Ceilings and floors
The outlook for young athletes being drafted and developed by professional teams are sometimes described in terms of ceilings and floors. The ceiling represents a player’s reasonable best case career trajectory. The floor represents the player’s reasonable worst. It’s a useful concept especially because certain skills have variable impacts on ceiling and floor values. In baseball a player with home run power may have a high ceiling because home runs are highly valued. A skilled defensive player may have a high floor because defense is easier to project and develop.
Stretching the concept a bit suggests that different versions of ceilings and floors can be applied in other areas. Is health care in the US good or bad? One way to think about it is US health care has a high ceiling. If the Mayo Clinic is your provider, your care is probably in the top .0001% worldwide. If you want to develop a vaccine to combat a global pandemic, US-based companies are the best option (at least based on the COVID-19 experience). But many Americans have experienced the low floor, which due to a variety of political positions and historical artifacts leaves more of the US population lacking basic care than in other similarly rich countries.
The concept extends to post-secondary education as well. Ceiling? The US has a hugely disproportionate number of the highest rated universities in the world. Floor? We also have a set of tuition, funding, and related problems that keep the floor low. Other rich countries don’t have as many globally top-rated universities, but they have easier, less expensive options for their students.
It’s worth considering if a particular effort is serving raising the ceiling or the floor, to clarify who is being served. A three hundred million dollar gift to Harvard? That’s all about raising the ceiling. Paying off debt for underserved students? That might not exactly be the floor, but it’s closer.
K-12 education has primarily a floor issue. The ceiling—the best public schools, charter schools, private schools—are doing just fine.
But the floor is a problem, which can be viewed through at least two lenses. One aspect is represented by the schools that graduate low percentages of students, with a substantial portion of students who do graduate needing developmental courses to go on to post-secondary. Another is represented by the 5-10% of students who don't graduate from even the well-regarded high schools. Similar stories, with different metrics such as reading, paint the picture at elementary and middle school levels.
The Digital Learning Collaborative is mostly focused on raising the floor. Our members address a lack of options for students and families who aren’t well served in traditional schools; support schools serving at-risk students; and create new opportunities for students seeking dual enrollment courses or CTE paths. Even in cases that might appear to be raising the ceiling, for example providing advanced courses, often the attempt is simply to level the playing field and provide equal access.
That’s not the case with all DLC members. Some digital learning providers are working with high achieving students and schools. There’s great value in that too and we are glad to support them.
But that’s not where the biggest need in US education is. The need is to raise the floor, and that’s where we and most DLC members are focused.
When you see a school, company, or project being proposed, it’s worth asking does this raise the ceiling or the floor?
In K-12 education, lifting the ceiling is good. Raising the floor is better.
(BTW this is also a way to talk about DEI in those places that won’t let you.)
Do you have any thoughts on ceilings and floors? 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.