What is California telling us about what parents want from public education?

I sit on the board of the California Charter School Association (CCSA), which is one of most effective charter associations in the nation.

Their data team put this slide together.

It’s a little complicated, but it’s very informative.

Screen Shot 2018-04-05 at 8.08.33 PM

To build the chart, CCSA looked at schools that are serving the same type of demographics and then compares their test scores.

A school that outperforms similar schools, gets a higher score (8-10 is really good); a school that underperforms similar schools, gets a lower school (1-3 is pretty bad).

This methodology – absolute test scores controlled for demographics – is imperfect, but it’s the best methodology you can use given California does not publicly report student growth scores.

Charter schools serving students in poverty outperform district schools on state tests 

43% of charter schools with higher concentrations of poverty outperform similar schools.

In California, if you are a low-income Hispanic or African-American child, you are more likely get a better education (as measured by test scores and parent demand) if you attend a charter school.

This is good news for the educators and families who are working together to create better educational outcomes in at-risk communities.

If parents are demanding schools with good test score impacts, the government’s response should be obvious: let more of these schools open.

Charter schools serving middle class students underperform district schools on state tests 

But not all charter schools are outperforming their peers on tests scores.

47% of charter schools serving middle class students perform worse than similar schools. And only 26% perform better.

So perhaps California should close some of these charter schools that serve middle class families? Research covered in this post shows that schools with negative test impacts tend not to have large positive life outcome impacts.

But here’s the odd thing: presumably, middle class families have a decent amount of information at hand when making school choices. It takes all of two minutes to scan Zillow or Great Schools to get a quick read on the absolute test score performance of any school in the state.

So why are all these relatively well resourced families sending their children to lower-performing charter schools as measured by state tests?

I’m not sure. It would be interesting to focus group and poll them to learn more.

And with regards to closure, while I surely disagree with middle class Californians on many policy issues, I’m not sure that I think I know enough about their children to close schools that have modest negative test impacts but high enrollment demand.

Charter schools don’t exist unless parents want their children to attend them 

One of the best features of charter schools is that they don’t exist unless parents choose them. No one is assigned to a charter school.

So what are we to make of this data where families in living in poverty are choosing schools with positive test scores impacts and middle class families are choosing schools with negative test score impacts?

I think the starting point should be to assume that families, on average, are in a better position to make an informed choice than government is.

Remember, government’s default assignment algorithm is to look at your family’s address and then assign your child to the nearest school. It’s not very nuanced!

My guess is that parent choice will outperform geographic assignment when it comes to finding great fits between kids and schools.

But I do think we should be open to the idea that parents, sometimes en masse, can make mistakes. And, at times, this can warrant government intervention.

Sometimes performance might be an indicator, such as when families keep sending their children to high schools with below 40% graduation rates and /or schools with extremely negative value-add scores. If less than half the kids are graduating, and those that do are barely literate, government should step in.

Sometimes lack of alignment with our nation’s professed values might be an indicator: certain public schools have at times been captured by groups, sometimes religious, that do not teach basic democratic values.

In these cases of significant performance or culture malfeasance, government should consider intervention, ideally by handing over management of the school to a non-profit organization that can achieve better results.

I don’t know enough about individual school performance to know if what’s happening in California with middle class families equates to education malfeasance, but I’m a bit skeptical.

My hunch is that once absolute test score levels surpass a certain floor (as they tend to in middle class schools), families just care a lot about other factors.

Even if I might make a different choice, I don’t know that the situation warrants government intervention.

When government should not intervene 

While it’s difficult to decide when government should intervene, it’s still pretty clear to me when government should not intervene.

When schools have both high demand and high test score impacts with students living in poverty, government should not prevent these schools from serving more students!

California should follow this common sense policy.

Unfortunately, too many school districts do not.

SaveSave

SaveSave

What do test scores tell us about schools?

Collin Hitt, Michael Q. McShane, and Patrick J. Wolf just published a report on the connection (or lack of connection) between test scores and long-term outcomes.

They looked at a bunch of school choices studies and tried to see if a school’s impact on student test scores was connected to its impact on student life outcomes.

