At 6:50 a.m, the parent on carpool duty would set out westward toward the San Fernando Valley, often cutting the workday short to reverse the commute eight hours later. One dad even rented space at a coworking location to minimize the drive.

The destination: Portola Middle School in Tarzana, one of the Los Angeles Unified School District鈥檚 few magnet schools with a program specifically for highly gifted students. 

鈥淲e were going with traffic both ways,鈥� said Tira Franco, a mom of three who feels lucky that her now-seventh grader landed a spot in the school. But while the boys in her eight-seat minivan spent the trips quizzing each other in math, she quickly grew exhausted. 鈥淚n L.A., just five miles could take you like an hour.鈥�

Enduring gridlock on 鈥渢he 405鈥� and other major thoroughfares is part of life in the nation鈥檚 second-largest city, and it鈥檚 a price that many families are willing to pay to get their children in a preferred school. This year, the kids ride a bus as part of the district鈥檚 efforts to services. Students who attend magnets and other schools of choice in the sprawling, 700-square-mile district are among those who get priority for a ride. That means the boys get up even earlier to meet the bus. 

District leaders in recent years have tried to take some of the pain out of the process by offering choice fairs, a centralized application website and more busing options. But many still find the experience stressful, time-intensive and stacked against low-income families.

鈥淭he kids who get a better quality education in the district are the children of parents who are resourceful, who are able to navigate this very complicated formula,鈥� said Elmer Roldan, executive director of Communities in Schools Los Angeles, a dropout prevention program that serves students in 15 schools across the metro area. Children whose parents can manage that system are going to get 鈥渢he best teachers, best equipment and best experience. Unfortunately, that is not always close.鈥�

Over a third of LAUSD students participate in district choice, officials said. During this year鈥檚 , which closes Nov. 14, parents can pick from a wide range of options that include not just magnets, but dual-language programs and district charter schools. Families can also request permits to attend a school outside their zone. But that process is time-consuming, and lower-income families often lack the luxury of weeks to research school performance and plot potential routes.

found that Latino students, English learners and kids from low-income families were underrepresented in magnet programs, which were designed to create more integrated schools. White and Asian students were also overrepresented in affiliated charters 鈥� some of the highest-achieving schools in the district.聽

鈥淭here are parent groups in West L.A. that organize information sessions [on choice], but West L.A. is a relatively advantaged area,鈥� said Christopher Campos, an assistant professor of economics at the University of Chicago who has in LAUSD. The single application portal, where parents can request transportation, has made the process 鈥渁 bit easier. 鈥 still think it’s a pretty daunting task.鈥� 

鈥榁alley parents鈥�

For some parents, the process began on a clear Thursday evening in October as they searched for a parking space near a middle school in the San Fernando Valley. Inside the gates, families strolled from booth to booth on the lawn to learn about the district鈥檚 array of magnet schools. 

There鈥檚 Northridge Middle with a special lab for exploring careers in medicine, Robert Frost Middle with a gifted music conservatory and Mulholland Middle, where students in the junior police academy can study crime scene investigation, or law and government. Inside the auditorium, the Louis Armstrong Middle jazz band performed their version of the Edgar Winter Group鈥檚 鈥淔rankenstein,鈥� an instrumental rock hit from the early 1970s.

鈥淰alley parents want to stay in the valley,鈥� LAUSD Board President Scott Schmerelson said as he greeted principals and magnet school coordinators, who were busy handing out fliers, buttons and other promotional items. He paused at the display table for Nobel Charter Middle in Northridge, which features a magnet program combining STEM with the arts. 

鈥淗ere鈥檚 Nobel. Always overenrolled. Very popular.鈥�

One parent grabbed his attention to suggest organizers set up booths by regions in the valley 鈥� east, west and north. 鈥淭he valley is huge,鈥� she said.

She makes a good point, Schmerelson said.

shows that providing transportation increases the likelihood that families will take advantage of school choice, a district spokeswoman said. Officials use social media, websites and other communication channels to inform families that bus service is available. The district is 鈥渃lustering stops where demand is highest,鈥� the spokeswoman said, but leaders also 鈥渃ontinually review ridership data and feedback to explore ways we can improve access.鈥澛�

Choice options have increased in recent years as the district seeks to leaving for independent charters or private schools. There are over 330 magnet programs, compared to 217 a decade ago. Enrollment decline, which is hurting the district in many ways, has had the effect of opening up more space in many sought-after schools. Students who end up on a waiting list for their first choice are now coming off the list sooner, said Song Lee, LAUSD鈥檚 coordinator of student integration services.

But word of events like the fair don鈥檛 always reach the parents they were designed for.

鈥淚f I would have known about the fair, that would have been helpful,鈥� said Dulce Valencia, a mom of three whose twin daughters are currently part of the Spanish-English dual-language program at San Fernando Elementary School. She has to decide on a middle school for her girls and is considering charters.

Multiple options can confuse parents, Campos found when he held some information sessions regarding another district program called 鈥渮ones of choice.鈥� Instead of attending their neighborhood middle or high school, students living within one of 17 zones can choose from a menu of specialized schools with themes like global studies, performing arts or social justice.

鈥淎 lot of families thought they were showing up to a session about magnet programs,鈥� he said. 鈥淭hey actually were not interested in any of the zones of choice schools, but they were just getting overwhelmed with information.鈥� 

鈥楬ave your phone ready鈥�

Once parents secure their child a seat, they still have to figure out how to get there.

鈥淚 tell parents, 鈥楬ave your phone ready so you can map out where the school is and you can see if it’s feasible for you,鈥� 鈥� said Grace Lee, who has two young boys in the district. She also works in the office at Gault Street Elementary, her neighborhood school, and fields questions from parents about choice. 

For Lee, calculating the best routes to school in L.A. calls to mind , the uproarious 鈥淪aturday Night Live鈥� sketch where characters in exaggerated 鈥淰alley girl鈥� accents rattle off shortcuts to circumvent the ubiquitous L.A. traffic.

鈥淚f you live in L.A. you get it,鈥� Lee said. 

