In the first two parts of this series, we tackled the issues with the federal Department of Education, state DOEs, school boards, and districts. Now, we get to the heart of the system, individual schools, their leadership, and the teachers within them. This is where policy meets practice, where students feel the direct impact of decisions made at every level above them. It is also where resistance to meaningful change is strongest.
School Leadership: The Gatekeepers of Progress or Stagnation.
School principals and administrators set the tone for a school’s culture. Unfortunately, far too many are either too afraid to rock the boat or are deeply embedded in the very system that keeps education from evolving. They serve as enforcers of district and state policies, often prioritizing standardized test scores, bureaucratic compliance, and maintaining the status quo over fostering real learning environments.
One glaring example is how many schools refuse to abandon ineffective disciplinary policies, choosing instead to double down on outdated punitive measures like excessive suspensions that disproportionately affect marginalized students. Research has shown that restorative justice programs reduce behavioral issues and improve school climate, yet many administrators reject these programs because they require a shift in mindset and additional effort. Instead, they default to a system of punishments that does little to address root causes.
Another common example is the resistance to flexible learning models. Many administrators block initiatives such as competency-based learning, hybrid scheduling, and micro-schooling because they do not fit neatly into the rigid structures of traditional schooling. Competency-based learning allows students to advance upon mastery rather than time spent in class, which challenges the outdated seat-time requirement. Hybrid scheduling integrates in-person and online learning, providing flexibility for students who excel in self-paced environments. Micro-schools function as small, community-driven educational hubs that personalize learning. Even when districts attempt to introduce pilot programs, school leaders often refuse to implement them fully, claiming they are too complex or that teachers are not ready for the shift. The result is that students remain locked in an outdated model that prioritizes compliance over actual learning.
For these changes to succeed, school leaders must be held accountable. States can implement transparent reporting metrics that measure how well schools adapt to innovative learning models. Independent oversight committees can ensure that funding designated for flexible learning programs is used effectively rather than squandered on administrative costs. Additionally, families must be empowered to provide feedback through community panels that have real influence over school policy.
The Professional Development Problem
Professional development (PD) for teachers is often treated as an obligation rather than an opportunity for growth. School leaders rarely put effort into designing meaningful PD sessions, leading to widespread disengagement from teachers. Many educators see PD as a waste of time because it is frequently generic, irrelevant to their specific subject or grade level, and poorly executed.
For example, it is not uncommon for an eighth-grade math teacher to sit through the same PD session as a fourth-grade ELA teacher on a topic that has no direct relevance to either of their fields, such as general science instruction. This happens because school leaders fail to differentiate PD in the same way they expect teachers to differentiate instruction for their students. Administrators default to a one-size-fits-all approach that does little to enhance the skills of individual teachers.
Moreover, school leaders rarely model differentiated instruction themselves. If differentiation is an expectation for classroom instruction, it should also be an expectation in professional development. Effective PD should be tailored, providing subject-specific training, opportunities for hands-on learning, and collaboration between educators in similar disciplines. Schools should offer teachers a choice in how they engage with professional development, whether through workshops, online courses, peer observations, or coaching. When teachers receive meaningful, subject-specific training, they are more likely to implement innovative strategies in their classrooms, ultimately benefiting students.
Subscribed
The Teacher Divide: Those Who Adapt vs. Those Who Cling to the Past.
Teachers are the backbone of the education system, but not all teachers are the selfless, hardworking individuals the public imagines. While many strive to improve, embrace new methods, and advocate for their students, there is a significant portion, primarily from an older generation, that openly resists any form of change. These are the teachers who reject technology, dismiss new educational research, and actively work against reforms that would modernize how schools operate.
A prime example of this resistance is the fight against integrating technology into the classroom. While younger educators recognize the value of interactive learning tools, personalized learning software, and AI-driven assessments, many veteran teachers insist on sticking to paper-and-pencil methods. They argue that students are already too reliant on screens, ignoring the fact that digital literacy is a necessity for modern careers. Some even go as far as refusing to use school-mandated learning management systems, making it difficult for students and parents to access assignments and resources.