Their conclusion: “at least for school choice programs, there is a weak relationship between impacts on test scores and later-life outcomes.”

Much of our K12 education policy is predicated on the idea that test scores are an important measure of school performance. If this is not true, behavior should change.

The Laura and John Arnold Foundation is currently funding more research on this question, and I’m eager to see what we find, especially with regards to income gains over time. This study was predicated on high school and college attainment being an indicator of long-term outcomes, but schooling isn’t always learning. So we should be careful judging school performance based on later school attainment, rather than income (or other measures).

But for now, here’s what’s on my mind after reading the study.

What do bad test score results tell us?

If I’m reading their report correctly (and I hope the authors correct me if I’m not), it seems rare that schools have a negative impact on test scores but a positive impact on long-term outcomes.

In the 126 study comparisons where test scores impacts were compared to high school or college outcomes, there were only 2 instances where a study found a significant negative impact on test scores and a significant positive impact on life outcomes.

It seems rare for a school to do really poorly on test scores but really great on life outcomes. I think the authors underemphasize this point in their paper.

What do mediocre test scores tell us?

It is much more common for schools to have a neutral (insignificant) impact on test scores but a significant positive impact on long-term outcomes. It looks like this occurred 32 times in the research review.

There may be a bunch of schools that don’t really impact test scores but are doing something that helps with long-term outcomes.

What do great test scores tell us?

There are no cases where a study found significantly positive test scores and significantly negative life outcomes.

So it seems rare for schools to jack up test scores but ruin kids lives. That’s good.

However, there were 17 instances of studies finding positive impact on test scores but neutral impacts on long-term outcomes.

So there seem to be some schools that are achieving good test results without translating these into great long-term outcomes.

How should this research affect regulation and philanthropy?

If these results hold, I think I will maintain my belief that we should replace schools with persistent very negative test scores. There appears to be little risk that these schools are really amazing schools. The negative test scores are a useful signal.

Yes, there might be other schools that are just as bad at life outcomes that are not closed because they achieve better test scores, but so long as we are closing schools that are not delivering great life outcomes, and opening schools that have a better chance of achieving great life outcomes, this seems like a worthwhile tradeoff.

But when it comes to expanding schools, if this research holds, I will rely less on positive test scores, and I think authorizers should do the same.

From an authorizer perspective, so long as a school does not have significantly negative test scores, perhaps the school should be able to expand so long as there is parent demand.

Philanthropy may also need to adjust by investing more heavily in school operators that show a positive impact on life outcomes (irregardless of test scores), and being willing to fund mediocre test score schools who either have high parent demand or who are using practices that are correlated with positive long-term outcomes (more research needed to determine what these might be).

I am very open to moving in this direction if research warrants it. The idea that it’s easier to tell a bad school than it is to identify a great school already matches my intuition, and deferring to parent judgment makes a lot of sense if we are not confident in our analysis of performance.

Is Nashville Progressive?

Nashville is a thriving city with an amazing culture and a booming economy.

It’s also a progressive city in a very red state.

Given the progressive value of supporting  public education, my hope was that this progressive city would be delivering a great public education to its children.

But, after digging into the data, it’s clear that Nashville’s public education system is not giving kids a great education, especially African-American and Latino children.

This is troubling for the future of the city, as it means that a whole generation of Nashville children may be locked out from benefiting from the city’s growing economy.

A Divided City

 The last few school board elections in Nashville have been contentious. Public charter schools were at the heart of the electoral fights, with some officials calling for a moratorium on charter school growth.

The supporters of the charter school moratorium made two arguments: the charter schools are not as good as people say they are, and if the charters schools expanded they would hurt the education of students in the traditional public schools.

Both of these claims deserve some attention.

Are the Public Charter Schools in Nashville Good Public Schools?

One of the best way to understand the quality of a school is to measure how much a student increases her learning by attending that school. Tennessee measures this impact on student learning by calculating a value-added score for each school. A score of 5 is really good, a score of 1 is pretty bad.*

Here’s the score for every public school in Nashville that received a composite value-added score and does not have an academic entrance requirement.** Charter schools are represented by the green bars, traditional schools by the blue bars.

