Freedom to innovate, not mandates to replicate

To create the conditions for innovation, traditional systems need to learn the right lesson

The past few years have ignited an unprecedented dynamism in American education—one unlike anything we’ve seen in recent memory. Recently, I’ve participated in a variety of conversations that essentially boil down to this notion: we need to infuse the innovations that we are seeing out-of-system into public schools if we want to keep public schools competitive. This is a noble goal and I’m glad that there are those that are recognizing the shifts and proactively trying to meet the moment. But I’ve walked away from these conversations with a feeling that we are looking at the same trends and reaching different conclusions.

For me, the lesson learned is not the output – it’s the conditions that allowed these new and different models to proliferate. The lesson isn’t about adopting new models via committee, but empowering teachers with the same autonomy and flexibility seen outside the system

The dynamism we’re witnessing was catalyzed by the COVID-19 pandemic, which disrupted the routines of millions of families across the nation. School closures and parents’ fears about the virus pushed families to explore options beyond traditional public schools. But the disruptions went deeper. Parents, many for the first time, got an intimate look at what their children were learning—or, in some cases, not learning. They observed the content, the rigor, and the pacing, often with concern or frustration.

For many parents, this became a breaking point. They felt pushed out of previous schooling options that no longer aligned with their expectations and values and pulled to explore new choices that better addressed their needs and concerns. Homeschooling, microschooling, low-cost private school, hybrid models, and other innovations in learning are growing in response, serving as release valves for the pent-up demand. These options offer diverse approaches—classical education, Montessori, project-based learning, and self-directed learning, to name a few—each promising different ways of engaging students.

The critical lesson isn’t what these models are doing—it’s how they’re able to do it. And understanding this distinction is key to any real progress in American education.

It’s About Freedom to Innovate, Not Just the Innovations

The real difference lies in the flexibility and freedom these models possess. Take microschools, for example: educators in these settings aren’t constrained by the same regulatory and bureaucratic webs that limit their public-school counterparts. They can introduce new curricula, adapt learning techniques, and explore unconventional teaching methods, all in real-time and often with immediate feedback from students and parents. These educators operate in conditions that allow them to innovate on the fly, to listen, adapt, and respond. And, importantly, they are not hamstrung by the “one-best-way” mentality that dominates many large organizations: the idea that if one set of students receive one type of education, that is somehow at the expense or detriment of another.

Contrast this with public schools, where motivated, visionary teachers too often find themselves held back by top-down policies, regulatory constraints, and a culture that’s risk-averse by design.

In our traditional public school system, innovation is often squashed by layers of approval processes, regulations, and standardizations that sap energy and creativity from teachers and administrators alike. And it’s not just those working in the system: I’ve seen many, many occasions where a new approach is suggested in a school, and it’s the risk-averse parents who protest. Not to mention other advocates who argue that they key to educational improvement is ignoring entrepreneurial spirits and, instead, providing educators a set curriculum, lesson plans, and a script they should stick to.

All that to say, educators who want to experiment with new ideas are usually met with hurdles, not pathways.

So, if public schools want to produce transformative impact, they need to worry less about replicating specific end results and focus instead on fostering the same conditions that make these innovations possible.

Innovation Isn’t Just About the Product—It’s About the Conditions

This idea isn’t exclusive to education. Take the concerns many Americans have with China’s theft of U.S. intellectual property (IP). When it comes to innovation, China and the U.S. are playing two very different games. In China, companies rely on intellectual property theft to stay competitive, often replicating American innovations rather than generating original ones. Meanwhile, the U.S. consistently remains a step ahead because we have a system that fosters innovation. American entrepreneurs and inventors are empowered by an economic system, regulatory environment, and a culture that encourages risk-taking, rewards creativity, protects ownership, and provides the incentives to attract top talent.

As long as the U.S. continues to create the conditions for entrepreneurship and innovation, we’ll always be ahead. The same is true for education: if we’re not creating the conditions for innovation in public education, then replicating innovations happening outside the system will only be a temporary fix (even if we can muster the will to implement them).

The Barriers Holding Public Schools Back

Public schools, at their best, are filled with passionate, dedicated educators who want to make a difference. But we’re asking them to achieve breakthrough results within a system that resists change and prioritizes standardization over creativity. Teachers are often bound by rigid curricula, strict state standards, and compliance-driven mandates. The current system gives teachers few incentives to step outside the box and try something new, even if it might benefit their students.

Imagine if we removed some of these barriers. Imagine a public school teacher who wants to incorporate more project-based learning in their classroom or explore a Montessori-inspired approach. How would they even do that? If they wanted to implement it in their classroom, they’re likely to meet significant regulatory hurdles and resistance from administrators who are often incentivized to avoid risk and focus on marginal improvements.

I recently heard the story of an educator who got excited about project-based learning and implemented it in her classroom with no one’s permission. Her class started to get decent bumps in test scores, an outlier that led to closer looks at what she was doing. Great, right? Well, despite being held up as an example and being sent to present to the board of education, she became ostracized in her school – portrayed as the squeaky wheel in the teachers' lounge who was making everyone else look bad. She ended up leaving and starting a new school to remove herself from the toxic situation altogether.

Her experience deeply resonated with me. It underscores how the right environment can unlock potential—or, in this case, how the wrong environment can force it out.

The teacher’s entrepreneurship and the permissionless way in which she applied it is what needs to be harnessed, not just the specific educational approach she chose. Advocates for innovation in public education need to focus efforts on fostering the same freedom, flexibility, and responsiveness that drive innovation in microschools.

Creating Conditions for a Culture Shift in Education

For public schools to innovate, they need to be empowered with the autonomy to do so. This means reducing bureaucracy, reevaluating the role of state and federal mandates, and allowing educators the freedom to experiment and adapt their teaching methods. It also means empowering parents and families to make the best choices for their children by increasing access to options, whether that’s microschools, charter schools, schools within schools, traditional public schools that are free to innovate, or other options we’ve likely never even considered.

I know it’s a crazy “scheme” to some, but letting educators create unique environments that attract families to opt-in – without forcing the approach on anyone else – is a pretty compelling approach that drives experimentation and innovation in other sectors.

We have an opportunity to learn from the surge of educational innovation that’s taken place since the pandemic and use it as a blueprint for creating a new culture within public education—one that values creativity over compliance, agility over rigidity, and responsiveness over standardization.

If we want American education to lead, not follow, then the path forward is clear: let’s stop chasing the what of innovation and focus instead on creating the conditions that allow innovation to take place. Let’s prioritize freedom to innovate over mandates to replicate. Only then can we ensure that our education system is ready to meet the needs of every child and prepared for the demands of the future.