Last month, I was invited to observe at London’s Michaela School, which is known for its exacting school culture and unwavering commitment to academic excellence. The school practices a muscular brand of academics, character formation, and student discipline not seen in the U.S. since the heyday of “no excuses” charter schools like KIPP two decades ago. Michaela is an object of fascination among a certain subset of educators in America, and my visit reinforced a notion that I’ve been toying with for the last several months: America needs Michaela.
The U.S. school-choice movement, in particular, needs Katharine Birbalsingh, Michaela’s formidable and outspoken headmistress, or someone very like her. The rapid adoption of universal education savings accounts (ESAs) in several U.S. states has created an unprecedented opportunity for affordable private schools to sprout and take root in this country. If there’s ever going to be a serious challenge to the standard American paradigm of schooling, the time is now in states such as Florida, Arizona, and a half dozen others that have demonstrated both the appetite and the political will to challenge the hegemony and complacency of traditional public schools.
The basic idea behind universal ESAs is to give parents the ability to opt out of the traditional public-school system and take with them the lion’s share of state dollars that would otherwise be spent educating their child. ESA enthusiasts have largely focused on parents’ ability to customize their child’s education. But as a practical matter, most working families need their children to be in a school during the day, which limits the potential uptake of ESAs: In many communities, there’s not a huge supply of high-quality private schools. Thus, the greatest long-term opportunity associated with ESAs is the potential to jumpstart and grow effective and affordable private-school models that even the charter sector would be hard-pressed to match.
When I asked Birbalsingh about bringing Michaela to America, she was flattered by the suggestion, but not ready to book passage to the U.S. Like many visionary school leaders, she is open to scaling her model but fiercely protective of its high standards and distinctiveness. She also expressed some doubt that she’d find enough teachers willing and able to teach “The Michaela Way.” However, I think she’s misperceiving the state of play in the U.S. and underestimating the number of American teachers struggling with deteriorating student behavior, feeling out of sync with pedagogical fads and fashions, and who would flourish in a Michaela-like setting outside of the public sector.
With its emphasis on rich curriculum, academic rigor, character education, and “small-c conservative” values, Michaela would also find an enthusiastic audience among inner-city families who prize safe and orderly schools, a shot at the upward mobility a first-rate education offers, and who tend to be far more culturally conservative than outsiders often imagine. Even a subset of elite private-school parents uncomfortable with their schools’ aggressive embrace of the “woke” agenda would also be intrigued.
There are considerable hurdles to building networks of modest-cost private schools in the U.S., not the least of which is real estate. Great Hearts, for example, is partnering with churches that have available buildings that can host a school. There may be a role for education philanthropists to assist, particularly those who’ve grown disenchanted with their inability to drive lasting change in the public sector.
Universal ESAs are truly something different under the sun. If they are to be more than an immune response to discontent with traditional public schools, or a boutique option for the most engaged and well-off families, strong institutional alternatives to the public system are needed. That means well-run and effective schools that appeal to parents. I can think of no better example than Michaela.
