions Cooperative, a Teacher Professional Practice that helps
provide structure and support to individual schools by assuming responsibility for administrative
duties and assisting startups. In 2000, the cooperative received a grant from the Bill
and Melinda Gates Foundation to spread its democratic model by creating 40 new schools
nationwide. EdVisions is sustained as an operation through support from the schools that
receive its services.
The teachers at MNCS, who prefer to be called advisors, each work with 15 or 20 students
across all grade levels. Since the curriculum is project–based, every student has his or
her own workstation, complete with a computer and desk space. The advisors guide students
through personalized plans that ensure each young person covers all state and federal
standards. In essence, the students are responsible for their own pace of learning.
Management is transparent. Each advisor knows how much money is in the budget, so
when there are funding changes, a curriculum review, or discussions about strategic direction,
everyone is in the know.
Advisors share the administrative tasks necessary to run the school, including staffing
and budgets. They contend that this type of management structure is more efficient and has
a positive impact on student achievement. Not only do young people see the adults working
cooperatively together, but the atmosphere is responsive to student needs as they arise.
Decisions at MNCS are made at the source. If advisors sense a problem in curriculum or
a student issue, they can address it and rectify the situation immediately. The advisors are
all held accountable for the school’s performance, as each one is a teacher–owner. As evidenced
by its quick replication in the past decade to its current 10 schools–and soon to be
more than 40 at the completion of EdVisions’ grant–New Country School’s model of
teacher–led governance is assured to be a force in public-education reform.
More Avenues Arise Through Innovation
Two conditions have changed in recent
decades, altering public education in ways yet
to be fully understood.
The first is the accessibility of information
in an age of information technology. No
longer is the teacher the only source of information
for students. Technological competence
is vital for today’s educators. The
level of personalization and engagement
today’s students have with technology and interactive
media is unprecedented, and no aspect
of education is immune from the inroads
made by technology. To better prepare teachers,
administrators and education schools
need to provide the training and ongoing
professional development–as well as the
tools–to effectively use technology in their
classrooms. At the same time, practical 21st–century skills such
as technological proficiency, media literacy, the ability to speak
two or more languages, and the ability to problem solve in teams
are increasingly important. Administrators will need to provide
new opportunities for educators to learn and practice comprehensive
education that crosses defined subject areas.
The second major change is the erosion of the monopoly
traditional districts have held over the public education of
America’s children. Now that the assignment has changed
from access to achievement, no longer is it enough simply to
put students in desks. Schools must ensure that they learn and
are able to compete at a global level.
Innovation, coupled with long-term and scientific research
and development, is the way forward. We need to understand
that nobody has the answer to chronic underachievement. No
Child Left Behind has put forth a noble goal: for all students
to become proficient in math and reading. Yet the United
States is incredibly diverse socially, economically, and in the
opportunities available to each segment of the populace. While
we need federal standards to ensure a cohesive curriculum, we
believe there must be room to tailor it locally according to the
needs of each population. By encouraging educators to innovate–
to act as professionals with meaningful control over
their professional practice–they can have the opportunity to
improve schooling. Some new models will work well overall,
or just for some groups of students; others will fail or may work
for only one group of students. Over time, with proper methods
for assessment, we believe we will be able to recognize and
replicate the most successful models.
Staffing too is changing. There is an opening now for adjuncts,
especially in chartered schools where union contracts
are more likely to allow it. Minneapolis Public Schools have been
considering it as part of a district redesign. This is a way for schools
to target specific needs–sciences, advanced and specialty
courses—without hiring more full–time faculty. It makes both
economic and curricular sense, since it diversifies the background
of teaching staff. Teachers can work across schools, districts,
and even states. For example, a Japanese or upper–level
German course might be conducted via videoconferencing
from one building to three or more classrooms simultaneously.
The concept of site–based hiring, known commonly as
interview–and–select, also is gathering steam as schools seek to control
their own destiny. While democratic management is foreign
to most educators, there is a gathering tide in support of providing
staffing authority to those who actually work in the school. Experiences
in the open sector have shown us that when professionally
minded teachers encounter a degree of self–determination (e.g.,
teacher-led peer hiring), they quickly become motivated by a sense
of liberty and responsibility. This model also allows educators to
help shape the culture and dynamics of their schools.
As these changes occur and the open sector continues to increase
its market share, administrators in the traditional sector
can learn from their nontraditional counterparts. Administrators
should understand that, once acculturated, teachers can run
a school quite well. The more points of independent decision
making there are in a building—provided it has a functional
governance model–the higher the likelihood of innovation in
pedagogy. Students experience the benefits of both the subsequent
advances in teaching and the environment of teamwork.
Forward–thinking school leaders will recognize that good
management means maximizing efficiency by motivating workers.
No longer do teachers want to be kept in the dark about
budgets, curriculum, and staffing. Educators are capable of much
more and will respond to greater opportunity.
Ted Kolderie is a senior associate with the Center for Policy Studies
and co–founder of Education|Evolving, a policy group with a
national focus based in Saint Paul, Minn. A principal architect
of chartered–school laws in Minnesota and many other states, he
is a former journalist and has served as executive director of the
Twin Cities Citizens League and as a senior fellow at the Hubert
H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs.
Tim McDonald is an associate with Education|Evolving.
He is a junior fellow at the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, where he won the annual Undergraduate Research
Award in 2007.
Back to top