Screen Shot 2018-03-18 at 8.49.11 AM.png

The results are stunning:

56% of public schools in Nashville that received a rating received the state’s lowest rating. 

Of the 73 public schools that received a state rating, 41 of them received a “1.” Elementary schools don’t receive composite state ratings, so this is mostly a reflection of middle and high school performance. Nashville may be a booming city, but the city’s public schools are providing a poor public education to the majority of the city’s public school students.

90% of the 41 schools that received the lowest performance rating are traditional schools.

41 schools received the lowest rating. 37 of them are traditional public schools. Nearly all of the lowest performing schools are traditional schools. The traditional school sector is in vast need of improvement.

89% of the 19 schools that received the state’s highest rating are public charter schools. 

19 schools received a top tier rating. 17 of those are public charter schools.

And these charter schools aren’t outliers. 74% of charter schools in the city received a top tier rating. Only 4% of traditional schools received a top tier rating.

Nashville’s public charter school sector may be amongst the best in the country. The educators in these schools are accomplishing amazing things.

The traditional schools, on the other hand, are really struggling. Too many kids in Nashville are getting a subpar education.

Would it be Progressive to Allow Public Charter Schools to Grow?

Chidren who attend charter schools in Nashville learn a lot more than children who attend traditional schools. It follows that the progressive thing to do is to allow more children to attend these schools.

However, if expanding these schools hurts the existing traditional schools, there might be a trade-off between growing these schools and improving existing schools.

Fortunately, research can help us answer this dilemma. Journalist Matt Barnum accurately summarizes the research:

“Charter schools are unlikely to have significant negative effects on student achievement in traditional public schools — and may, in fact, have small positive effects on nearby schools. At the same time, there is research indicating that charters may in fact harm school district finances.”

If anything, public charter schools tend to increase the academic performance of students in traditional public, likely due to increased competition.

That being said, it’s undeniable that when the traditional system loses students, it also loses money. Given that this does not lead to a drop student achievement, it’s unclear to me that this issue needs to be solved. However, in cases of rapid charter school growth, the state might consider giving the local district some transition aid.

But the bottom line is that expanding high-performing public charter schools can increase the academic performance of students in both charter and traditional public schools.

It’s hard to get more progressive that.

Here’s hoping that Nashville’s progressive leaders do the right thing over the coming decade: they should allow great public schools to serve more children.

 

 

*See below for TN description of each level of performance:

Screen Shot 2018-02-15 at 8.34.13 AM

** I excluded the following schools for having selective requirements: Martin Luther King, Jr. Magnet High School, Hume-Fogg Magnet High School, Meigs Magnet Middle School, and Middle College High School. If I got this wrong, let me know!

SaveSave

A Crisis Reveals the Obvious in Washington D.C.

The Washington D.C. public school system (DCPS) has been rocked by crisis over the past year.

First, came the suspension scandal. DCPS schools were lowering their official suspension rates by simply not recording when students were suspended.

Then came the high school graduation scandal. An investigative report showed that at a single school over 30% of the graduates received a high school diploma in violation of district policy. With more honest record keeping, it looks like overall district graduation rates might drop over 10 percentage points, if not more.

Then came the enrollment scandal. An investigative report found that the superintendent, Antwan Wilson, had violated the district’s enrollment policy when enrolling his own daughter in highly sought after school.

Despite these three crises, I don’t think anyone should wave their hands and say nothing good has happened in DCPS over the past 15 years. Things have improved. The gains the city made in NAEP do appear to be real and significant (the Laura and John Arnold Foundation is funding a research study to further examine this question).

But there were always two fatal flaws to the DCPS approach.

The first flaw is that it was obvious that DCPS was never going to be able to turnaround its struggling schools.

The second flaw is that it was obvious that the district was not going to be able to handle leadership succession.

Both of these fatal flaws having nothing to do with any individual leaders in DCPS. Rather, both have to do with the structure DCPS itself.

