The Hechinger Report is a national nonprofit newsroom that reports on one topic: education. Sign up for our weekly newsletters to get stories like this delivered directly to your inbox.

Editor’s note: This story led off this week’s Future of Learning newsletter, which is delivered free to subscribers’ inboxes every other Wednesday with trends and top stories about education innovation. Subscribe today!

In 2020, as the pandemic, polarization and racial justice uprisings upended the status quo, calls to use the moment to build a better education system to address the country’s inequities became ubiquitous. In the two years since, that will to reinvent has largely dissipated.

Frustrated at seeing so many people fall back into the old ways of schooling, Michael B. Horn, author and co-founder of the Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation, created a blueprint for schools and educators to reinvent the current education system, despite the challenges. “I wanted to give a template for how they could escape it and what they can do instead,” Horn said.

Early in the pandemic, Horn and Diane Tavenner, co-founder and CEO of Summit Public Schools, created a podcast, “Class Disrupted,” to help parents and educators navigate teaching and learning during the crisis. This year, he took that project a step further with the book “From Reopen to Reinvent: (Re)Creating School for Every Child,” which was published in July.

Horn and I spoke last week about his book and how we can “recreate” our education system to better serve all students. This interview has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.

Javeria: What inspired you to take what you were doing on the podcast and write down those theories into this book?

Michael: We were getting a lot of questions from parents: “Why does school work this way? How should we educate our kids now that they’re home?” And we felt it was a great opportunity to try to help them peel back the curtain a little bit further on schools, why they work this way, but also for them and teachers to see that it doesn’t have to be this way, there are better ways to actually unlock each student’s potential. And so, we did that podcast … As we kept doing it, I felt like, gosh, I’ve got to put this in one place so that educators hopefully will actually design and build something better that really unlocks each student’s potential.

Author Michael B. Horn argues for using pandemic lessons to recreate traditional ways of schooling in his new book, “From Reopen to Reinvent: (Re)Creating School for Every Child.” Credit: Courtesy of Michael B. Horn.

J: In the book, you talk about how the school system we currently have isn’t built for any student to really succeed? Can you explain your argument?

M: Before the pandemic, a lot of people just sort of said or assumed it worked for the haves in our society and not the have nots. But the pandemic, I think, showed how broken it was for people from all walks of life. And then the more people have thought about it, they realize, hey, actually, I’m not sure it’s been working fully for anyone in our society.

The big idea in the book is that we really have been trapped in this zero-sum system where we’ve assumed that for every winner there must be a loser. And either the haves are consciously playing “the game of schooling” or the have nots don’t know the game of schooling and are being left out. Either way, the game of schooling is distracting from the real purpose, which is to prepare our students to be living in such a complex world as adults when they graduate. And for that, we need a positive-sum system that escapes this zero-sum mindset and allows people to really figure out who are they and develop their specific mix of passionate potential.

J: In the book, you talk about schools needing to build a positive-sum education system. What’s the difference between the zero-sum system and the positive-sum system?

M: A big one is moving to mastery-based learning instead of the current time-based system. In a time-based system, we teach the topic and we move on to the next regardless of a student’s results on the tests. So, some students fall further and further behind and other students “win” and sort of learn how to play the game of school. In a mastery-based system, we say every student is going to reach mastery.

A second one that I talk about [is that] we ought to shift to a system in which teachers are not the graders of students. That they are not making these judgments about student’s capabilities, but instead can be fully devoted to being their coach and helping them figure out purpose and passion and potential. That’s a second big shift that the book proposes. There’s obviously a whole conversation about what parents are trying to prioritize and how they’ve been so acclimated to seeing school as a status game or judgment on their parenting. [A positive-sum system] tries to say, we can be part of this societal shift toward a healthier culture that isn’t judging parents or their kids, but is instead supporting both.

J: Let’s talk about parents. In the book, you make a point to address the parent experience. Can you talk about what you’ve heard from parents on what they want from schools? 

