Public education was built on a powerful promise: that every child deserves access to a great education.
Across the country, educators spend countless hours trying to fulfill that promise. We analyze averages, proficiency rates, subgroup performance, attendance data, graduation percentages, and growth measures. We search for instructional strategies that research says are effective for the largest number of students possible.
Our efforts come from a good place, but I increasingly wonder if there is a danger hidden inside the way we think about success in education.
Public education absolutely should care about collective outcomes. It should care about equity. It should care about ensuring every child has access to meaningful opportunities.
But “all” and “each” are not always the same thing. “All” is a system-level concept. “Each” is a child.
And sometimes, in our effort to improve outcomes for all students, individual students quietly disappear inside the averages.
The shift from standardization to individualization
Most educators know exactly what this looks like because we have all seen it. We have seen high-achieving students slowly disengage because school moves too slowly for them. We have seen students who struggle become experts at hiding it. We have seen students whose passions never meaningfully connect to what happens inside the classroom. We have seen students who comply, earn decent grades, and graduate on time, yet never truly feel inspired, connected or known.
These students are not failing school in the traditional sense. Instead, school may be failing them.
The challenge is that systems designed around “all” naturally drift toward standardization. It is easier to organize schools when students move at similar paces, learn through similar structures, and demonstrate understanding in similar ways. That model made sense for the era schools were originally designed to serve. Schools were built to educate large numbers of students efficiently and consistently, and in many ways, they have done exactly that.
Shifting to an “each” mentality can feel terrifying in an education system where administrators are often judged primarily by districtwide data points.
Sometimes, what is best for each child may not immediately produce the highest collective metrics for the system. If schools truly personalize learning, allowing for more flexibility, student voice, varied pacing, real-world experiences and individualized pathways, there may be moments when the numbers do not rise as quickly as people want. In some cases, they may even dip initially as schools learn how to navigate new approaches.
The pressures to decide
One of the hardest parts of educational leadership is the constant pressure to make decisions based on what is best for the district, for performance metrics or for the adults leading the system. Those pressures are real. Public schools have responsibilities to taxpayers, communities and accountability systems.
But now it’s time for administrators to be as accountable to students and families as they are to every other stakeholder. Increasingly, families are demanding more of their schools — asking not “Is this school successful?” but “Will my child be known, valued and supported here?”
More families are searching for learning environments where their children feel known, understood, challenged, supported and connected. Homeschooling continues to grow. Online options continue to expand. Microschools are emerging across the country. Families are exercising school choice in ways we have never seen before.
This is not simply a political conversation. It is a human one.
At the Indiana Microschool Collaborative, we have experienced this firsthand. Our first microschool site, Nature’s Gift, opened with space for around 60 students. By the end of the year, we had more than 140 students on the waitlist. That demand did not emerge because families suddenly stopped caring about academics. In many cases, the opposite is true. Families want environments where their child will not become invisible inside a system designed around averages.
That does not mean traditional public schools are failing. In fact, many schools are doing incredible work to evolve and respond to changing needs. At Eastern Hancock Schools, we continue pushing ourselves to create more personalized and flexible opportunities for students because we believe public schools can and should lead this work.
Choosing “each” can feel messy. It can create scheduling, staffing, transportation, accountability and financial challenges. It forces schools to rethink long-standing structures and assumptions. It requires communities to let go of the idea that fairness means every student receives the same experience.
But if we truly believe every child matters, then eventually we have to be willing to choose children over convenience.
We have to be willing to choose each kid.
It’s about mindsets, not models
The specific model matters less than the mindset behind it. Microschools, flexible pathways, competency-based learning, career-connected experiences and personalized schedules can all reflect a commitment to ensuring that no student disappears inside the averages.
Because students are not averages. They are individuals with different strengths, fears, interests, dreams, family dynamics, motivations and learning needs. Some thrive in large environments while others need smaller communities. Some need structure while others need flexibility. Some need more challenge while others need more support.
The problem comes when administrators convince ourselves there is only one “right” way to design school.
The future of education belongs to schools willing to build systems flexible enough to respond to students, rather than expecting students to shape themselves around a system. The real challenge is not simply improving outcomes for all students, but creating schools where every child feels impossible to overlook. After all, averages don’t walk through our doors — students do.