In the ongoing debate about how to best structure our schools, one superintendent is asking us to look past the clock and focus on the student. With years of experience leading a rural district, he has seen firsthand the tension between state mandates and the authentic, often unpredictable, process of learning. He joins us to discuss why he believes learning is always asynchronous and how we can build school systems that honor this fundamental truth.
Our conversation explores the unintended consequences of “seat-time” policies, redefines the role of asynchronous instruction as a powerful tool for deep learning rather than a hands-off approach, and imagines a new accountability model where funding is tied not to minutes in a chair, but to genuine evidence of student growth.
You argue that seat-time mandates push schools toward compliance over real learning. Drawing from your experience, could you share a specific example of this tension and outline the practical steps your district takes to prioritize authentic student growth despite these regulatory pressures?
Absolutely. You can feel that tension in any classroom at 10:00 a.m. when a new concept is introduced. The state might say we need 180 days of instruction, with funding tied to students being physically or virtually present for a set number of minutes. This forces a teacher to “cover” the quadratic equation on Tuesday, ready or not, because the pacing guide demands it. The real tension is that I know some of those students are still wrestling with a concept from Monday, while others are bored and ready to move on. In our district, we try to carve out space within that rigid structure. We empower teachers to use well-designed, self-paced learning modules and project-based activities that don’t have a time limit. It becomes less about “Did you sit through the lecture?” and more about “Show me you understand it when you’re ready,” even if that’s a few days later.
You mention asynchronous learning has a reputation for being “no teaching at all.” To counter this, what does a high-quality asynchronous lesson look like in your schools, and what specific metrics do you use to demonstrate to parents that real, measurable learning is happening?
That reputation is incredibly frustrating because it misses the entire point. A high-quality asynchronous lesson is the opposite of neglect; it’s a beautifully designed, intentional learning pathway. It’s not just a worksheet posted online. It might be a short, recorded lecture from the teacher that a student can rewind and watch three times, followed by an interactive simulation to practice the skill, and finally, a project where they apply the concept. To show parents this works, we move beyond measuring login times. We show them the completed project that demonstrates mastery. We track progress through self-paced modules. Our teachers document those “aha” moments when a student suddenly makes a connection, proving that the learning, which may have started in a live lesson, truly took hold during that independent, asynchronous time.
You propose tying funding to “evidence of growth.” What are the first few practical steps a district could take to pilot this model? Please walk me through how a teacher might document and report a student’s “sudden understanding” that happens days after a lesson.
The first step is to start small and build trust. You could pilot this in a single grade level or subject area with volunteer teachers. We would give them simple tools—it doesn’t have to be a complex new software, maybe even a shared document—to log qualitative evidence of growth. Imagine a teacher is working with a small group and a student who struggled with quadratic equations all week suddenly exclaims, “Oh, it’s like the path a basketball makes!” The teacher would quickly log that observation: date, time, and the specific connection the student made. This note, attached to the student’s portfolio, becomes a piece of evidence. Over time, these small observations build a rich picture of a student’s journey, which is far more meaningful than a single test score.
Referencing your example of the 10:00 a.m. math class, how can a teacher realistically manage vastly different learning paces in a single period? Describe one or two specific strategies or tools you encourage your educators to use to support students who need more time.
This is the core challenge, and it’s where thoughtful asynchronous design becomes a teacher’s best friend. One powerful strategy is creating a “playlist” of learning activities. After a brief whole-group mini-lesson, students can work through a list of options at their own pace. This list would include things like watching a recorded explanation, playing an educational game that reinforces the skill, or working on a collaborative project. This frees the teacher from being the sole source of information and allows them to circulate, providing one-on-one support to those who need it most. Another tool is the pre-recorded lecture. For the student who needs more time, being able to pause and re-watch a key explanation without feeling like they are holding up the class is a game-changer.
Given Indiana’s legislation limiting asynchronous days, what specific data or student success stories would you present to lawmakers to make a case for more flexibility? Please describe what a more effective, growth-focused accountability model might look like in practice for your district.
I would bring them the stories first because they are the most powerful. I’d tell them about the student who was on the verge of failing but used those asynchronous e-learning days to meticulously re-watch every lesson, finally catching up and passing with confidence. Then I’d show them the datanalytics showing that hundreds of students are accessing these recorded lectures and self-paced modules at 8:00 p.m. at night, long after the school day has ended, because that’s when they’re ready to learn. In practice, a better model would be a portfolio-based system. Instead of just a state test score, a school’s “grade” would be based on a collection of evidence—student projects, documented teacher observations of growth, and demonstrations of mastery. It would tell the story of learning over time, not just performance on a single day.
What is your forecast for the future of student-centered learning and school accountability?
I am cautiously optimistic. The shift away from industrial-era, seat-time-based accountability will be slow and challenging, as it requires a fundamental change in mindset from policymakers and the public. However, I believe it’s inevitable. We are seeing a growing recognition that a one-size-fits-all approach fails too many kids. My forecast is that over the next decade, we will see a move toward a more balanced “dashboard” approach to accountability. This dashboard won’t discard standardized tests entirely, but it will place them alongside more meaningful, authentic measures of growth—like student portfolios and project-based assessments—giving us a much more holistic and accurate picture of what our students truly know and can do.