When her oldest son got into Oliver Wendell Holmes Middle, north of her Lake Balboa neighborhood, she applied for transportation. But the bus stop was almost as far west as the school was north. She decided it was just easier for her husband to drive him on his way to the office.

Working at a Title I school in the majority Latino district, Lee worries that many families don鈥檛 even complete the choice application. 

鈥淭he people who are in the know, their kids are already fine,鈥� she said. 鈥淭heir test scores are generally fine.鈥�

Twenty years ago, Lois Andr茅-Bechely, a professor emerita at California State University, Los Angeles, wrote in that parents with flexible schedules stood a better chance of taking advantage of public school choice in L.A. She identified transportation as one of the obstacles. 

鈥淧arents who have cars and can arrange time to drive their children to and from school will have more choice options than parents who do not have such advantages,鈥� she wrote. 

The city鈥檚 offers free bus and train passes, but some students on public buses and L.A.鈥檚 routes don鈥檛 always reach the areas they live in. A recent showed that it can take four times longer to reach a destination by train than by car.

Now retired, Andr茅-Bechely no longer conducts research. But as a grandmother, she still hears about parent鈥檚 experiences at soccer games and birthday parties. 

鈥淧arents still have to be strategic when applying to school choice programs,鈥� she said in an email. 鈥淪ome school choice issues I identified have not gone away.鈥�

For several years, philanthropies like the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation that guided parents, especially low-income families, through the school choice maze. Their efforts emphasized independent charters, but groups like Speak UP and Parent Revolution, which later folded into other nonprofits, helped LAUSD families as well.

鈥淟os Angeles used to have a robust ecosystem of nonprofits empowering parents and challenging the status quo,鈥� said Ben Austin, a former state education board member who founded Parent Revolution. During the pandemic, he pulled his children out of LAUSD and enrolled them in a charter school. When Eli Broad passed away in 2021, other funders didn鈥檛 fill the vacuum, he said. 鈥淓li was such a magnetic leader that when he died, much of the local and national education donor engagement in L.A. died along with him.鈥�

Many families researching options still rely on Facebook and other informal networks, but experience with the process doesn鈥檛 necessarily make it easier. With a fifth grader preparing for middle school, Franco, the school choice commuting veteran, is once again weighing school options.

鈥淚鈥檓 trying to get her into a great program for next year, and I still have a million questions,鈥� she said. 鈥淲hy do I have a million questions if I’ve already been through this before?鈥�

Education thrives on innovation. While core practices in education have slowly and incrementally changed over time, the innovation and creativity of teachers and administrators have facilitated improvements by modifying the organization and delivery of education. In calling for solutions, A Nation at Risk (ANAR) repeatedly called on local 鈥減olitical and educational  leaders to search for solutions鈥� and to use the 鈥渋ngenuity of our policymakers, scientists, State and local educators, and scholars in formulating solutions.鈥� Indeed, ANAR lauded the 鈥渓ocal laboratory鈥� model that decentralized schooling affords to test new models that could scale and disseminate throughout the country. This chapter takes aim at understanding how innovation in the organization and delivery of education both within and outside the classroom has affected the quality of education.  

I start by looking at large-scale initiatives that sought to modify the ways school districts orga nized themselves. For example, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation provided significant funding for the small schools or the 鈥渟chool-within-a-school鈥� initiative. The initiative sought to divide large high schools into smaller sub鈥揾igh schools that might provide a greater cohort experience and allow for greater interaction between teachers and groups of students. After reviewing small schools and other out-of-the-classroom innovations, I turn my attention to innovation within the classroom. Since ANAR, major evidence on class size and the timing of schooling, among other innovations, has influenced policy and practice. This has affected how states and local districts organize and deliver education to students inside schools and classrooms. I review evidence on these and other innovative practices. 

It is impossible to really track forty years of innovation across thousands of school districts. Many innovations were never disseminated, scaled, or evaluated. Other innovations became so popular and widespread that the editors of this series chose to dedicate entire chapters to them. For example, the rapid changes in technology with computers and the integration of standards and accountability systems are two innovations that have altered every classroom across the United States. In this series, Tom Vander Ark鈥檚 chapter on technological innovations and Michael J. Petrilli鈥檚 chapter on standards and accountability review these innovations and how they have shaped school organization, classroom practice, and teacher and principal accountability. This chapter provides a useful companion to those chapters. 

In this chapter, I focus on four sources of system innovation and two sources of classroom innovation. For system innovation, I review evidence on small schools, magnet schools, superstar superintendents, and innovation zones. For classroom innovation, I discuss evidence on class size and the duration of schooling. In choosing the specific innovations, I have conveniently sampled practices that have expanded beyond a single district or school and have thereby shaped and influenced education policy and practice. I also try to focus on innovations where rigorous research has provided some hint as to the causal impacts of these policies.  

While many of the innovations seem to have strong evidentiary bases, they remain seemingly underutilized. In some cases, the costs of the interventions remain prohibitively large. In other cases, the modifications needed to establish the interventions at scale compromise the capacity of the interventions to affect outcomes. I discuss other impediments to expansion, and more generally I discuss obstacles that inhibit the use of the 鈥渟chool laboratory鈥� model.

Systems innovations

鈥淪ystems innovation鈥� refers to new policies and practices that modify governance and the structure of school systems. The specific innovations upon which I focus are those in school organization, creation of specialized schools, school leadership, and innovation zones, which provide schools and districts latitude to implement new practices and policies.

School size and organization

Perhaps the most notable of the systemwide changes was the small schools movement. In the early 2000s, nearly twenty-six hundred small schools were created nationwide. One of the major forces behind this investment was the Gates Foundation, which began in the early 2000s to fund the decomposition of large high schools. Based on its interpretation of existing literature, the Gates Foundation encouraged schools to maintain a size of four hundred students. As Tom Vander Ark, who at that time was executive director of education at the Gates Foundation, said, 鈥淵oung people who attend smaller schools that provide a rigorous, personalized education and enable close relationships with adults are more likely to graduate and continue their education.鈥� The basic theory was that personalized education and deeper relationships with teachers would improve the quality of education and provide better role models and coaching as students began considering and then pursued subsequent education. 

