First Person

Commentary: A model of empowered education

Peg Hoey describes Kunskapsskolan Education, an international school model based in Sweden and now in the U.S.

As the world becomes increasingly complex and interconnected, new opportunities open for our children every day. To gain access to all that the world has to offer — education, social connections and careers – they need to have the curiosity, courage, stamina and resilience to recognize opportunity and turn it into their futures.

Since 2000, when our first school opened in Sweden, Kunskapsskolan Education (KED) has continuously redeveloped its model of personalized education to meet this demand by providing the supports, resources and tools for students to discover that they can learn from anything – that there is always a way around – given the right mindset and educational foundation.

Listen or download

Our core values drive our approach to personalized education:

  • All people are different
  • We have clear goals and challenging requirements
  • Education is for life
  • Life is what I make it

The KED model provides the foundation for a personalized, empowered education. Since “all people are different,” we focus on each student as an individual. Every student has a base coach who meets with her in a base group twice a day in addition to engaging in a 1:1 coaching session each week. The focus of this session is to look back on what worked well and what needs revision as the student and coach reflect on what strategies the student employed in meeting her goals. Over time – for some students, a little and for others, a lot – students build their personal backpack of strategies that work for them, from where and when to study to whom and with what to study. Our students build a constructive attitude towards learning to pull out of that backpack when the world gets tough or confusing.

Different people have different goals. For students to achieve academically and socially more than they think possible, those goals must be clear, challenging and reasonable. First, the goals should be clear: Everyone working with the student should be able to understand the goals so we can work together to make sure the student is more than successful.

Goals in our schools are unabashedly tied to academics and flow backwards and forwards to the quality and quantity of knowledge the student wants to achieve by the time she leaves our school.  Goals must be challenging and represent an enticing stretch for the student, and at the same time, the goal must be reasonable – something that the student can achieve in a time span that she can grasp and that is in line with her abilities.

In addition to goal setting, strategy experimentation, and coaching, we provide the student with an integrated set of tools so that personalization can happen:

  • We use time as a resource by organizing it into different teaching and learning sessions so that students and teachers can use it most efficiently. Students attend labs (inquiry-based sessions), workshops (time to work with subject teacher support), lectures (short, intensive presentations to a group), communication sessions (oral dialogue) and seminars (structured discussions to deepen understanding). Students’ schedules are a mix of compulsory and non-compulsory sessions that they chose to meet their academic goals.
  • Our teachers have three different roles: As base coaches, subject teachers and general teachers. As a base coach, they are students’ guides and facilitators. As a subject teacher, they are responsible for students’ mastery over their content area; as a general teacher, they help and are role models to all students.
  • Our Steps and Themes curriculum is housed in the Learning Portal™, which can be accessed 24/7. Our subjects meet students where they currently are in their knowledge development, and they organized around authentic projects that where students prove mastery over the content. In Steps (ELA, Math, Spanish) students progress at their own pace. In Themes, students study the humanities through multidisciplinary themes with their grade cohorts.
  • We use space differently. Our walls are transparent so that everyone can be seen, which creates safety, collaboration, and creativity. Wasted space is kept to a minimum, since all spaces are learning spaces.

KED is now educating students in three countries – the U.K., Sweden, and the U.S.; our first school in India opens in 2013. To leverage this global field of practice, we have co-developed core manuals, performance management tools, and a KED teacher certification path. Our network-wide working groups in special education, math, and curriculum meet monthly via Skype. The KED common maps and language stimulate innovation and collaboration among our thousands of students and teachers: Since they can “speak” to each other, they can share best practices, plans, and exemplar work.

Our first Skype session between a 6th grader at Innovate Manhattan and a 6th grader in Stockholm showed students’ joy when they discover that someone so far away is learning in a shared model. Daniel offered to help Wilma in math, and they devised a plan to take a field trip to India to introduce students to the KED program. The fact that they saw these plans as possible and doable – their empowerment – is why we do what we do.

First Person

Why the phrase ‘with fidelity’ is an affront to good teaching

PHOTO: Alan Petersime

“With fidelity” are some of the most damaging words in education.