As I wrote back in 2015, if you don’t fix the structure of DCPS, you’ll never be able to fix DCPS.

The Most Damning Chart on Struggling Schools in Washington D.C.

Recently, I worked with some colleagues to apply the local charter school accountability system to DCPS schools, as we thought the charter system was more rigorous than the DCPS’s system. Here’s what we found for grades pre-K to eight (where publicly available data allows for reasonable apples to apples comparisons).

Screen Shot 2018-03-12 at 5.53.15 PM

There is a stark difference in the number of children attending Tier 3 schools ( the lowest performing schools) in each sector.

DCPS still has nearly 8,000 students stuck in failing prek-8 schools, despite over 10 years of reform leadership.

The charter sector, on the other hand, has replaced nearly all of its struggling schools with much better schools, having closed or replaced over 21 schools since 2012.

The reason for this is simple and obvious: it’s very hard to turnaround yourself.

The DC Public Charter School Board oversees, but does not operate, the non-profit public schools under its jurisdiction. DCPS, on the other hand, both oversees and operates its own schools.

The structure of the charters system in DC makes it easier to to replace struggling schools with better ones. The structure of DCPS does not.

Political Leaders are Selected for Political Reasons Under Political Circumstances 

The DCPS approach, which consolidates power in a central bureaucracy, relies heavily on strong Chancellor leadership. Leadership is of course important to all organizations: charter school organizations also lean on great leaders.

But there is a difference between how DCPS and charter organizations pick their leaders. The DCPS leadership transitions run through a political process, while charter leadership transitions run through a non-profit board process.

This is why it is often so hard for districts to manage superintendent transitions: it’s rare that a single superintendent lasts numerous political cycles, and it is even rarer that multiple superintendents in a row will share a common strategic vision.

Non-profit boards have it easier. While they are not immune from horse trading and politics, their boards of directors are not elected and are less subject to acute external political pressures.

The charter sector is also composed of dozens of non-profit boards. So even if one leadership succession goes badly, the whole public school system won’t suffer.

Am I surprised that DCPS has had three superintendents in two years? No, the history of urban public school systems made this an obvious eventual outcome.

Creating a Stable, Community Driven Public School System 

Fortunately, Washington D.C. is better positioned than most cities when it comes creating an amazing public education system.

Over the past fifteen years, the city has been home to both improving traditional and public charter sectors.

Moving forward, it should take the best of what the city has seen in both sectors and unify this under one public system.

From the charter sector, the city should take the idea that schools do best when they are operated by non-profit organizations, and, when a school struggles, the best thing to do is to let another non-profit school try and operate the school.

Innovative governance models with real accountability can be applied to traditional public schools. Both Denver and Indianapolis already allow traditional public schools to build non-profit boards that are held accountable through performance contracts.

From the traditional sector, the city should take the idea that Washington D.C. residents value neighborhood schools and expanded pre-k; two areas where the district has made great strides. Giving every public school a non-profit board does not mean every school needs to be a full open-enrollment charter school. Neighborhood schools and community  based early learning centers should be part of the fabric of the pubic school system.

Non-profit public schools can make DCPS better. They can give great educators more autonomy. They can create more accountability within the system. And they are best set-up to manage tough leadership successions.

SaveSave

The Case Against My Own Education

Bryan Caplan just released a new book: The Case Against Education: Why the Education System is a Waste of Time and Money.

Instead of a doing a regular review of Bryan’s book, I thought I’d do a little introspection. Bryan’s argument is that education is a major waste of time and money.

Does this hold true for parts of my own education? If so, which parts?

Pre-K: Not wasteful!

My formal education started at a Montessori pre-k. It’s a little difficult to use introspection to determine whether this was a waste of time and money, as I don’t remember much about pre-k. I do have a vague memory of being confused most of the time. I didn’t understand what I was supposed to do there. But perhaps this is the point of Montessori. I don’t know.

But I don’t view this as a waste of time (what else was I supposed to do at the age of 3?) or a waste of money (the pre-k was not that fancy so I assume it was priced just a bit above the cost of babysitting). So seems like a decent use of mine and my parent’s resources. It allowed me to be confused in a safe environment and it allowed my parents to work.