Unfortunately, the short-term results did not generate the anticipated results. Over nine years, the Gates Foundation invested more than $2 billion in creating small schools, and in 2009, it 鈥渞efined鈥� its strategy. As Bill Gates wrote: 鈥淸M]any schools had higher attendance and graduation rates than their peers. While we were pleased with these improvements, we are trying to raise college-ready graduation rates, and in most cases, we fell short.鈥�

Indeed, the short-term evidence on small schools was a bit pessimistic. At the time that Gates was making allocative decisions, the evidence was not strong. However, the tide of positive evidence was soon to come. Studies by Bloom et al., Schwartz et al., Barrow et al., and Abdulkadiro臒lu et al. found positive, long-run impacts. The study by Abdulkadiro臒lu et al., the only one that took advantage of randomized admis sion lotteries, reported that college attendance rates in New York improved by seven per centage points, with additional improvements in math and English scores on the state鈥檚 High School Regents Examinations. Additional work by Schwartz et al. argued that small schools improved the performance of most New York high schools, including schools that were not small schools. 

Yet despite the positive, long-run evidence on small schools, they are no longer receiving the same public and philanthropic support they did in the past. Strong evidence has not revitalized the initiative or the funding streams. While existing small schools have remained, few additional small schools have been added. Why the lack of continued or renewed support? 

First, there was a perception that lessons could be applied and scaled up in other settings that did not require small schools. For example, one theory as to the success of small schools relied on the notion that students developed rich, meaningful, personalized relationships with faculty and counselors. However, such relationships may be possible in other settings as well. As Robert Hughes, director of K鈥�12 Education at the Gates Foundation, explained, 鈥淸W]ith some work, you can really build structures that enable kids to be known and to get the kind of support they need to be successful [even] in larger schools.” Also, small schools cost more per student than traditional schools. If traditional schools can replicate the counseling and other relationship-based mechanisms, then expanding small schools, a far more expensive and involved intervention, may not be necessary. Indeed, the fact that all schools in a school district, including large schools, benefit from the presence of small schools suggests that small schools increase the visibility of some mechanisms that can be transferred to larger schools.  

Second, there have been concerns about the capacity of institutions to scale small schools. One concern is that the cost of staffing might be prohibitively large. Another concern is that small schools raise the demand for both teachers and principals, and it is unclear that the supply of new teachers and qualified principals can satisfy the demand.  

While small schools remain somewhat stalled, there are several aspects of the small schools movement that have had a lasting impact. For example, it was one of the largest, highest-profile experiments in innovating the structure and design of schools. This gave some momentum to districtwide interventions and experimentation, expanding the scope of the laboratories envisioned in ANAR. Also, as mentioned above, it provided significant information about reforming underperforming schools that could be applied in other settings. And there was also important heterogeneity in the impacts that provided additional policy lessons about the implications of certain types of schools 鈥� namely charter schools, which generated significant impacts. For example, the KIPP schools were cited by Gates in the 2009 announcement that the Gates Foundation was refining its investment strategy. Subsequent work such as Abdulkadiro臒lu et al. demonstrated that there were specific strategies (e.g., high accountability) employed by charter schools that may have led to the greater impacts observed in some small schools as opposed to others. Each of these lessons reinforced the notion that school districts could be local laboratories for innovation.

Specialized schools

A second strategy that altered the ways districts organized schools had to do with school choice and the underlying supply of schools. In this series, the chapter by John D. Singleton focuses extensively on school choice, so I defer any discussion of charter schools and vouchers to that chapter. My discussion here centers on magnet schools. While many charter schools behave like magnet schools and vice versa, the administration of magnet schools typically continues under the direction of school district offices, whereas the administration of charter schools often moves outside the district鈥檚 purview.  

Magnet schools existed long before ANAR. As districts grappled with how to desegregate schools, many created specialist or alternative schools to give parents additional options. The first magnet schools began in the late 1960s. The first large-scale experiment occurred in 1970 in Minneapolis, and the first specialized high school, focused on career themes, opened in Dallas in 1971.  

As of 2016, there were 4,340 magnet schools across the United States, with the most common theming centered on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); fine and performing arts; international baccalaureate; career and technical education; and world languages. Whereas before ANAR, magnet schools were often considered as a way to encourage desegregation, the major expansion and specialization of magnet schools took place after ANAR with greater emphasis on school choice.  

The magnet school expansion happened for a variety of reasons. Some of it was driven by parents as they tried to find ways to improve their children鈥檚 educational performance by building on specific skills. Some of it came as magnet schools, particularly vocation-oriented magnet schools, demonstrated that they could have positive impacts on students who were struggling in mainstream classrooms. 

To date, the evidence on magnet schools is largely positive. Gamoran (1996) uses the National Education Longitudinal Study to compare test scores of students at magnet, public, and private schools. Gamoran found that students at magnet schools score higher in science, reading, and social sciences. Crain et al. (1998) use oversubscription lotteries to measure the impact of career-oriented magnet schools. The researchers provide mixed evidence. On the one hand, career magnet schools had lower graduation rates than comprehensive schools.  

This was the result of greater emphasis on career and vocational curricula. On the other hand, students who attended magnet schools reported fewer 鈥渞eckless adolescence behavior鈥� at age twenty. Kemple and Snipes provide evidence that career magnet schools are an effective way to reduce dropout rates among those at the highest risk not to graduate. A synthesis of the literature suggests that impacts are 鈥済enerally positive.” 

Magnet schools were refined in the laboratory of public schooling, and new iterations of magnet schools build upon the principles of school choice discussed by Singleton and on principles of innovation. Career education in particular has become much more central to education policy. As the returns to high school education have stagnated, emphasis on employability and skills has fueled much of the advance in career education. This concern not only has been present in the United States but also has become increasingly popular as a policy tool in developing countries. The evidence from magnet schools provided significant lessons that shaped early attempts to strengthen vocational education.  