M: What the pandemic did was wipe away a sense of the status quo or have it as this thing holding you in place, and accentuated all the reasons that it might be great if you changed. Parents who are looking to help their kid escape a bad situation or parents who are looking to be part of a like-minded community or parents who were trying to develop their whole child or even parents that are saying, “Follow my plan for my kid.” They are much more aware [that] the status quo for whatever reason isn’t hitting what they needed [it to hit]. And they’re much more likely to either be verbal about their discontent or actually switch [schools]. We see that in the data, right? Of the enrollment declines of roughly 3 percent.

Author Michael B. Horn’s new book, “From Reopen to Reinvent: (Re)Creating School for Every Child” argues for using pandemic lessons to recreate traditional ways of schooling. Credit: Courtesy of Michael B. Horn.

J: What does this mean for schools and educators?

M: You have to get out of this one-size-fits-all mindset that all kids do better in brick-and-mortar learning, that all kids do better with the exact same classroom experience or all kids need the exact same lesson on the exact same day — to a system that really recognizes students and parents have different circumstances, different situations and they need different models of schooling. School districts really need to meet parents where they are with more of a portfolio mindset as opposed to a one-size-fits-all mindset.

J: In the book you share the story of two fictional students, Jeremy and Julia, to showcase how the education system treats students as parts of a group, rather than individuals. Who are the Jeremys and Julias in our current system?

M: Jeremy represents an only child of a single mom who’s working multiple minimum-wage jobs, which leaves him home alone a lot during the day and during the year. And then the other student, Julia, comes from an upper-middle class home with a lot of parental support. You might call her parents “helicopter parents” as they appear constantly in the principal’s office throughout the book. They’re archetypes to show how, throughout the book, along a variety of dimensions, school as it is, it’s just not meeting them. It’s not engaging them. It’s not helping them make progress. It’s causing them to feel like failures. It’s punishing them when they try to have fun with friends. Jeremy needs a lot more support and integration and help from the community to help them succeed. Julia — perhaps her family wants more customization, more ability to make choices. [I wanted] to try to get people to just ask questions of “Gee, like if it’s not working for Julia holy cow, who is it not working for in my school?”

J: We’ve talked about rebuilding a better education system for students and parents. In the book, you also talk about creating something that works better for teachers, especially coming out of the pandemic.

M: In the book, I argue that regardless of your take on the current teacher shortage — whether it’s a result of burnout or a result of more teacher positions — we’ve not been supporting teachers well for a long time. We’ve been ignoring the pretty clear body of research about what motivates employees as we’ve designed the teaching profession. I argue, we need to move to more team-teaching models and not models where teachers have a professional learning community that they meet with maybe once a day if they’re lucky, but where they’re actually co-teaching in these environments, and they’re able to differentiate roles. Now we can think about staffing schools very differently and allowing these educators to bounce off each other in a variety of ways.

J: In the book, you talk about how schools need to move beyond the conversation of “learning loss” that everyone was talking about during the first years of the pandemic. Can you explain?

M: I came in with that mindset that we needed to get beyond learning loss and I was surprised as I did the research, that actually it was important to frame it as learning loss upfront to motivate resources for schools, like the unprecedented federal infusion of dollars. But staying in that framing of learning loss is incredibly paralyzing, demoralizing and demotivating to students and teachers. In the book, I suggest moving away from learning loss to a framing of guaranteed mastery.

Students are setting goals; they’re planning on how they’re going to reach them. They’re learning and then they’re showing evidence of what they’ve learned. Then that informs what they do next, do they move on or do they deepen and reflect about the learning process along the way? That creates a success cycle of positivity.

J: Our education landscape will likely continue to face disruptions, whether from new variants of the coronavirus or natural disasters. What should schools be thinking about, in terms of digital technology, that will serve both students and educators better than some of the methods used during the pandemic?

M: I do hope at some point we are able to step back and do a thought experiment. If this pandemic had occurred 20 years earlier in society, we would not have had the technology to do any continuity learning. The fact that so many schools pivoted as quickly as they did is amazing and a testament to what we have today. And yet, if another natural disaster, a pandemic, something like that occurs, and we have not invested in that backbone so that we can do it way better … we’ll really be kicking ourselves because there are a lot of things that were done really poorly. But to … think that we should [not] keep that infrastructure up seems crazy to me in the current moment, with all the challenges we have in the world.

