Since its inception in the early 19th century, the American Common School Movement carried a foundational promise. As Horace Mann described it, public education would be “free, universal, nonsectarian, and democratic.” [1] It was to be a system designed to provide broad access to learning while cultivating both character and essential academic skills.

To deliver on that promise, the system was built around stability. Schools were geographically predictable. Families knew where their children would attend. Educators could rely on relatively steady enrollment and long-term relationships with their communities. This stability was not incidental; it was the mechanism that allowed public education to level the playing field for students regardless of wealth or background. Mutual trust was inherent to the system and process.

Now, two centuries later, instead of defaulting to a neighborhood school, families increasingly ask, “What are my options?” before committing to an educational experience. Across Idaho and the nation, educational opportunity has expanded into something resembling a marketplace of choices. Charter schools have added nearly half a million students in the past six years[2] while traditional district enrollment has declined in many places. More than one in ten public school students now participates in some form of school choice[3]. Open enrollment policies allow students to cross attendance boundaries with greater ease, and virtual, hybrid, and home-based models have further expanded those options.

Regardless of where one stands on these changes, the implication is clear: the system is no longer defined primarily by stability nor trust. And yet, much of it still operates as if it is.

For generations, educational leadership has been grounded in managing stable systems, ensuring compliance, overseeing personnel, and maintaining consistent operations. Those responsibilities remain essential, but they are no longer sufficient. Today, school leaders operate in an environment where enrollment can fluctuate, families actively evaluate options and leave a school system mid-year, and schools are compared based on a limited set of public-facing metrics more directly than ever before. In this context, leadership must evolve. Trustees, superintendents, and principals must fundamentally think and act more entrepreneurially.

Adopting a mindset of responsiveness, clarity, and intentional design is now non-negotiable for education decision-makers and leaders. Entrepreneurial thinking in education begins with purpose. Schools must clearly define what they offer, and, just as importantly, how that offering is distinct. When neighboring systems present nearly identical missions, programs, and experiences, families are left to make decisions based on surface-level indicators  and the aforementioned metrics rather than meaningful and substantive differences in philosophy, programming, culture, and organizational strengths.

One-size-fits-most approaches, once common and widely-accepted in stable systems, are less effective in environments with expanded choice. Schools must understand the evolving needs of their communities and align programs, supports, and opportunities accordingly. This is not about chasing trends; it is about ensuring that what is offered genuinely meets the needs of those being served.

Perhaps most critically, entrepreneurial thinking demands proactivity. In more stable eras, systems could afford to respond gradually. That is no longer the case. When new options emerge and enrollment shifts begin, reactive responses often come too late. Effective leaders monitor patterns, anticipate needs, and make strategic decisions early, well before circumstances force their hand.

The lesson from more dynamic sectors is not about competition. It is about adaptation. Organizations that succeed under changing conditions are clear in purpose, focused in execution, and responsive to shifting realities. They are proactive, not reactive. They set direction rather than follow it. Education can no longer be the exception.

Idaho has strong examples of traditional public-school systems that have adapted to meet this moment. They have retained and gained students and developed innovative programming that is both distinctive and engaging. Others, however, have remained static and are experiencing the consequences of non-response.

One of the most counterintuitive truths of this moment is that standing still does not preserve the status quo. When the environment changes, inaction creates drift. Lack of purposeful vision invites expansion without coherence and no mechanism to ensure sustainability. Over time, this makes it harder, not easier, to deliver on the core mission of improving teaching and learning.

None of this requires agreement on the direction of education policy. Debates about school choice, funding, and governance will, and should, continue. To be sure, the Idaho legislature, both as a body, and from the mouths of individual lawmakers make it clear that changes to Idaho’s education landscape have just begun. Despite this, there is a more immediate, less ideological question worth asking: Are we preparing and supporting school leaders for the system we have today, or the one we had twenty-five years ago?

Public education was built on stability for good reason, and that foundation still matters. But the conditions surrounding schools have changed in ways that increasingly reward clarity, responsiveness, and adaptability. For today’s leaders, this is no longer a challenge on the margins of the job. It is the job.

Matthew McDaniel, PhD is an assistant professor and Director of the M.Ed. in Educational Leadership program at The College of Idaho.

[1] Graziano, L., Spurrier, A., & Squire, J. (2022, August). A history of public education and the assembly of services. Bellwether. https://bellwether.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/AssemblyOfServices_BetaByBellwether_August2022_FINAL.pdf

[2] National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. (2025, November 16). 2025 enrollment report. National Alliance for Public Charter Schools

[3] Wei, L. (2026, February 12). School choice statistics: Market data report 2026. Worldmetrics.org.