Why hasn’t educational transformation occurred?

Earlier posts (here, here, here) discussed whether online/hybrid/digital learning could be transformative, and how. Those posts concluded that digital learning could be transformative, and that there are compelling reasons that it should be, and ended with this question:
 
Why has education not been transformed even after two plus decades of online learning, and a disruptive pandemic?
 
I believe there are three major reasons that come into play. These are all related so I’m not suggesting the order below is prioritized.
 
First, education policy and funding has simply not kept up with the needs of educational innovators, students, and parents. One simple example of this is that in Colorado, one of the leading states for hybrid schools, such schools are classified by the Department of Education as “online” despite the fact that they look nothing like online schools, with physical buildings, and required onsite attendance in many cases. In fact, it’s the schools themselves that often want this classification, because it’s the easiest (maybe the only) way to avoid funding mechanisms based on seat time. The tradeoff is that their students are funded at a lower rate than the level for students in traditional schools. They also have to be tracked in different ways that present a challenge for districts.
 
In sum, the state is funding innovative schools at lower rates, and it’s making it harder to receive that funding. And we wonder why there aren’t more of these schools?
 
That’s just one example of many policy hindrances in numerous states.
 
Second, to the extent that states do create policies to allow innovative schools, they too often do so under policy waivers. Michael Horn tackled this issue recently:
 
“As evidence of the opportunities to innovate, many bureaucrats and think tanks point to the vast number of waivers that states offer. The opportunities to move beyond traditional structures and processes do exist, the argument goes.
 
Yet waivers help far less than most policymakers believe. Until regulators create frameworks where innovation in pursuit of student outcomes is the default and doesn’t require permission, don’t expect a sea change….
 
although states have created many waivers from policies, these waivers typically aren’t comprehensive. That is, while they clear some barriers out of the way, they don’t clear out other demands and requirements or change how schools are funded.
 
As a result, a waiver may not allow a school nearly as much freedom as a well-intentioned bureaucrat in a state’s department of education or a legislator thinks it’s giving them. That often means that after receiving a waiver, innovation halts in its tracks.
 
(Snip)
 
Innovation to help students make progress should be the default, not an act of permission granting from bureaucrats.”
 
His argument goes into far greater detail and is well worth reading.
 
The third reason is a lack of strong and sustained pressure to make changes.
 
Why isn’t there more political will to make these changes more comprehensively? Larry Cuban indirectly sheds some light on that question:
 
“…the U.S. has a three-tiered system of schooling based upon performance and socioeconomic status.
 
Top-tier schools—about 10 percent of all U.S. schools–such as selective urban high schools in New York, Boston, and San Francisco and schools in mostly affluent suburbs such as New Trier High School (IL), Beverly Hills (CA), Scarsdale (NY) meet or exceed national and state curriculum standards. They head lists of high-scoring districts in their respective states. These schools send their graduates to four-year colleges and universities.
 
Second-tier schools—about 50 percent of all schools often located in inner-ring suburbs (e.g., T.C. Williams High School in Alexandria, VA) often meet state standards and send most of their graduating classes to college. But, on occasion, they slip in and out of compliance with federal and state accountability rules, get dinged, and continue on their way as second-tier schools.
 
Then there is the third tier of schools located in big cities such as D.C., Philadelphia, Detroit, St. Louis, Atlanta, and rural areas where largely poor and minority families live. Most schools in these cities are low-performing and frequently on the brink of being closed. Occasionally, a stellar principal and staff will lift a school into the second tier but that is uncommon.”
 
His numbers suggest that 60% of schools are doing reasonably well. More importantly, this 60% include politically influential areas such as relatively affluent suburbs. These parents are generally satisfied with their schools and don’t want significant change. That lack of interest doesn’t necessarily doom transformation, but it certainly is a hindrance.
 
Can educational transformation happen despite these hindrances? Yes—but we have to be realistic about the effort and time required.