Magnet schools also raise the question as to whether education should be similar across students. In many ways, the traditional school model presents very little variety across the types of skills that students develop; however, magnets exist to allow some students to specialize beyond what a traditional school might allow. Heterogeneous students might need more heterogeneous offerings than traditional schools can provide. Magnet schools might be a way to improve the efficacy of education for a subset of students, and there may be limits to the degree of differentiation among students and schools that are possible. Hence, the gains could be large but diminishing as differentiation expands. 

In the short run, magnet schools鈥� enrollment and presence will continue to expand. Whereas they were at one point an answer to desegregation and integration of schools, they are increasingly a means for parents to express their preferences in terms of students鈥� education opportunities. Their growth continues, and while charter school enrollment remains larger, magnet schools remain a viable way to provide differentiated education opportunities. Moreover, as charter schools become more specialized (e.g., STEM or vocation focused), the line dividing magnet and charter schools will continue to blur. 

School leadership

Another trend that has taken place since ANAR is the increased emphasis on high-profile school district superintendents. In many large school districts, superintendents have become chief executive officers with greater power and salaries. For example, Barbara Byrd-Bennett served as the CEO of both Cleveland Public Schools and, later, Chicago Public Schools. She previously served in a leadership capacity for New York City schools. Her compensation in both Cleveland and Chicago was controversial, given the size of the packages. Other CEOs grabbed headlines and made national news as well, such as Michelle Rhee in Washington, DC, and Arne Duncan in Chicago Public Schools. In districts with more than twenty-five thousand students enrolled, superintendent compensation ranges from $140,000 to almost $400,000. To put this in perspective, the median base salary for a beginning teacher in districts of the same size is $44,150. 

Prioritizing hiring high-profile CEOs with extensive experience and increasing their compen sation has been a prevailing societal trend. Just as CEOs鈥� track records were believed to have an impact on a company鈥檚 performance, schools sought to enhance their quality by appointing elite superintendents who would bring about substantial improvements and elevate the institutions they served. Hence, an increasing number of school districts applied corporate strategies to superintendents. In the corporate world, there was a perception that the supply of such leaders was finite, leading to bidding wars and large compensation. The emphasis on superstar superintendents faced the same competition and compensation. 

However, as Chingos et al. demonstrated, superintendents who bring about significant, statistically reliable changes in student achievement within their districts, while controlling for other factors that affect academic performance, are indeed rare. They found that superintendents account for only a tiny fraction (0.3 percent) of student differences in achievement, significantly less than other factors such as student characteristics, teachers, schools, and districts. They further indicated that student achievement does not improve with longer superintendent service, and hiring a new superintendent does not lead to immediate gains in student achievement. 

Increased emphasis on superintendents may not directly yield higher test scores, but nevertheless it remains an area of continual research. For instance, Hart et al. proved that encouraging superintendent longevity can support student achievement, as those with more in-state experience possess a comprehensive understanding of the state鈥檚 curriculum, testing programs, and the organizational stability required for effective leadership. Mitigating superintendent turnover, as suggested by Grissom and Mitani, could involve considering salary increases, particularly in smaller and rural districts and those with lower student achievement, as this would help retain superintendents who are often lured by higher-paying positions in larger, more urban districts with better academic performance. 

The hiring and reliance on superstar superintendents is very much an experiment in progress. While some districts have moved away from the strategy of hiring CEO-like superintendents in favor of other approaches, there are still districts that continue to explore this path. Ongoing research and the findings regarding superintendent longevity and compensation emphasize the importance of considering contextual circumstances being faced or the necessity of exploring alternative strategies. 

Innovation zones

While the principles of innovation zones may have been part of the policies dating back to the early 1990s, states and school districts began implementing legislation in the mid 2000s. Innovation zones are schools or districts to which states or districts grant greater autonomy over curriculum, budgeting, and staffing. Typically, states and districts grant innovation zones additional relief from other state and local regulations. While schools are free to enact policies and practices that differ from the norm, the schools are held accountable for improvements in student outcomes. After some early experimentation, innovation zones began expanding, and by 2017, they covered more than 108 schools and 63,000 students. 

Innovation zones presuppose that regulation and centralization impair the ability of a district to try new and innovative practices. By providing greater autonomy, schools and districts can explore new practices in finance, governance, curriculum, and staffing. This greater autonomy comes at the cost of higher accountability for student outcomes, and schools and districts can lose the autonomy if student outcomes do not improve. More generally, innovation zones are just one category of school turnaround. Under the Race to the Top (RttT) legislation, the federal government funded school turnaround strategies that included other variants such as school improvement grants or No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waivers. These school turnaround programs also allowed school districts to have more autonomy in some aspects of staffing, management, and curriculum. 

Many studies of innovation zones are emerging. Zimmer et al. (2017), for example, examine the innovation zones established in Memphis, Nashville, and Chattanooga, Tennessee. They showed that innovation zones significantly outperformed other public schools and other alter native methods of changing governance. Math scores, for example, increased by 0.20 standard deviations in innovation zones relative to other schools. Science and reading scores also increased. Zimmer et al. (2017) argue that one of the largest mediating factors in the innovation zone was the retention of experienced, successful teachers. Innovation zones in Tennessee generally offered significant raises for teachers who transferred to innovation zone schools. Teachers who previously had significant value added in the classroom were more likely to shift into these innovation zone schools. While the competition for high-achieving teachers may be a zero-sum game in the short run, the responsiveness to compensation incentives alongside the added autonomy may strengthen the overall workforce by inducing the retention and recruitment of top teachers. 

The use of innovation zones and other strategies aimed at strengthening school autonomy remains a hot topic. In this series, Michael T. Hartney, for example, explores other innovations in governance and how they have played out. While the current scale of innovation zones is low, the case of innovation zones is interesting as the initial results have encouraged continued expansion, with at least twenty-five states having adopted policies encouraging innovation zones in districts that were previously classified as failing and more considering legislation to allow innovation zones.  

