Education Week - April 13, 2016 - 28

COMMENTARY

The District
Is Dead.
Long Live
The District.

By Paul Kihn
pending time in the shiny white
halls of the education reform
manse, you could be forgiven
for believing that urban school
districts are on the way out,
something garish and anachronistic-the Betamax at a digitalstreamers convention. Similarly,
time spent in the halls of many district central
administrations (and teachers' union offices)
might leave you wondering when this annoying
and ungodly charter-privatization-corporatereform fad will pass so we can all just get on
with public districts' work. Both positions miss
the point. Districts do indeed have a vital role
to play in the urban landscape of public education, but that role bears little resemblance to the
mantle of monopoly so many districts still wear,
despite reluctantly ceding so many children to
the charter sector.
If districts do indeed have the right to exist
despite what apocalyptic "relinquishers" have to
say, what is their new role? What does "district
2.0" look like in Philadelphia, where 67 percent
of the city's students are enrolled in traditional
public schools (and where I recently served as
deputy superintendent)? Or in Detroit (47 percent)? Washington (56 percent)? Newark, N.J.
(72 percent)?
There are two critical tasks for 2.0 districts:
They must become deeply specialized in some,
but not all, areas of schooling, with a steadfast
focus on academic gaps in the citywide system.
They must also become deeply porous at the
community and school levels in order to nurture
an inclusive and comprehensive citywide system.
In both areas, the district must work hard to
take full advantage in new ways of all the benefits of its size. Big is not inherently bad. A complacent monopoly culture that has settled for
failure is bad. A model of schools and schooling
that ignores new research about students and
learning is also bad. A district's size itself is neutral. Under good management that knows how
to benefit from scale, a large size can be a vehicle
for much good.
Districts as specialists, not generalists.
Districts need to be really good at the highly complex science of teaching. But districts no longer
have the resources to be good at instruction within
every school model and for every group of children,
so they must specialize. The growth of the charter
sector gives districts permission to get really good
at some things, as opposed to remaining mediocre
and stretched doing many. This specialization can
be thought of similarly to the creation of "business lines," with leaders and teams dedicated to

| INSIDE |

22 B UILDINGS,

BLOCKS,
AND EXPERIENCE

Tim Grajek for Education Week

distinct school types and student groups.
There are three areas of specialization on
which 2.0 districts need to focus, all of which
represent gaps in the existing system:
* Districts must rise to the opportunity of
reaching the hardest-to-serve students. As the
field struggles to gain a better appreciation of
toxic stress, academic deficits, and other differentiated and special needs, districts cannot
wait on others to solve these problems. Districts
remain the de facto operators of schools of last
resort; they've got to specialize here, even at the
expense of other work, if needed.
* Districts need to innovate in small ways.
Given their access to capital, their high number
of schools (and thus potential pilot sites), and
their potential to scale insights quickly, districts
are ideally situated to act as cities' education
research-and-development hubs. This is particularly the case in cities where the charter sector
is not fulfilling this promise.
* Neighborhood-preference schools should also
be an area of specialization. Yes, families want
quality choices; and yes, recent family surveys in
New Orleans and Chicago have again illustrated
that a majority of families select schools, in large
part, based on their proximity to home. Since
many jurisdictions do not allow neighborhood
preferences for charter schools, and all cities
seem a long way off from great schools in every
neighborhood, districts have an obligation to
focus on neighborhood schools, which are key to
meeting community needs, building community
partnerships, creating flexibility around student
mobility, and so on.
Districts as deeply porous. The second
major role 2.0 districts have to play situates
them as big, important partners in creating and
sustaining inclusive, collaborative, and inte-

22 YOU ARE

28 | EDUCATION WEEK | April 13, 2016 | www.edweek.org/go/commentary

WHAT YOU
TEACH

Big is not
inherently bad.
A complacent
monopoly culture
that has settled
for failure is bad."

grated citywide systems. In an era of complex
governance, increased fragmentation, and reduced budgets, districts need to be at the forefront of ensuring the most coherent possible
use of tax dollars across education sectors, city
agencies, and community-based organizations
to meet the needs of all children and reduce
duplicative and irrational waste.
This porousness relates to collaborative
system-level partnerships. Local education
agencies can cooperate to educate students on
long-term suspension or provide low-incidence
special education services. Districts can partner with health-service agencies to place social
workers in schools. They can also partner with
community colleges, nonprofits, charter providers, city employment agencies, and others
to ensure alternative graduation pathways for
all students. They can commit to so-called "universal enrollment" systems, data sharing, and
common accountability systems-all of which
can ease the work of families as they navigate
the new dual-sector public school world.
In these ways, districts need not demand
decisionmaking rights or make isolated decisions; rather, 2.0 districts can operate as good
partners and anchors for innovative, voluntary
collaborations to solve complex problems.
Porousness has another benefit. In an era of
diminishing resources, 2.0 districts must look
for the in-kind funding provided by partners to
supplement their own direct spending.
In addition to these two primary and existenPAGE 24 >

PAUL KIHN, an independent consultant, is a former
deputy superintendent of the Philadelphia public schools.
Previously, he was a classroom teacher and a partner at
the management-consulting firm McKinsey & Co.

23 H OW SHOULD

SCHOOLS PURCHASE
TECHNOLOGY
FOR THE CLASSROOM?

25 LETTERS TO
THE EDITOR

http://www.edweek.org/go/commentary

Education Week - April 13, 2016

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Education Week - April 13, 2016