The Magic Wands of the Department of Defense

At a recent summit put on by Arizona State University Prep, the moderator asked a panel of superintendents what they would do if they had a magic wand they could wave to make a single change to improve student outcomes.

The answers varied, but several touched on addressing broad societal issues linked to poverty and other factors that are outside of education, but predictive of student outcomes. (None of the superintendents were using these conditions to argue that they are not responsible for student outcomes.)

This discussion was quite timely, because recently the New York Times highlighted the public school system which, in some sense, may have that magic wand: the Department of Defense. The article, Who Runs the Best U.S. Schools? It May Be the Defense Department, and an opinion piece, The Nation’s Top-Performing Public School System, argue that:

“With about 66,000 students — more than the public school enrollment in Boston or Seattle — the Pentagon’s schools for children of military members and civilian employees quietly achieve results most educators can only dream of.”

How do they do this? DoD schools:

• “set high standards and create a disciplined classroom culture…”

• “are racially and economically integrated….”

• “reopened relatively quickly” after the pandemic.

All of these are likely to be factors in the strong outcomes, and it’s notable that from this list, only “classroom culture” can be significantly influenced by school and district leaders. (District leaders also had some control over pandemic school closing, but these decisions were heavily swayed by politicians, unions, and other actors.)

Additional elements, mentioned less prominently in the article, may be as important and are even further outside of educational leaders’ control.

Four of these factors affecting DoD schools are:

“More of their families have two married parents than is the case nationwide. By definition, at least one parent in each military family is employed.”

(snip)

“The military provides health care and housing.”

(snip)

“..the Defense Department estimates that it spends about $25,000 per student, on par with the highest-spending states like New York, and far more than states like Arizona, where spending per student is about $10,000 a year.”

(snip)

DoD schools “have a centralized structure that is not subject to the whims of school boards or mayors.”

How is this related to digital learning?

Many online and hybrid schools are serving student populations that differ from the overall student population. Some of their students are seeking to move ahead more quickly than average, and others are pursuing interests outside of academics, such as sports, the arts, or careers. Some students have fallen behind on credit accumulation due to circumstances that may include health problems, pregnancy or parenting, or other issues affecting their education. On balance, it appears that the student population in online and hybrid schools does not perform as well as the overall student population—which isn’t a surprise given that these students and their families have sought a different option because they felt they were not well served by traditional schools.

Despite evidence that many students shift into their new school behind on credit accumulation, or with relatively low test scores, state accountability systems and policymakers appear not to fully take these circumstances into account. Further, these schools are often hindered by funding levels that are lower than for other schools, or by other state requirements that set instructional requirements.

The outcomes in Department of Defense schools help illustrate that these factors such as poverty should be taken into account, by making three key points.

First, schools perform better when some of the worst effects of poverty on students—a lack of housing or health care—are eliminated.

Second, funding levels matter. Certainly, funds may be poorly spent, but all other things being equal, you’d rather have schools funded at higher levels than lower levels.

Third, educators with more control over their schools can create better results.

Perhaps these arguments seem obvious. But the “no excuses” line of argument inherent in some educational policy circles essentially takes these points off the table. A better approach would acknowledge that schools are responding, in part, to conditions outside their immediate control, from poverty to state legislatures.

We welcome your comments in the DLC Community Portal's Blog Discussion Group. If you’re already a DLC user or member, you must log in before you can join or comment in the group. If you’re not yet on the DLC platform, please create a free user account or join as a DLC member to join the discussion.