Elementary School: Not wasteful!

At Parkview Elementary, I learned to read and write and do math, which have all been very useful in my life. Me being at school also allowed my parents to work, which provided our family with a home, food, and the comforts of a middle class lifestyle, which made for a happy childhood. If I had not been at school, I can’t really think of many productive uses of my time, so I don’t see many trade-offs in having attended Parkview Elementary. The combination of the school teaching me the basics and providing cost-effective babysitting (Indiana is not an extravagant spender on elementary schools) seem well worth the time and money.

Middle School: Not wasteful! 

At Ben Franklin Middle School, I honed my basic writing and math skills, as well as picked up some basic science and social studies, which probably helped ground me in the modern / liberal world order (science, democracy, etc.). I also was put in an orderly environment which helped prepare me for a society that values conscientiousness, agreeableness, and the maintenance of civilized social coalitions. If I had not been a school, I suppose I could have worked in nearby farms (labor laws permitting), which would have also reinforced conscientiousness, but probably have been lacking in math, writing, and more advanced form of social coalition building. I don’t think I was prepared to work at the types of firms that would have developed my professional skills, nor do I think that most firms would have found it cost effective to teach me math and writing, which would have been hard to teach myself.

Early High School: Not sure 

9th and 10th grade at Valparaiso High School were also good educational  years: I learned Algebra (which I still use) and further practiced writing, with an additional emphasis on research (which I still use).

However, at this age there were some real trade-offs in going to school. By the age of 14, I could have started contributing to companies at a rate that would have been worth paying me a minimum wage (if not more!) for roles that would have both helped the company and helped me build a lot skills. This is probably true at free market rates, and definitely true if the government took some of the money they were spending on me in education and used it subsidize employers paying my wages.

On average, I think you learn more about how to succeed in skilled jobs rather than in school, so I imagine I would have picked up a lot of useful soft and hard skills (goal setting, data analysis, project management, giving and receiving feedback, etc.) that I didn’t really pick up at school. And while I doubt most employers would have taught me Algebra, I imagine I could have taught myself in the future if the job required it.

So this feels like a toss up: I was learning things in schools that have helped me, but I also could have learned a lot by working at interesting jobs.

Late High School: Waste of time and money!

Most subjects I learned in high school (advanced math, science, literature, etc.) have been of very little use to me in life. Of course, I didn’t know what I would end up doing for a career at the time, but taking a bunch of advanced coursework seems like a pretty inefficient way to keep doors open for a wide breadth of future careers. For the most part, given my strong foundation in reading and math, I could have learned many subjects down the road if my chosen career had required it.

Probably 90% of what I learned in late high school I’ve forgotten and don’t really use.

I do think going straight to the work force would have been a much better education than school, but I worry a bit about making career decisions at such a young age. But a bunch of 3-12 months internships / travel experiences / short-term jobs likely would have been much better than learning Calculus, both terms of intellectual and social development.

Had I been working, I would have become a better person (in all senses of the word) faster.

College: Complete waste of money!

I was an English major at Tulane. I learned very little. Writing papers about novels is not a very transferable skill; the courses weren’t that rigorous; and most of the good novels I read I probably would have read eventually throughout my lifetime. I would have learned so much more (and been happier) had I been working at a few great companies over this time.

People also always argue that college is a time for intellectual exploration, but I don’t buy that. Life is a time for intellectual exploration, and you either enjoy being curious or you don’t. Even if I had been working, I would have still read a ton and had a bunch of great conversations, which probably would have allowed me to explore more topics at deeper levels than I did at Tulane.

1st Year of Law School: Not wasteful!

The first year at Yale Law School is basically a one year bootcamp in a mental model (how lawyers think) and logic (outline the arguments of legal cases). Even though I don’t practice law, both of these things have been helpful to me. I’m a big believer that mastering professional mindsets (lawyer, entrepreneur, teacher, VC, etc.) helps you solve a diverse set of problems as you move up in your career, and I do think that logically ordering arguments is a generalizable skill in the modern day workforce.

