Information technology has transformed how we live and work, but not K-12 education. For the most part, it operates like it did 50 years ago even after US schools layered 10 million computers on top of how we've always done things. But in a few places, that's changing.
John Danner kicked off the Rocketship Education advisory meeting in Palo Alto with a brief review of charter school history and a few predictions. During this run-through, it became very clear that we are entering into a new production model for charter schools. Let's call this Charter 2.0
Danner, a former venture investor, runs a small network of high-performing elementary schools in San Jose with an audacious goal of opening thousands of gap-closing schools. He suggests that Charter 1.0 (the last 15 years) demonstrated that good schools could close the achievement gap and help low income students achieve at similar levels to more affluent peers. But it didn't have much impact on the traditional school system.
In Charter 2.0, charter networks will achieve scale and quality. Danner suggested that Charter 2.0 is driven by 1) strong support from the President Obama and Secretary Duncan, 2) foundation fatigue and need to develop scalable models, and 3) the fiscal crisis, which has focused the entire sector on productivity.
Danner predicts that quality at scale will be achieved by a few organizations that run thousands of schools more than thousands of networks that run a few schools.
The Rocketship model utilizes a Learning Lab to stretch the day and budget. Students spend 25% of their day in a computer lab and that saves about $500k, which allows Rocketship to pay teachers more, run a long day/year, and fund part of their growth plan. Danner and team hope to move to a 50/50% model in coming years with help from the Dreambox platform.
Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix, is enthusiastic about the potential for technology to do the same for learning. At the recent Rocketship advisory meeting, he admitted that Artificial Intelligence was over-promised 20 years ago, but that expert systems are getting better at managing smart choices at scale. This could be the wave of the future in terms of successful charter management, but also incredibly efficient and achievement-building learning strategies for students.
The potential for a smart engine in education is to push kids 'just enough', build basic skills on an accelerated path, and enable a teacher to serve as an academic and behavioral mentor and advisor. Reed pointed out that big breakthroughs and market leading products often cost more than $100 million to develop. He asked Rocketship supporters to imagine a market that would provide inventive for companies to spend $100 million to develop a great high school chemistry sequence. He suggested that one killer app widely adopted would reduce barriers to entry and would drive additional investment. That conviction drove Hastings to purchase (and then donate it to a nonprofit) Dreambox, a personalized K-2 math learning system.
Hastings stressed the importance of continuity of governance; revolving door publically elected boards prevent high performance. He pointed to a half a dozen urban districts that for short periods of time had good direction but were derailed by board and leadership changes. "Without self-perpetuating governance you don't have a chance to achieve greatness." Like me, Hastings hopes the two strands of charters and technology will reinforce each other to produce quality at scale.