Another area of pushback is differentiated instruction. Research has long supported the idea that students learn in different ways, yet some educators still insist on using one-size-fits-all teaching methods. When schools introduce professional development focused on differentiated learning strategies, it is often met with eye rolls and outright refusal. Rather than adapting to meet the needs of diverse learners, these teachers prefer to continue lecturing in the same way they have for decades, leaving many students behind.
At the same time, those who embrace change often face backlash. Teachers who experiment with new teaching styles, implement project-based learning, or advocate for student-centered instruction are frequently undermined by their peers. They may receive fewer classroom resources, be given heavier workloads, or find themselves excluded from decision-making processes. The message is clear: do not challenge the way things have always been done.
Education Needs to Reflect Regional and State Needs.
One-size-fits-all solutions do not work in a country as diverse as the United States. Different states have different educational priorities, and schools should have the flexibility to address those. Rural schools have vastly different needs from urban schools. What works in a wealthy suburb will not necessarily work in an underfunded district in a struggling city.
For example, states like Montana and Wyoming prioritize vocational and agricultural education because those industries are central to their economies. Meanwhile, states like California and New York emphasize STEM education due to the demand for tech-based careers. However, federal and state mandates often push a blanket approach to curriculum that does not take these differences into account. Instead of allowing states and local districts to shape their educational priorities based on workforce needs and cultural values, schools are forced to follow standardized policies that do not always align with the realities of their communities.
Dare to Change: Challenge the Status Quo
Real educational reform requires courage. School leaders, teachers, and policymakers must be willing to challenge outdated practices, reject ineffective traditions, and embrace change, even when it is uncomfortable. This means fostering a culture of continuous improvement, where educators are encouraged to experiment, innovate, and take risks in the pursuit of better learning outcomes.
Those who dare to change will shape the future of education. It is time to break free from stagnation and embrace a system that prioritizes students over bureaucracy.
The Way Forward
Fixing education at the school level means breaking the cycle of ineffective leadership and resistance to progress. States must take the lead in ensuring that schools are not only adaptable but also responsive to the needs of their communities. Education is not a one-size-fits-all endeavor, and policymakers must recognize that flexibility is key to ensuring all students have access to an education that truly prepares them for the future.
State-Specific Policies to Drive Change
Flexible Funding for Innovative Learning Models States can allocate funding specifically for schools to experiment with and implement flexible learning models. This could include grants for competency-based learning, hybrid models, micro-schools, and personalized learning tools that cater to the diverse needs of students. By removing the rigid constraints that stifle innovation, states can foster environments where schools are free to evolve.
Accountability for School Leadership
States should create transparent accountability systems that measure not just test scores but also the effectiveness of leadership in driving change. Schools should be evaluated on how well they are implementing new learning models, how they are adapting PD for teachers, and how they engage with their communities. This will empower families to hold administrators accountable for meaningful educational reform.
Invest in Teacher Professional Development
States must require that school leaders design meaningful PD programs for teachers. PD should be differentiated, just as teachers are expected to differentiate instruction for their students. Offering teachers a choice of how they engage with PD, through online courses, coaching, or collaborative workshops, will help ensure that professional growth aligns with the needs of the classroom.
Empowering Families Through Choice States should champion a range of educational options for families, be it through public schools, charter schools, homeschooling, or hybrid models. Rather than seeing these options as competing forces, we must view them as complementary parts of an interconnected educational system. Every family should have the opportunity to choose the education that best fits their child’s learning style, needs, and aspirations.
A Call to Action
The future of education depends on us, on the choices we make as citizens and community members. It is no longer enough to sit back and expect the system to fix itself. We must actively participate in shaping the future of education. Whether you’re a parent, a teacher, a student, or simply a concerned citizen, it is time to challenge the status quo and demand better.
Engage with your local school boards. Attend meetings. Advocate for changes that align with the needs of your community. Support policies that prioritize innovative learning, flexible options, and accountability for school leadership. And most importantly, vote for leaders who understand that education is the foundation upon which our future is built.
The power to reform education is in our hands. Together, we can build a system that works for everyone.