An expert in international education has released a study advocating for a shift to a ‘school within a school’ concept. This model empowers students, teachers, and parents to take charge of their educational journeys with greater independence and self-governance. The proposed approach mirrors how businesses and natural ecosystems evolve and thrive. This idea serves as an alternative to extensive reform attempts that have consistently failed to produce significant improvements in education for almost 200 years.
The core structure of education has scarcely changed since the 19th century, despite numerous calls and efforts for reform. A recent analysis by an education expert from the University of Kansas advocates for a fundamental shift to a “school within a school” model, drawing inspiration from ecological principles to achieve meaningful change.
The No Child Left Behind Act was a significant legislative effort in the early 2000s, claiming it would identify and improve underperforming schools for the benefit of all American students. However, similar to previous changes in textbooks, curricula, teaching methods, and technology, this initiative failed to transform education. According to Yong Zhao, Foundation Distinguished Professor of Educational Leadership & Policy Studies and Educational Psychology at KU, this attempt to reform the system was imposed from the top down. Now is the time to pursue changes on a smaller scale, concentrating on two crucial components: reducing mandated curriculum and enhancing student independence, as he discusses in a new article.
“We must recognize that the education system, as it operates in schools, has not served generations well since the 1980s and ’90s,” Zhao remarked. “There have been calls for change, but we consistently overlook them. Attempts to instigate change have often lacked significance. The main evidence of this is that each generation has not outperformed its predecessors. Furthermore, many Gen Z workers are facing job terminations due to unpreparedness for the workforce, despite holding degrees, a consequence of technology advancing faster than educational preparedness.”
The primary barrier to progress and valuable education is rigid curriculum requirements, Zhao explains. Schools enforce a curriculum that consumes most of the school day and year, extending into homework assignments outside of school. Moreover, students seldom have the freedom to select their learning topics or take charge of their educational paths.
“Are we confident that the required learning content will still be relevant in 10 or 20 years? If not, who will be held accountable?” Zhao questioned. “Students currently show a lack of engagement with school. If we want students to be satisfied, shouldn’t they have a stake in what they learn?”
Artificial intelligence holds promising possibilities for education. Zhao, along with Ruojun Zhong, president of YEE Education, argues that both technology and nature can inspire frameworks for enacting meaningful educational changes.
Their findings are featured in the journal ECNU Review of Education.
New technologies often benefit from early adopters who test them first. If successful, the technology gains traction and can become ubiquitous. Zhao cites the example of the iPhone. Neither Apple nor the government forced everyone to buy one; its success led to widespread adoption, including in classrooms. In contrast, the approach taken by U.S. education systems—mandating schools to implement new methods at a systemic level—seems almost absurd when compared to the natural adoption processes of technology.
Change in schools often meets resistance from various groups, including teachers, administrators, parents, and even students. Instead of imposing change, Zhao and Zhong suggest a “school within a school” model. This framework would provide interested students and parents the opportunity to participate in a setting where they can choose their learning topics and set personalized educational goals, with support from professional educators.
“In any school, I’m sure there are students and parents eager for a new approach,” Zhao said. “Education has a tendency to push for universal change, even when the significance of that change is unclear. Imposing change fosters resistance. This alternative approach is more organic and reflective of natural processes.”
The authors reference panarchy theory to support the school within a school concept. This theory suggests that a decentralized hierarchy, where influence is distributed equally, may lead to greater effectiveness than traditional top-down structures. They illustrate this with examples from nature, where ecosystems can be resilient but slow to evolve. Successful species adapt gradually rather than through sudden changes.
Ultimately, Zhao and Zhong advocate for a cautious approach that introduces incremental innovations, with the potential to influence widespread changes in education, promoting greater student freedom and a less restrictive curriculum. They also highlight examples from schools in China, Australia, and the U.S. that have implemented this model, achieving higher student engagement and success, as students uncover their individual strengths, learn to tackle meaningful problems, and connect with learners globally through technology.
“If change occurs at one level, it can cascade up or influence other levels,” Zhao stated, regarding an ecological, panarchy-inspired view on school reform. “Certain ecosystems are highly resilient but lack adaptability. Education has shown resilience but is plagued by too many controls, hindering transformation. We propose that small-scale innovations can ripple through the entire system.”