The expansion of innovation zones raises questions about teacher supply. If, as Zimmer et al. (2017) argue, the mechanism by which innovation zones improve outcomes is through attracting top teachers at the cost of having other schools lose top teachers, then innovation zones might lead to a continued division between high-value-added teachers and others. If the higher wages and reduced legislation in innovation zones serve to attract more (and better) teachers to the profession, then innovation zones might generate momentum toward improving the overall teaching pool. However, if this does not happen, then the competition for teachers is a zero-sum game in which the available teachers for underprivileged schools will be disadvantaged relative to those who want to attend innovation zone schools.

Finally, the continued expansion of innovation zones has two implications for the future. First, the continued expansion of legislation allowing innovation zones suggests that these zones will become increasingly visible in the future. Second, given that the emphasis on innovation zones is both deregulation and expanded accountability, it also suggests a growing discontent with the existing regulations in traditional school districts. Innovation zones are a means of circumventing some regulations. If innovation zones eventually create momentum around deregulation, then deregulation might displace (or potentially devalue) innovation zones.

Classroom innovation

I next turn to classroom innovation. I focus on two separate innovations 鈥� class size and the  timing of schooling. As before, these are only a fraction of the possible innovations that I could use; however, these are two areas where significant experimentation and subsequent policy implementation have happened since ANAR.

Class size

Scholars from all disciplines have long postulated that class size affects student outcomes. The underlying theory suggested that teachers can give more attention to students in smaller classes and that this extra attention might provide a boost in students鈥� education outcomes. Lazear (1999), for example, uses a model to demonstrate that the probability of classroom disruptions likely increases as class size goes up.  

However, in the mid-1980s, some doubt emerged on the relationship. In a series of papers, Hanushek (e.g., 1986, 1999) showed that estimates of the effects of class size were ambiguous. Perhaps students were not as sensitive to class size as they might have been to other inputs, or perhaps teachers used different technologies as class size changed. Nonetheless, the relationship between class size and academic achievement has been hotly contested in the education literature.  

In 1985, then governor Lamar Alexander sponsored the Tennessee STAR experiment. The experiment created small classes in kindergarten through third grade and implemented the intervention with a school-based randomized controlled trial. The results of the experiment were stunning. Education test scores improved by roughly 0.25 standard deviations, roughly one grade level higher than students in regular classrooms. Subsequent research suggested that the impacts endured through primary, secondary, and tertiary schooling.  

Some criticisms have been made of the Tennessee STAR experiment. For example, Hoxby discusses the possibility that the results are exaggerated. She argues that they may be the result of the Hawthorne effect arising from teachers performing differently than they would have otherwise as a result of participating in a high-profile experiment. Others have refuted this characterization, calling the Tennessee STAR experiment the 鈥淏arbary steed鈥� of the class size literature. Nonetheless, Tennessee STAR influenced policymakers. States including California, Florida, and Texas established class size limits. The policy in California in particular provided extensive financial incentives to schools that implemented class size limits. 

While the policy debate has leaned heavily in recent years toward reductions in class size, there have not been significant studies to date documenting whether state policies around class size have generated close to the same effects as observed in Tennessee STAR. In fact, there is some evidence that the emphasis on class size has come at the expense of other inputs. For example, Sims shows that California schools largely achieved class size reductions up to grade three by increasing class sizes in subsequent grades. He shows that the increase in test scores after grade three may have reversed potential positive impacts of class size. 

The class size debates are not over and will likely continue for the foreseeable future. Until evidence can definitely show that the expansion of reduced class size through state policies leads to sustained improvements in student achievement, the debate over class size will continue. Even if Tennessee STAR鈥檚 evidence shows improvements in student outcomes as a result of class size reductions, it does not mean that class size reductions can produce impacts in scaled-up policies. In the Tennessee STAR experiment, Tennessee allocated additional funds. In scaled-up versions at the state level, the cost is likely prohibitive. States have to reallocate funds toward increasing the number of teachers and away from other inputs. In the case of California, it allocated funds to increase the number of early elementary school teachers, yet the cost of this was a decrease in the funds to hire teachers in other grades, and hence, higher class sizes resulted in those other grades. This could counteract any positive impacts from class size in early grades. Indeed, there is no evidence to date that California鈥檚 aggressive class size policy has led to any improvement in outcomes. The literature on class size largely focuses only on class size, but in a scaled-up policy, the improvements from class size must be weighed against the costs of reduced educational inputs elsewhere. As long as costs remain prohibitive, it is unclear whether any state can produce a class size policy that can replicate the gains from the Tennessee STAR experiment.  

While ANAR did not necessarily take on the issue of class size, its call for local experiments to identify promising solutions resonates with the issue of class size. In considering changes in classroom practice, the debates on class size have led to significant investigations throughout the United States and beyond鈥攏ot just in primary schooling but also in higher education. However, a limitation of experimentation can be its ability to understand how the impacts would change as scaled-up versions of the policy reverberated throughout the education landscape. The formulation of policy around class size has largely proceeded without finding a solution for the costs of reduced class size, and states have sacrificed other inputs in order to accommodate class size. While innovation is present in the case of class size, pushing innovation forward without considering the costs of scaling may never generate the promised impacts.

Timing of schooling

One input that was specifically mentioned in ANAR was the length of the school day and year. ANAR鈥檚 authors lamented that the United States had shorter school days and school years than its competitors. The ANAR authors strongly recommended a seven-hour school day and a school year of two hundred to two hundred twenty days.  

For at least a decade after ANAR, there was very little movement or experimentation with the length of the school day. In 1997, Arizona became the first state to increase the length of the school year, requiring at least two hundred days of instruction rather than one hundred eighty. By 1998, fourteen states were considering changes to the school calendar; however, outside of a few districts in Arizona, few changes were happening at scale. 

Since 2000, though, there have been significant changes in the time allocated for school ing. Some of these have come in response to the charter school movement. For example, from 2000 to 2012, the average length of the school day nationally increased by 0.2 hours; by contrast, the average length of the school day in charter schools increased by 0.4 hours. As Farbman noted, multiple studies of charter schools and other school turnaround efforts have attributed the impacts of charter schools, in part, to the length of the school day.

