“We tried small schools, it didn’t work.” In the early 2000s, the Gates Foundation put a bunch of money into creating new small schools and breaking down big high schools into smaller ones. I thought a lot of good work happened. Then after a few years, they released an evaluation that found that scores on bubble tests did not suddenly go up. For the past twenty years, if anyone says anything about small schools, someone will definitely say, “Not a good idea. Gates put money into small schools and it didn’t work.” Here’s Gemini’s summary, which after all is a reflection of what you can find on the internet: “The Gates foundation’s small high school initiative had mixed results, with a RAND study finding little positive impact on student outcomes and graduation rates overall.” Here’s the thing. A couple of years after that first report, they issued a second evaluation that found all kinds of better outcomes for students in the smaller schools. Lower suspensions, higher attendance, better grades, better parent and student satisfaction. However, the world had moved on and nobody read this report. Including our AI overlords, apparently. Now I’ve learned that the Gates Foundation has continued to follow those students to today. According to the latest evaluation, New York City small schools had a 10% higher graduation rate, 5% higher college enrollment, more engaged students, safer schools, and the schools were cost neutral. I recognize that I am trying to fight a communications war that is long since lost. Still though, in the spirit of evidence and accuracy, shout it with me from the rafters: “We tried small schools. It worked!”

When we opened High Tech High back in 2000, we outfitted every classroom with a smart board. “Look, we can lecture and share slides but also touch the screen! Isn’t that rad?” In 2003, I put those smart boards up for sale on ebay. The fundamental problem? If we want school to be more engaging for students, we need to update our pedagogy, not merely update our technology. The hype around AI reminds me of those smart board days, even as it reminds me of breathless conversation about one-to-one laptop efforts or every kid gets an iPad or kids having smartphones is going to transform education. AI is nifty, there’s no question about it. But if we don’t use AI to push our pedagogy, then it’s just algorithmic lipstick on the same old pig.

So, David Brooks used to think (https://lnkd.in/gEZBXyby) that schools need to put content knowledge acquisition in first position: “the cathedrals of knowledge and wisdom are based on the foundations of factual acquisition and cultural literacy. You can’t overleap that, which is what High Tech High is in danger of doing.” Now he thinks (https://lnkd.in/gYSryvmg) that this view of education is problematic:  “At [the] project-based-learning school, High Tech High in San Diego… the students get an education in what it feels like to be fully engaged in a project with others. Their school days are not consumed with preparing for standardized tests or getting lectured at, so their curiosity is enlarged, not extinguished.” Some people might point out that if you write one thing publicly and then later write the opposite, you ought to acknowledge the change in your viewpoint. Some people might point that out, but not me, because I’m bigger than that. As fellow proponents of the development of non-cognitive skills, I will demonstrate "emotional flexibility, social agility, and moral qualities" by welcoming you into the fold, David. P.S. If you want to learn about how to implement project based learning, how to develop student portfolios such as the ones from our friends at Big Picture Learning, how to develop student non-cognitive skills, and how to participate in the dismantling of the alleged meritocracy, join us at the Deeper Learning conference! (https://lnkd.in/gKaSvxm3)

So I was whiling away the evening, as one does, watching Don Berwick’s keynote speech at the 2024 Institute for Healthcare Improvement’s Forum. As always, Don’s storytelling was powerful. What really caught my attention, though, was his reference to Safer Together: A National Action Plan to Advance Patient Safety. The plan lays out three clear action steps: 1️⃣ Review the recommendations 2️⃣ Form a team to self assess 3️⃣ Get to work It made me wonder: what if we had something like this in education? A national action plan with evidence-based recommendations, a self-assessment, and an implementation guide. Co-producing such a resource wouldn’t be a light lift—but could it help our field focus, align, and accelerate progress? Curious what others think. Would education benefit from a comparable plan?

Woot woot