During the pandemic, I was invited to give a presentation to the Vermont State Board of Education after proposing a plan I called “The Network Schools Model,” which is based on the assumption that the model used for schooling today — age-based cohorts, large group instruction, the agrarian calendar and a six-hour school day — is obsolete.
The Network School Model takes advantage of the flexible instruction afforded by technology. The optimal way to teach someone is by tutoring. Tutors fully engage students by matching their instruction to each student’s ability level, interests and unique way of learning. The notion of providing a tutor for each student was inconceivable before students had access to the vast array of free online video instruction that emerged in the past decade and before the widespread use of video-conferencing. With the availability of these resources, it is possible to implement a student-centered and -driven model for schooling that’s based on the assumption that each child is naturally curious and capable of attaining the skills needed to become a self-disciplined learner. Such a model would build on the personalized learning plans, flexible pathways, and proficiency-based assessments already launched in Vermont. To ensure that students’ attention is directed on coursework and that they are progressing at a pace that requires an appropriate challenge level, teachers would serve as learning coaches, working with students on their strengthening their intellects the same way an athletic trainer works to develop one’s physique.
In the network model, existing school buildings become Network Education Centers (NEC) that provide coordinated support services for each child. The community schools model developed by the Institute for Educational Leadership, currently in use in several Vermont districts including the White River Valley Supervisory Union, provides a framework for NECs. Here is a description:
A community school is both a place and a set of partnerships between the school and other community resources. Its integrated focus on academics, health and social services, youth and community development and community engagement leads to improved student learning, stronger families and healthier communities. Community schools offer a personalized curriculum that emphasizes real-world learning and community problem-solving. Schools become centers of the community and are open to everyone — all day, every day, evenings and weekends.
Using public schools as hubs, community schools bring together many partners to offer a range of supports and opportunities to children, youth, families and communities. Partners work to achieve these results: Children are ready to enter school; students attend school consistently; students are actively involved in learning and their community; families are increasingly involved with their children’s education; schools are engaged with families and communities; students succeed academically; students are healthy — physically, socially, and emotionally; students live and learn in a safe, supportive and stable environment, and communities are desirable places to live.
Most people think of schools today as serving a single purpose: a binary, analog-system of delivery — teachers teach and students learn. Community schools are more akin to smart devices. Schools and communities connect, collaborate and create. Children and families have an array of supports from community partners right at their school. Communities and schools leverage their shared physical and human assets to help kids succeed.
In addition to fulfilling the objectives described above, the NEC would also serve as the year-long and before-and-after school child care facility for the community and serve as the technology resource center for students or community members who do not have ready access to the internet. Each town would define the scope of services provided in their NEC, thereby ensuring the continuation of local control in the provision of schooling and in the services needed for children to succeed.
Ideally, towns would identify ways publicly funded agencies could provide support for students, and the AoE would provide a means of facilitating collaboration among those agencies to provide the wraparound services in the NEC. The BOCES (boards of cooperative education services) model set forth in the AoE’s current plan could serve as a means of doing this.
The NEC would be especially helpful in supporting students from economically disadvantaged homes. The social services in place today to support these students are uncoordinated, sometimes duplicative, and, therefore, more costly. This lack of interagency coordination and agency-school coordination works against the ambitious expectations the public has of its schools. When teachers coordinate their efforts with social service providers serving children, they can gain a better understanding of the life circumstances of their students.
The Network School Model envisions two tiers of schools and a third tier of optional programming:
■Tier One schools, serving children from Kindergarten through early adolescence, ages 12-14, provide individualized skill instruction in reading, writing, math, science and social studies and other subjects and provide small group instruction in oral communication, social skills and the development of collaborative projects. Instruction would be teacher-directed for younger children but over time would be a hybrid of small group instruction and computer assisted instruction. Tier One schools would coordinate the wraparound services needed for special education and Section 504 students. Classes would be limited to groups of no more than 12 children per teacher and would focus on developing the skills students need to succeed at the next level: the ability to craft a personalized learning plan (PLP), to design independent studies that incorporate online learning, and to succeed in an environment where independent work is demanded. Advancement from Tier One to Tier Two would be based on a wholistic analysis by a team consisting of teachers from Tier One and Tier Two schools, the student, and his or her parents. The team would review the student’s PLP, academic preparation and readiness for the transition to the independent work expected at the Tier Two school.
■Tier Three programming would be optional for students over the age of 16, and designed to provide a means of fully realizing the potential of flexible pathways. Students in this tier would be supported in the design of a high school completion program or work-based learning program. Students enrolled in Tier Three programming will work under the guidance of an advisor who can help prepare them for enrollment in a traditional college and/or link them with various trade unions, employers and vocational and proprietary schools that offer licensure needed to qualify them for work in a particular field. In addition to focusing on the transition from public schools and higher education institutions, the NEC model provides support for transitioning to the workplace.
The Network School Model emphasizes student agency and places a premium on fewer and smoother transitions between the levels of schooling and between schooling and adulthood. It also places a premium on students working collaboratively in small groups, connecting with the communities where they live, and using technology to advance and pace their learning. Most crucially, the Network Education Centers also provide wraparound services by offering coordinated services including childcare, health providers, and social workers.
We currently provide schooling for children using a model developed in the 1920s. The world has changed in the past century. The Network School framework is one idea to transform public schooling. I am certain there are others. To explore them, however, policymakers should focus on what children need today, not the tax rates.
Wayne Gersen is a retired public school administrator. He lives in Etna.