Additional evidence has come from outside the United States. For example, Germany increased weekly education instruction by two hours, thereby improving outcomes, particularly for high-achieving students. Studies in Chile, Israel, Italy, Brazil, and Latin America more generally have shown similarly positive impacts of increasing instructional time. These other studies have found greater benefits for both low- and high-performing students. 

Within the United States, RttT grants for school improvement often targeted limited exper iments in the length of the school day and evidence to date. Some schools implemented changes in the length of the school day in response to these grants. More generally, the largest policy shifts have been in Chicago and Boston. In 2012, Chicago moved from a 5.75-hour school day to a seven-hour school day, and in 2015, Boston Public Schools approved a forty minute extension of the school day. 

While the length of the school day has been the subject of both policy changes and exper imentation, there are few studies on lengthening the school year. The average number of school days has shown almost no change nationally and remains around one hundred eighty days.  

What does the future hold? The mounting evidence on the impact of increased instructional time will likely increase pressure to consider policy options, particularly for students who are struggling. The continued expansion of charter schools, which have longer school days on average, will continue to put upward pressure on the length of the school day. Not only do they contribute to the increased average school day, but they also put pressure on districts to examine the amount of instruction time they offer. Areas where charter schools provide greater competition to local schools are likely to face greater pressures to increase instruc tion time. In terms of increasing the average length of the school year, there appears to be little momentum. 

Other systemic shifts

While I have highlighted systematic changes that have focused on improving education quality, there are other systemic shifts that have occurred. Many of these have less to do with school inputs and more to do with the changing context of education. I briefly consider three examples.

Learning disabilities

Learning disabilities have become more prevalent over time. Zablotsky et al., for example, report a significant increase from 2009 to 2017 in the percentage of children diagnosed with any developmental disorder, attention deficit disorder, and autism. Special education enrollment rates continue to rise. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic increased attention on issues of mental health among students. 

These changes in health have impacts on classrooms. Students with disabilities have renewed protection and have increased access to accommodations as a result of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the expansion of 鈥�504鈥� plans. Students with disabilities are often more expensive to educate, costing as much as thirteen times that of the average student, and the increased incidence of documented disabilities puts financial pressures on schools. While schools receive additional funds for students with disabilities, the marginal cost of educating a student with disabilities is likely higher than the increased allotment. Indeed, Bergman and McFarlin showed that charter schools actively discriminate against students with disabilities in the way that they encourage (or discourage) enrollment. The reason for this discrimination is likely the disparity between the cost and revenue associated with a student with disabilities.  

While the increase in disability diagnosis and treatment will certainly improve education quality for those with disabilities, the additional education expenditure required to teach students with disabilities inevitably leads to reductions in expenditures elsewhere. Increased expansion of charter schools, if indeed charter schools discriminate against students with disabilities, could exacerbate existing inequalities by segregating students by costs. Improvements in our ability to diagnose and treat learning disabilities can reduce the costs of educating students with disabilities and reduce the fiduciary burden. 

School safety

School shootings have become more commonplace, and a frequent motivation for students to pursue charter or private schools is often school safety. Since ANAR, the presence of police, metal detectors, and other security enhancements has shifted the ways schools behave. While the prevalence, particularly in the wake of violent shootings, seems high, in truth there has been a decline in the rate of victimization and threats to teachers from 1994 to 2016.  

School safety, including policies and procedures to ensure safety, continues to be a hot topic in state and federal legislation. Each school must maintain a plan for ensuring safety and for dealing with school violence. As in the case of increased disability rates, a focus on school safety requires resources and attention. Governments have been reluctant to increase funding to fully cover the costs of such expenditures. The resulting policies create more pressure on schools to cut expenditures in other ways. Moreover, to date, there has been little experimentation in ways that can help identify cost-effective strategies for improving school safety. Using schools as laboratories across the United States could provide greater opportunities to learn best practices.

Parental inputs

Education scholars have often posited that parental inputs are a significant part of students鈥� academic achievement. While the correlation between parental characteristics is extremely strong, particularly in the case of the mother鈥檚 education, few papers have established causal relationships between parental inputs and student outcomes. Many localized experiments have attempted to increase parental involvement; however, none of these efforts have scaled in any meaningful way. 

There are a couple of notable exceptions in more recent years. While not occurring in the United States, the Oportunidades conditional cash transfer program was a major randomized controlled experiment in Mexico that targeted parents and students. Parents received a subsidy conditional on student attendance and student health visits. These programs had a demonstrable impact on student attendance and attainment. While parents are clearly involved in the treatment, it is not clear if the effects came because of their vigilance or other factors (attendance, health, or increased family income).  

Recent randomized controlled experiments have aimed at a more novel approach to encouraging parental involvement. With the expansion of texting capabilities, researchers have used text messages to try to engage parents. York and Loeb did this for literacy among low-income parents. Through a series of text messages, York and Loeb coached parents of young children how to teach literacy skills. They found that students arrived at kindergarten with improved literacy as a result of parental engagement. 

Bergman and Bettinger et al. tested interventions that focused on communicating with parents about students鈥� academic behaviors. Parents received notes about students鈥� truancy and assignment completion. These notes reshaped parents鈥� beliefs and led to improvements in attendance and academic achievement. Bettinger et al. demonstrate that the saliency of the messages in informing parents of important behaviors that they should be monitoring was likely the mechanism by which this impacted student achievement. In both cases, the cost of the intervention was small relative to the benefits. 

New and innovative research designs are extending more and more interventions to parents, and this remains fertile ground for the laboratory of public schools. The recent text message interventions are particularly cost-effective and may have more potential to scale. 

Conclusion and discussion

When I was invited to write this chapter, the charge was to document how education systems changed after ANAR. How does one capture forty years of trial and error, of innovation and failure? I have chosen to identify a handful of innovations within districts and within schools. These examples 鈥� using small schools, specialized schools, school leadership, and innovation zones as cases of education system innovations and class size and using the time spent in schools as cases of classroom innovation 鈥� are just a sampling of innovations that have changed, at least incrementally, the way in which education is delivered. One only needs to browse the research-related web pages of organizations such as the American Institute for Research, MDRC, Mathematica, and RAND Corporation to learn about the breadth of continued experimentation and innovation in schools. 