Districts spend a ton of money paying people to pick out massively expensive, packaged curriculums, as if every one of a thousand classrooms needs the exact same things. Then officials say, over and over again, that they must be implemented “with fidelity.” What they mean is that teachers better not do anything that would serve their students’ specific needs.

When that curriculum does nothing to increase student achievement, it is not blamed. The district person who found it and purchased it is never blamed. Nope. They say, “Well, the teachers must not have been implementing it with fidelity.”

It keeps happening because admitting that schools are messy and students are human and teaching is both creative and artistic would also mean you have to trust teachers and let them have some power. Also, there are some really crappy teachers out there, and programs for everyone are often meant to push that worst-case-scenario line a little higher.

And if everyone’s doing just what they’re supposed to, we’ll get such good, clean numbers, and isn’t that worth a few thousand more dollars?

I was talking with a friend recently, a teacher at an urban school on the East Coast. He had been called to task by his principal for splitting his kids into groups to offer differentiated math instruction based on students’ needs. “But,” the principal said, “did the pacing guide say to differentiate? You need to trust the system.”

I understand the desire to find out if a curriculum “works.” But I don’t trust anyone who can say “trust the system” without vomiting. Not when the system is so much worse than anything teachers would put together.

Last year, my old district implemented Reading Plus, an online reading program that forces students to read at a pace determined by their scores. The trainers promised, literally promised us, that there wasn’t a single reading selection anywhere in the program that could be considered offensive to anyone. God knows I never learned anything from a book that made me feel uncomfortable!

Oh, and students were supposed to use this program — forced-paced reading of benign material followed by multiple-choice questions and more forced-pace reading — for 90 minutes a week. We heard a lot about fidelity when the program did almost nothing for students (and, I believe quite strongly, did far worse than encouraging independent reading of high-interest books for 90 minutes a week would have done).

At the end of that year, I was handed copies of next year’s great adventure in fidelity. I’m not in that district any longer, but the whole district was all switching over to SpringBoard, another curriculum, in language arts classes. On came the emails about implementing with fidelity and getting everyone on the same page. We were promised flexibility, you know, so long as we also stuck to the pacing guide of the workbook.

I gave it a look, I did, because only idiots turn down potential tools. But man, it seemed custom-built to keep thinking — especially any creative, critical thought from either students or teachers — to a bare minimum.

I just got an email from two students from last year. They said hi, told me they missed creative writing class, and said they hated SpringBoard, the “evil twin of Reading Plus.”

That district ran out of money and had to cut teachers (including me) at the end of the year. But if they hadn’t, I don’t think I would have lasted long if forced to teach from a pacing guide. I’m a good teacher. Good teachers love to be challenged and supported. They take feedback well, but man do we hate mandates for stuff we know isn’t best for the kids in our room.

Because, from inside a classroom full of dynamic, chaotic brilliance;

from a classroom where that kid just shared that thing that broke all of our hearts;

from a classroom where that other kid figured out that idea they’ve been working on for weeks;

from that classroom where that other kid, who doesn’t know enough of the language, hides how hard he works to keep up and still misses things;

and from that classroom where one kid isn’t sure if they trust you yet, and that other kid trusts you too much, too easily, because their bar had been set too low after years of teachers that didn’t care enough;

from inside that classroom, it’s impossible to trust that anyone else has a better idea than I do about what my students need to do for our next 50 minutes.

Tom Rademacher is a teacher living in Minneapolis who was named Minnesota’s Teacher of the Year in 2014. His book, “It Won’t Be Easy: An Exceedingly Honest (and Slightly Unprofessional) Love Letter to Teaching,” was published in April. He can be found on Twitter @mrtomrad and writes on, where this post first appeared.

First Person

What I learned about the limits of school choice in New York City from a mother whose child uses a wheelchair

PHOTO: Patrick Wall

As a researcher interested in the ways online platforms impact learning and educational decision-making, I’ve been trying to understand how New York City parents get the information to make a crucial decision: where to send their children to school.

So for the past six months, I’ve been asking local parents about the data they used to choose among the system’s 1700 or so schools.

