When You Wonder Vol. 18: Brave New Things

After last month’s newsletter on house systems, we heard from so many readers that we decided to stay on the topic. Clearly, teams of students and teachers — “houses” — are an idea whose time has come, especially in an era of disengagement, disconnection, and distrust.

To learn more, we spoke with Jackie Foor, executive director of the Consortium for Public Education. A nonprofit that helps school districts engage students and communities alike, the Consortium is leading a cohort of districts in a collective effort to design, adapt, and implement house systems of their own.

Though the educators involved are quick to point out that house systems aren’t a panacea (nothing ever is!), some districts are seeing remarkable results. With careful planning and thoughtful implementation, house systems can make schools better places to be for kids and adults alike — an effect that shows up in everything from student confidence to teacher retention.

Perhaps it’s no wonder. In 2019, a meta-analysis of more than 80 peer-reviewed studies found that students who “feel personally accepted, respected, included, and supported by others in the school social environment” — who feel, in other words, like part of their house’s “team” — are more likely to perform better academically, socially, and behaviorally. Though the effect sizes ranged from small to moderate, the researchers concluded that overall, “the central role [that] belonging appears to play in school settings is striking.”

At a recent Consortium event, district after district shared the benefits they’ve reaped so far: Higher attendance. Fewer behavioral referrals. Better emotional regulation and a greater openness to trust. One district noted that even its school board members have been sorted into houses — an act of bridging that counters the trend toward school board dysfunction.

Most importantly, students themselves testified to house systems’ merits. “The house system, personally, has taught me to brave new things,” said a middle-schooler named Connor. “And the house system also allows us to meet new people and build new and real friendships with them.”

Below, Foor explains how the idea caught on — and what the future of house systems might hold.

Our interview has been edited for clarity and length.

How did the Consortium get involved in helping districts develop their house systems?

A few years ago, Huntington Bank offered to send educators to visit the Ron Clark Academy in Georgia. And they wanted to ensure that the educators who went to Georgia had ongoing support to reflect on, adapt, and implement some of the things they learned. Providing that support is exactly what the Consortium for Public Education was set up to do.

We started with fifteen school districts, including Pittsburgh Public Schools, which meant we had educators from about 25 different middle schools. Before the site visit, we met with educators to prep them: What might they look for? How might they capture their experience and think about what they wanted to bring back from it?

What happened during the actual site visit?

Well, there’s a lot to see at the Ron Clark Academy, but the response from the educators who visited was basically unanimous: They all wanted something like Ron Clark’s house systems. That was the major attraction, because house systems help to solve so many of the problems that educators have been seeing since the pandemic: things like chronic absenteeism, disciplinary problems, and disengagement.

So, we came back and asked, “What can we do together to help kids feel like they belong, and to create a different culture within our schools?”

Over the course of the year that followed, we really dug into house systems with the districts. And we looked at other models and at other schools that have been doing this sort of thing for a long time. Because what the Ron Clark Academy does is fantastic, but there are lots of other kinds of house systems, too. And we gave districts space to share what they were doing and what they were learning. They could ask questions of each other, and we even facilitated their travel to each other’s schools.

It sounds like there was a lot of district buy-in.

By the end of the project, the funding was running out, but there was such a strong interest that we said, “It doesn’t matter. We can’t stop this work. We’ll figure out a way to keep it going.”

And we did.

Today, we have almost 20 different districts participating. They’re visiting each other, sharing ideas, solving problems, and adapting the best of what house systems can do. And together, we’ve started to think even bigger.

How so?

What if, for example, we created a regional house system? What if we created something that wasn’t identical from school to school, exactly, but which had enough similarities so that — especially in communities where kids and families move around a lot — students could show up at their new school and automatically find their people?

It’s something that could be shared across school districts, and it could make things easier for districts that are just starting out with house systems of their own. What if, for example, we based regional houses on the values of people who are important to Southwestern Pennsylvania — people like Rachel Carson, Josh Gibson, even Fred Rogers?

Sign us up! We’re ready to join House Rogers.

Whose “house” would you want to join? Let us know in the comments!