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of many of these interventions is their failure to be scaled up or to generate impacts when scaled up. The key problem in many cases is the cost of scaling. Oftentimes, scaled versions lack the same features as the original laboratory experiment, and in many cases, funding the scaled version requires sacrifices in other areas. Moreover, in many cases, we lack the supply of personnel or funding to move forward. Perhaps the great challenge of the next forty years will be learning how to create cost effective versions of the innovations that laboratories produce. 

ANAR envisioned an education ecosystem where experimentation and learning from the laboratories of local schooling provided lessons and accelerated the process of change. While one can debate the relative quality of education over time, education systems of experimentation and learning across organizations have greatly increased, especially with the advent of the internet and the role of social media in drawing attention to innovation and to evidence. 

The What Works Clearinghouse and other formal and informal collections of evidence on innovative practice and policy only accelerate the role of education institutions as laboratories in identifying promising practices and moving them to scale. However, finding and scaling the products of these laboratories remains the next challenge to be solved if the vision of schools as laboratories is to yield long-run improvements in the quality of education.

See the full Hoover Institution initiative: .

Alberto Carvalho, who took over as superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District just two weeks ago, wasted little time in setting ambitious goals for his new administration. In a unveiled last week, he said he would focus on academic recovery and consider shifting funds from the district鈥檚 expensive COVID testing program to pay for it. 

He also wants to reduce class sizes, expand early learning and streamline hiring to address staff shortages. The agenda, which he discussed during a virtual welcome reception Thursday, came after an already jam-packed two weeks in which he attended his first school board meeting, met with each one of the district鈥檚 union presidents and taught two biology classes. 

The nation is watching whether the success Carvalho had as the 14-year superintendent of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools will follow him to the nation鈥檚 second-largest school district. In December, the school board to hire the award-winning leader, with board Vice President Nick Melvoin calling him 鈥渢he right person to lead L.A. Unified students out of this pandemic into a better future.鈥�

On Friday, he spoke to 蜜桃影视 about his plan to live up to those high expectations. 鈥淚’m very optimistic about the possibility in Los Angeles,鈥� he told 蜜桃影视鈥檚 Linda Jacobson. 鈥淚f I wasn鈥檛, I wouldn’t be here. I chose L.A. as much as L.A. chose me. I have never failed. I’ve made mistakes. I’ve erred. I’ve tripped. I’ve fallen, but failure is not in my DNA.鈥� 

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

蜜桃影视: Talk a little bit about declining enrollment, which fell by in Los Angeles this year. What鈥檚 on your agenda for getting families to come back and attracting new families?

Alberto Carvalho: That’s not unique to L.A., nor New York or Chicago 鈥� or most urban centers across America. Affordability has been significantly diminished and wages have not kept pace. That has forced families to move, and when the family moves, they don’t leave the kid behind. There has been significant internal mobility that has shifted membership in and out at the school system. 

Then there is this third arena that really concerns me 鈥� families and students that have completely disappeared. Calls have been met with disconnected phone lines and knocks at the door. The neighbor does not know. We are beginning to learn anecdotally that some of these families may have had a fragile immigration status. They made decisions as a result of prior immigration protocols and obviously have not returned. It’s a complex issue. Other parents have pulled students from the public school system and moved to their second home because they could afford a second home and pay for private tuition.

Now the solution: In L.A., if you want choice, you have magnets and you have charters. Then there are district-affiliated charters and independent schools. Whoever decided to restrict choice on the basis of those parameters? There are single-gender schools, career academies. Choice does not need to conform to magnet or charter. Where are the programs in L.A. where we see long waiting lists of parents? Why aren’t we expanding more of those programs to where the demand is?

You鈥檙e talking about more of those programs in neighborhood schools?

Correct. Have we done an analysis about the amount of time a child is on the bus to get to that one program that really motivates him or her 鈥� that great engineering program, fine arts, performing arts, cybersecurity, robotics, STEAM, STEM, dual language, dual enrollment, International Baccalaureate, Cambridge, whatever?

I can fill an entire wall with a repertoire of options for parents. Why aren’t we offering all of that? L.A. Unified is a much bigger district than Miami. L.A. Unified has about 300 magnet programs. Miami-Dade offers 1,100 choice options. We have work to do. If we don’t do that, we will continue to bleed out students because parents are living in a reality where they have an entitlement to choice. If we don’t do that, it is tantamount to burying our head in the sand as a tsunami of choice washes over us. I choose to ride the top of it. I think it’s better for kids, it鈥檚 better for communities, and that is one of the key elements of reenergizing interest in our public school system.

On Friday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its guidance on masking, saying schools can drop mandates when COVID-19 risk is medium or low. Any reaction?

We learned that the state of California and the CDC are relaxing protocols with one significant exception 鈥� . But conditions have improved significantly in our community as a function of good weather, but also because of the insistence on vaccination, on masking, on testing. We are waiting now on additional data from the county but also guidance from Sacramento specific to school protocols. One of the elements that we are carefully analyzing right now is the possibility of relaxing testing protocols particularly at the secondary level. It鈥檚 a very costly proposition. The frequency and cadence is churning through financial resources.

Do we need to continue to invest at this level? We have an opportunity to reinvest those dollars in educational programs, in tutorial, acceleration and social-emotional programs.

Is that something you think the union would oppose?

We will need to have an open dialogue with the bargaining units. I will not surprise our collective bargaining representatives. But if we are a science-driven district, we follow the science not only when things are getting bad; we also need to follow the science as conditions improve.

Many parents say that they want , especially small-group and one-on-one tutoring. Why was that not spelled out in your 100-day plan?