I’ve heard all sorts of stories about the factors parents weigh when picking schools. Beyond the usual considerations like test scores and art programs, they also consider the logistics of commuting from the Bronx to the East Village with two children in tow, whether the school can accommodate parents and children who are still learning English, and how much money the parent-teacher association raises to supplement the school’s budget.

But for some families, the choice process begins and ends with the question: Is the building fully accessible?

The federal Americans with Disabilities Act requires public buildings constructed after 1992 to be fully accessible to people in wheelchairs. However, most New York City public school buildings were constructed prior to that law, and high construction costs have limited the number of new, fully accessible buildings.

As a result, a shocking 83 percent of New York City schools have been found non-compliant with the ADA, according to a two-year federal Department of Justice investigation whose findings the city Department of Education largely disputes. Recently, the city’s Office of Space Management has begun surveying buildings for full accessibility, but more work remains to be done.

One parent’s struggle to find a school suitable for her son, who has a physical disability but no cognitive issues, illustrates what a major role accessibility plays in some families’ decision-making.

Melanie Rivera is the mother of two and a native New Yorker living in Ditmas Park in Brooklyn’s District 22 who shared her story with me — and gave me permission to share it with others. Here is what she told me, in her own words:

My son Gabriel is seven years old. He was born with a condition called arthrogryposis, which affects the development of his joints. His hips, knees, and feet are affected and he has joint contractures, so his legs don’t bend and straighten the way most people’s do. In order to get around, he uses a combination of crutches and a wheelchair.

Before I had my differently-abled son, I was working in a preschool for children with special needs. The kids I worked with had cognitive developmental disabilities.

Despite my professional experience, I was overwhelmed when it was my turn to help my child with different abilities navigate the public school system. I can only imagine the students falling by the wayside because their parents don’t have that background.

When I was completing my son’s kindergarten application, I couldn’t even consider the academics of the school. My main priority was to tour the schools and assess their level of accessibility.

There are only a couple of ADA-accessible schools in my district, and there was no way of indicating on my son’s kindergarten application that he needed one. When we got the admissions results, he was assigned to his zoned school – which is not accessible.

I entered lengthy and extensive mediation to get him into an ADA-accessible school. At that point, I knew I would just have to take what I could get. For families whose children have special needs, “school choice” can ring hollow.

The process of finding any accessible school was a challenge. The DOE website allows families to search for ADA-accessible schools. But the site describes most schools as “partially accessible,” leaving it up to parents to call each school and say, “What do you mean by this?”

When I called the schools and asked, “Are you a barrier-free school?” the staff in the office didn’t know what the term meant. They might reply, “Oh yeah, we have a ramp.” I’d have to press further: “But can you get to the office? Can you get to every floor in the building?” The response was often, “Oh, I don’t know.”

Even the office staff didn’t know. But for my son’s sake, I needed to know.

Gabriel deserves the full range of academic and social experiences. So every day I make sure he’s learning in the least-restrictive environment — from the classroom, to phys ed, to field trips.

I believe the Department of Education also wants to make schools accessible and to place students with different abilities in settings where they’ll flourish, but the current system is not equipped to follow through on those good intentions. While I see gradual changes, I still know that if I don’t find the best placement for my son the system definitely won’t.

At the school level, administrators should know the details of their own school’s accessibility. Teachers should learn to include children with different abilities in their classrooms. Such a commitment means recognizing the value of inclusivity — not viewing accessibility as something ADA says you must do.

Before I had Gabriel, I never thought about accessibility. I never looked at street cutouts or thought about how to enter a store with steps. We’re probably all guilty of perpetuating exclusion at one point or another.

Recognizing that will allow us to change the status quo. It will allow every individual with a physical disability to fully participate in the public school system.

Claire Fontaine is a researcher at Data & Society, a research institute in New York City focused on social, cultural, and ethical issues arising from technological development. Kinjal Dave is a research assistant at Data & Society. You can read more about their project, which seeks to better understand the ways in which diverse New York City parents draw on school performance data, online dashboards, and school review websites when researching schools for their children.