I sometimes wonder if schooling from ages 16 to 20 should alternate between internships and 3-6 months of curriculum from a variety of graduate degrees that provide useful mental frameworks. This would also be a great way to meet a lot of interesting people.

2nd and 3rd Years of Law School: Wasteful

I just got deeper and deeper into a knowledge base that I never use.

In Sum

My personal experience has been that school was really valuable until about 10th grade, and then, save for the first year of law school, was pretty wasteful relative to what I could have learned in a bunch of internships and jobs.

Of course, what is true for me might not be true for others.

One last point: from a policy perspective, I do think that grades K-10 are very important for both individuals and society, and I’m grateful to be working at a job that is trying to make that experience more pleasant and productive for millions of children.

Did a federal grant to turnaround failing schools in New Orleans and Tennessee work?

Back when I worked at New Schools for New Orleans, we applied for a $30m federal grant to turnaround failing schools in New Orleans and scale the model to Tennessee.

CREDO just came out with a research study on our efforts. Their findings, and my analysis, are below.

The New Schools Were Much Better than the Ones They Replaced 

Here’s what CREDO found when they compared the schools we created to the schools we replaced:

In New Orleans, we replaced schools (“closing schools”) that were at 26th percentile in the state with new schools (“CRM schools”) that performed at the ~33rd percentile in the state at the end of the study.

In Tennessee, schools went from the ~17th percentile to the ~23rd percentile by the end of the study.

To quote the CREDO report: “the CRM schools in both New Orleans and Tennessee showed significantly higher academic growth compared to the Closing schools they replaced.”

Translated into days of learning, these are large effects: “Closing school students experience 63 fewer days of learning in reading and 86 fewer days of learning in math when compared to students in non-CRM schools… students in CRM schools make comparable academic growth to non-CRM students.”

The New Schools Performed About the Same as Other Schools in the City

When CREDO compared the new schools to other existing schools (rather than the failing schools they replaced), they found no statistically significant effects:

Screen Shot 2018-02-15 at 12.07.57 PM.png

In other words, the new schools that replaced the failing schools performed no better or worse than other existing schools in the city.

On one hand, this is disappointing. Our most ambitious targets included having the new schools be amongst the highest performing schools in the city.

On the other hand, this is still a major improvement: the new schools replaced failing schools and ended up achieving at the same level of most other schools in the city.

Building a System that Keeps Getting Better 

Replacing failing schools with new schools is a process, not a one-time intervention.

Ideally, a subset of the schools you created will do really well, and then, overtime, these schools will continue to grow. The ones that don’t do well will not be supported to do additional turnarounds.

Over the long-haul, gradually increasing the number and scale of high-quality school operators is more important than the average effect of the first wave of replacements.

Here’s what CREDO found across the new schools when they compared them to existing schools:

Screen Shot 2018-02-15 at 12.11.36 PM.pngIn New Orleans, 50% of the new schools had positive effects in both Math and Reading. This is really positive: half of our turnaround schools in New Orleans achieved significantly better results than existing schools across the city.

In Tennessee, only one school had positive effects in both Math and Reading, though a few other schools had positive effects in only reading.

This makes me optimistic that the school operator base in New Orleans will continue to have the capacity to replace more failing schools over time.

The early results in Tennessee are a bit more worrying on the operator quality front, and the next few years will be extremely important in ensuring that a healthy operator base emerges.

Lastly: CREDO found that replacing failing schools with fresh start schools (that opened one grade at a time) had a higher success rate than whole school turnarounds. My takeaway here is that you need a mature operator base to do a lot of whole school turnarounds, and no city had enough capacity to really do whole school at scale. In hindsight, we should have done more fresh starts and less whole school turnarounds.

Was the Effort a Success?

At the outset of the project, I remember debating with our research partners at CREDO about how to set-up the evaluation.

I argued that we should ultimately be judged on whether or not the new schools we created were better than the failing schools we replaced.

I didn’t think we should be primarily judged on whether or not the new schools were better than other existing schools that weren’t failing.