It was. When I speak about an augmentation of educational opportunities, before and afterschool programming, that is inclusive of tutorial services. When I speak about the concept of year-round schooling opportunities, I’m not singularly speaking about schools being open. I’m speaking about before- and afterschool tutorial services that can be provided by the school system, but also by private entities, not-for-profit entities. When I talk about maximizing these educational opportunities, that’s exactly what I’m describing. It was not ignored. It is actually very much part of the strategy moving forward.

I think when parents hear terms like expanded learning opportunities and afterschool, they just think of large groups. They don鈥檛 think that means the high-dosage models that have received a lot of attention.

It鈥檚 both and. 

I was struck by how David Turner [manager of ] challenged you on the issue of school police. He said he was disappointed to see the under your tenure in Miami. What is your position on that, considering the Los Angeles district took a last year on redirecting funding from school police officers to improving school climate and the achievement of Black students?

I have inherited a policy position that has reduced the budget and implemented a different methodology of protective actions around schools. Rather than the presence of a school resource officer on campus, it’s more of a mobile unit that provides someone support for safe passage to and from school and is able to rapidly respond to emergencies. That is a decision made by the board, supported by a significant sector of this community. 

Now that we’ve moved in that direction, have we stood up the appropriate personnel, with the appropriate training in schools from a prevention perspective? Have we identified restorative justice practices, been effective at avoiding, preventing and or resolving and managing a crisis that would have otherwise been addressed by a police officer? We鈥檙e not there yet.

My concern is that [police] have been removed, and the element that will in a more systemic and more preventive way benefit our kids has not fully been fleshed out. That, too, is part of the 100-day plan.

Alicia Montgomery, executive director of the , watched your presentation and reviewed the plan. She mentioned to me that the school system鈥檚 six local districts and all the smaller communities of schools each have their own goals and objectives. She said she has been struck in the past by the 鈥渟heer resistance to consistency across the district.鈥� You talked a lot about alignment in your plan. Where would you like to see a more universal approach and where should there be room for autonomy?

I’m a huge believer in the concept of earned autonomy, implementing a model that strikes the appropriate balance, that sweet spot. The board’s equity-driven agenda should be ubiquitous. That requires clear communication, continuous monitoring of student performance, attendance data, critical incidents of absenteeism and a universal guarantee of the appropriate resources. That cannot be left singularly in the hands of local leaders. That said, there is room on the other side of the balance for leadership that works best closer to the school. I do have some concerns where it’s working well versus where it’s not working well.

Can you give an example?

I would rather not. There are many different areas in Los Angeles where local leadership has navigated this balance fairly well. In other areas, it is not as clear to me that the coherence is where it needs to be. 

Your plan mentions creating a collective bargaining strategy, and I know some would like to see a lot more transparency in negotiations with the union. Should that be a more open process?

I’m a huge believer in transparency, so let’s begin there. There is no way that we’re going to maximize opportunities for students through the existing collaboration with labor partners. [We need to be] developing and executing a sound, reasonable strategy that’s based on compensation philosophies that support recruitment and retention of a highly qualified workforce. That’s huge for me. It’s needed for the school system right now. We’re having a difficult time recruiting teachers. Fifty percent of teachers across the country are leaving the profession before retirement. That is shocking and that’s the first time that has happened in the history of our country.

The typical negotiation process begins with management declaring that there is no money and labor providing a list of demands. Sometimes lost in that chasm is the answer to the simple question: What do the kids need and can we rally around a common set of goals? 

I’ve been here about a week now and I’ve had conversations with every single labor president, and I did that in advance of the 100-day plan because I don’t believe in surprises. This work is too complex, too difficult and too important, particularly as we continue to navigate the tail end of this pandemic. That’s going to be my approach to the labor negotiation process that we are rapidly going into.

The U.S. Department of Education recently that they are responsible for providing students with disabilities the services they did not receive during remote learning. Are you evaluating what the district is required to do and have a plan for providing those services?

During the pandemic, students with disabilities were among the most impacted, the most fragile communities of students, and have lost the most ground. We need to start from that perspective. By what means shall we accelerate and where have we fallen short in terms of providing the best educational environments? Where do we need to increase inclusion rates across the district? Where must we contemplate additional improvements for parents of students with disabilities who have maintained them in a virtual environment? Are there opportunities for us to speak with the parents and demonstrate that perhaps the option they selected is not adequately addressing the needs of their children?

This is an ongoing process with the federal government. I am aware of the issue and I’m currently engaged in discussions with federal entities regarding this topic. At the end of the day, this is a fragile community of students and I think we recognize two years into this pandemic some of the detrimental impacts that these students have suffered.

How often will you teach? Do you want to run your own school like you did in Miami?

I have now taught two high school biology classes since I’ve arrived. That’s as much fun as anybody in my position can ask for. I need to remain connected to what happens in schools, at a leadership level, in a supportive role. But if I am to remain real, I need to have access to students through meaningful instructional opportunities. That’s what sustains me. This can be a difficult role, and I don’t know how to do it from the comfort of the ivory tower, or the safety of backstage. I need to be on the edge of that stage, feeling the warmth and the social interaction from students and schools. I’m going to be very active and engaged with school principals, with teachers and in the classroom. It’s actually a topic of negotiation and conversation with my own team, how we make that feasible on a very regular basis.

Finally, when the news hit that you were coming to Los Angeles, I spoke to a long-time parent advocate who said even the most talented leaders have been driven away from this job. I know you said you’re here for the long haul, but what is your reaction to that statement?

Why would anybody want to do this? Because we cannot abandon two elements of America 鈥� the importance of public education and the viability of cities and urban education, where the needs are heightened. Are there easier ways of impacting children? You can go be a superintendent of a very affluent, small district where you don’t have that diversity, you don’t have kids who are children of immigrants. 

I think we need to paint a picture of hope. I’m very optimistic about the possibility in Los Angeles. If I wasn鈥檛, I wouldn’t be here. I chose L.A. as much as L.A. chose me. I have never failed. I’ve made mistakes. I’ve erred. I’ve tripped. I’ve fallen, but failure is not in my DNA. When we decide to accept failure for ourselves, we are condemning kids to the same fate, and that’s not me.