Redesigning High School

A new report on rethinking and reorganizing secondary education

Editor’s Note: Congrats to Kaitlyn Shepherd of the John Locke Foundation’s Center for Effective Education, who was the winner of our subscriber referral lottery. She has an Amazon gift card headed her way!

There might not be money it in anymore, but we would appreciate if you would continue to refer Informed Choice to anyone who you think might benefit from reading it. -MQM

Loyal Informed Choice readers know that K-12 public education is in a state of flux now. The rapid growth and strong demand for school choice programs have empowered K-12 parents to access new educational options. Charter schools have continued to increase enrollment, with the latest figures sitting just under 4 million students in the 2023-24 school year. Public school district leaders are wondering what kind of action plan will help them through the coming school years.

Enter a report from Tyton Partners published last month, titled “Choose to Learn: K-12 Public Systems Under Pressure – High School Redesign as a Catalyst to Retention and (Re)Enrollment.”

In this study (which was supported by the Walton Family Foundation), the strategic advisors at Tyton surveyed over 250 K-12 administrators and conducted 25 district and public charter network case studies to inform the public on what decision makers think about restructuring the American high school experience.

I’ll break down some of the specific findings next, but first I will quote the observation from the executive summary that stuck out to me the most: “The effectiveness of high school redesign depends more on execution than new ideas.” Put another way, implementation over pure imagination. Having capable people clearly communicating the changes that will come, all while listening to the voices of the parents in the district or network, is crucial for success.

Finding solutions is urgent for public high schools because of forecasted enrollment declines. The Institute for Education Sciences (housed within the federal Department of Education) projects that ninth through twelfth grade enrollment will decrease 2 percent between 2019 and 2030. Marguerite Roza of the Edunomics Lab at Georgetown University found staffing increases between 6% and 10%, year-by-year, during the pandemic school years (2020-21 to 2023-24), despite many students remaining home for portions of those years and declining enrollments. Some states have even begun what you might call “anticipatory layoffs” – California collectively terminated over 1,200 teachers between the 2024-25 and 2025-26 school years. It’s safe to say that vulnerable districts need an action plan, for the next few years at least.

The early sections of this report give an overview of the school redesign trends preceding 2026. After the Great Recession of 2008, there was a push in education for “structured pathways” – standardized course sequences in STEM, the arts, early college, and career training that prepare students for the particular track that they wish to pursue. The report notes that about 83% of school systems now offer some form of these structured pathways. Also rising in popularity are flexible learning environments (75% of systems in 2025) and non-traditional schedule options (58% in 2025).

The authors also looked at the level of redesign and its effect on student enrollment. Schools redesigned their offerings at different rates – some at a significant rate, others less so. The authors looked at schools that made significant differences and found that they had similar rates of enrollment decline as those that did only some redesign (-0.8% versus -0.7%).

However, the authors also found that student enrollment was key. For the 16% of systems that had over 50% student participation in the redesigned activities, there was an average enrollment increase of 1.3%. However, the systems that had less than 50% participation in their redesigns saw an average enrollment decrease of -1.1%.

Survey respondents also indicated a willingness to phase in new approaches that competitor districts are starting to use. These include mastery-based progression (measuring students based on skills acquired within the academic subject, rather than only exams that turn into letter grades), hybrid learning (instruction within the classroom and online), thematic programs (creating a fun physical environment to spur active engagement), and structured career pathways (CTE and its close relatives). The authors note that not all of these additions are created equal – some require new hiring, the acquisition of new space, or new technology. If a district lacks the needed funding, it may need to apply for a federal or state grant first.

The authors created a five-tool model for what it takes to put in place a winning redesign. Details are on pages 11 through 17, but I’ll summarize them here.

District leaders need to know if they’re the right market for the idea. For example, a school district where upwards of 85% of the high school students plan to attend a four-year college probably does not need to double its CTE budget. There needs to be a thoughtfully designed model, which takes into account who will facilitate the program, what resources they will need, what timeline is workable, and how success will be measured. Then, leaders must listen to students – hearing what they like or don’t like about the program, and any suggestions for improvement.. Lastly, the district or network should maintain the trust of the families that they’re serving by demonstrating tangible outcomes that justify the time, effort, and money committed to implementing the program.

The authors conclude on an optimistic note, saying that the leaders who identify creative solutions that meet the desires of the kids that they’re serving will be the ones who help stem an enrollment decline. Emphasizing “disciplined delivery”, they argue that these carefully designed schooling complements will have positive impacts on districts when they are popular and responsive to the preferences of the students who participate. With the coming demographic cliff and its implications for K-12 enrollment, eyes will be on how systems plan to survive and thrive.