For those that are saying, “Oh, virtual learning didn’t work,” or whatnot. Well, for some students it worked better. Yeah, it’s the second option for the majority of students, no question about it, but if we have to move to that, let’s make sure we have that disaster preparedness and experienced teachers who know what they’re doing in those environments. It seems to me it’d be a mistake to walk away from all [that learning].

This story about positive-sum education was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s newsletter

The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn't mean it's free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

Join us today.

Javeria Salman is the digital news producer, and she reports and writes the Future of Learning newsletter. She covers K-12 education issues through the lens of innovation and technology, and helps manage...

Letters to the Editor

2 Letters

At The Hechinger Report, we publish thoughtful letters from readers that contribute to the ongoing discussion about the education topics we cover. Please read our guidelines for more information.

By submitting your name, you grant us permission to publish it with your letter. We will never publish your email. You must fill out all fields to submit a letter.

  1. To the Editor:

    The great American tragedy at this point in time, aside from Donald Trump, is that the Pandemic was a missed opportunity to rethink Pre-K to Grade 16 education for the first time in more than a century, What greater impetus than the exodus of 20% our students to private and parochial schools snd the workplace? But apparently, this crisis was wasted in a vain effort to return to the imagined perfection of the past when the one room elementary schoolhouse strung out as far as the eye can see was found in every neighborhood, along with the factory model comprehensive secondary school, and the collection of independent operators we call a college indenturing students for a lifetime of debt for the privilege of being trained in the image of their professors for work they will likely never do,

    Is there an American institution in greater need of reform hemorrhaging both customers snd staff? “And if not now, when?” to quote Maimonides. Who is even talking about doing this?

    As long as schools employ a lockstep approach to learning and treat students as if they are fungible, our public schools will continue to fail our children. To make matters worse, politicians in “red states” believe that cutting things from the curriculum like the teaching of slavery or gay rights is the solution along with the banning of books that violate Christian religious doctrine. Does the narrative of the “Handmaid’s Take?” seem so farfetched?

    How did we get to this place? Some years ago, a friend visited a reading class in which a student was staring out the window and daydreaming. The teacher spying the child asked, “Are you reading or thinking. Because there is no thinking allowed here!”

    How long have we discouraged thought in schools. For how long have teachers modeled that adults are incapable of learning from experience. How long has it been since our schools have become boring, mind deadening experiences that young people are taught to endure and faculty take for granted without realizing the harm they are doing to themselves and our children, let alone to the society we all inhabit.

    Who are the modern day Deweys and even Thorndikes? If they do miraculously appear in the future, will they be drummed out of the profession by frightened school boards and narrowly focused teachers unions and corrupt politicians who would rather their constituents not think too deeply about what they’re doing and not doing?

    More importantly, can we preserve a free and democratic society without teaching citizens to think, question and dream about how life can be better while providing them with the tools to make it better for themselves, our children and each other?

    Eric Nadelstern
    Former Deputy Chancellor of the New York City Public Schools and Retired Professor of Education Leadership at Teachers College
    Bronx, NY

  2. To the editor:
    Full transparency im a friend and former colleague of Eric nadelstern. While he eloquently addresses the global problem in education I prefer to focus on the micro level. I speak from a 50 year career in education as a teacher, principal, and leadership coach for principals in NYC secondary schools.
    Why don’t many of our learn ? From my view its pretty simple -most teachers in secondary schools come to work unprepared . Teachers are required to have a thoughtfully well written lesson plan. What that means has an incredibly wide expectation. Many teachers have no lesson plan at all, some cover their ass with an old lesson plan or something scribbled on scrap paper; how can their student learn. Now that’s not all teachers some actually have a well thought out lesson plan, but guess what they don’t look at it at all, so what good is it. Imagine a lawyer or an actor not referring to their notes or script. Have you ever watched a pro football game thee had coach is on the sidelines with a laminated game plan that he looks at constant, even the quarterback has something on his wrist that he looks at for each play
    So if you want to improve student learning immediately train teachers on how to write and use a lesson plan effectively and then make sure they are using them in the classroom.
    Thats one mans opinion

Submit a letter

Your email address will not be published.