Yes, we did include language in the grant application that had goals of schools performing much better than existing schools. And as we executed the project we tried to pick school operators that we thought could deliver top tier results. Our highest aspirations weren’t met. This is disappointing, but it does not mean the project was a failure.

Rather, I consider the project to be a positive step forward in improving public education in these cities.

Making Things Better

The result of the project strikes at the heart of what’s so difficult about education reform: our aspirations for our most at-risk children are incredibly high, but making progress in creating better educational opportunities is very difficult.

In roughly a five year period, we replaced failing schools with new schools that were on average 7 percentile points higher in state performance, which translates to an extra 60-90 days of learning per year.

If the process of opening and replacement continues, what is a modest success right now may eventually become a great success.

I hope that this occurs and that New Orleans continues on its impressive track record of increasing student achievement. As a reminder, the federal grant was just one piece of an overall effort that has radically reduced failing schools in the city:

Screen Shot 2018-02-20 at 5.47.30 PM

SaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSave

How should CEOs handle what society demands?

As I get older, my illusion of control weakens.

This is generally a good thing: the more I acknowledge that I can’t change much of the world, the more focus I have on the few areas where I might actually do some good.

For me, this means less time reading the news and more time on work and personal community.

But even within areas of some control, such as work, there are a lot of limits.

One of those limits is how, as a leader, to deal with what society demands.

Society Makes Demands 

I recently had dinner with No Excuses charter founder, and he was describing how his school’s attempts to implement restorative justice have been a train wreck. After two years of cultural decline, the school is now just getting back to having a culture of high expectations that helps children learn.

I don’t know whether his was because of poor implementation or actual serious flaws in the restorative justice model itself. But I do know that there was a lot of pressure for the school to adopt the restorative justice model.

So let’s put aside the idea of whether or not restorative justice is a good cultural model for a school  – rather, let’s consider the larger question: what should a CEO do when society demands something they disagree with?

In this case, liberal society (from which most No Excuses teachers come from) is increasingly demanding a more progressive school culture, with a lot of young white teachers reacting negatively to having to manage (what feels like to them) overly authoritarian cultures for black children.

For the sake of argument, let’s say you’re the CEO of a charter organization and you disagree with what society is demanding. What should do?

Bend or Stay Firm?

What if you think that restorative justice will lead to a decline in culture that hurts children’s lives? What do you do?

This is a very difficult question.

If you stay firm, you might lose the talent pipelines that had made you so successful in the first place. Or you might lose a communications battle that significantly reduces family demand for you school.

In other words, even if you think what society is demanding is wrong, it might still make sense to bend to society’s demands and just try to mitigate the negative impacts.

In this case, you’re basically trying to ride it out. Society’s demands constantly change – and you just have to hope that this moment in time will pass – and you can course correct in the future.

On the other hand, it might be the case that if you stay firm you will prove society wrong: when everyone else’s results plummet, you’ll be knocking it out of the park.

There are never any easy answers when you disagree with what society demands.

Some Advice 

 

Too often, CEOs make the mistake that society, having made its demand, is now willing to hear the CEO’s response.

By the time society has made its demands, it’s usually not in a contemplative mood.

So here’s some advice:

Consider bending: The best course of action is often to bend to society in a way that keeps your organization afloat and lets you live to fight another day.

Have a values conversation: If you decide this is a place where you really need to make a stand, the default position should be to always engage society in a values conversation, not a strategy conversation. Society doesn’t make demands about operations and strategies, it makes demands about values and tribal affiliations. If you’re going to try and convince society you’re right, you need to win on values.

Make sure your team is with you: If you’re making a values argument, you’ll get clobbered if a bunch of people internal to your organization say that they disagree with your values – or provide reporters with a bunch of examples of how you’ve violated the values you’re now professing to hold.

To the extent I’ve had to push back on society’s demands (keep neighborhood schools, don’t close schools), I’ve always tried to do it in a values based way. And I’ve always tried to surround myself with people who share these values. And, at times, I’ve bended: such as supporting enrollment systems that give a partial neighborhood preference to families… and respecting the demands of people who hold different values than I do.