Optimisism about the future of education in a world of AI→

Ethan Mollick, writing for One Useful Thing:

I actually think the opposite is true: education will be able to adapt to AI far more effectively than other industries, and in ways that will improve both learning and the experience of instructors.

During a recent meeting with my district's Literacy Coaches, I saw an opportunity to introduce ChatGPT and help them understand how it could generate assessment prompts using a new technical format they had recently learned. The coaches identified a grade level and subject area, and I used ChatGPT to generate multiple assessment prompts. The prompts were not only coherent and grammatically correct, but they also perfectly fit the specifications learned at the training.

The coaches were amazed at the speed and accuracy of ChatGPT's responses. This was their first exposure to the technology. By demonstrating ChatGPT's capabilities, they were able to see the potential benefits that AI could bring to planning instruction.

With AI, teachers can quickly generate materials and assessments, saving time and allowing them to focus on individualized student support. Additionally, AI can analyze student data and provide personalized recommendations, helping teachers better understand each student's strengths and needs. By showing teachers these benefits through hands-on experiences early on, we can build their confidence and encourage more integration in the classroom.

I abandoned grading my students and stopped taking attendance. Here’s what happened→

J. W. Traphagan, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin, abandoned traditional grading and attendance requirements, opting for a self-evaluation system that eliminated busywork and replaced grades with an assessment of participation and a score assigned by each student to reflect their performance. Here are his takeaways:

First, I often hear that students are apathetic about learning these days. This is inaccurate. Students are, in fact, excited about learning.

However, they’re indifferent to or even bothered by the educational system’s incessant emphasis on quantitative measures and assignments that seem to have little or no value. Most students want to learn, but don’t see the conventional educational approach as providing a particularly good framework for learning.

Second, many students have experienced enormous stress and anxiety. High school can be a pressure cooker focused on grades, test scores, GPAs and getting into the right college. As a result, learning seems like a side effect of education rather than the goal.

My students consistently note that when they don’t have to anticipate the expectations of their professor, they can focus on taking chances in their writing and thinking. And taking chances often leads to true learning and mastery of a topic.

Finally, this experiment has forced me to think about intellectual rigor in the classroom. Is a system designed to generate stress through piling on work and being “hard” — whatever that means — rigorous?

Or is rigor about creating an environment where students enjoy the learning process and, as a result, willingly engage in broadening their horizons and thinking about their lives?

I think it’s the latter.

What are we willing to lose in order to change a child's life?→

Isabel Bozada-Jones, writing for EdSurge:

"If we are going to truly transform and improve education, all administrators, policymakers and leaders must let old practices die and imagine something better."

To create a climate and culture where “old practices” are replaced with “something better,” we must first provide school leaders with frameworks that openly acknowledge and tackle power dynamics within school systems that could hinder innovation.

Professional development, teacher mentor programs, student leadership initiatives, parent organizations, and community events all hold the potential for transformative change. However, these opportunities are rarely realized because school leaders often lack the necessary resources, training, or support to effectively confront power dynamics and promote innovation within their buildings.

Regarding Bozada-Jones' article, the question is: How can policymakers, business leaders, and district administrators collaborate to create frameworks and a community culture that empowers school leaders to envision innovative solutions instead of relying on outdated practices while acknowledging the existing power dynamics that cannot be overlooked?

Supporting Students to Ask More Questions May Narrow the Achievement Gap→

Lory Hough, writing for Harvard Ed. Magazine describes the finding of a study following 103 children aged 5 to 7 as they participated in a series of virtual science lessons, with one group being encouraged to ask questions and the other to listen carefully. The study aimed to determine whether encouraging children to ask questions or listen carefully would lead to greater learning and curiosity. Unshockingly, it did.

Furthermore, practice with question-asking was more beneficial for children with lower baseline knowledge, suggesting that question-asking shows promise for enhancing children’s motivation to learn and equalizing academic disparities.

Honestly, it's frustrating that we're still having this conversation: student-centered learning should not be a novel concept in 2023. And yet, there are still those who believe that this approach only “works” in advanced classes, or that it doesn't work for all students. This could not be further from the truth.

The Search for a Truly Individualized Education Model→

Chester E. Finn, Jr., writing for Education Next:

Let’s finally face the truth: Since kids move at different speeds, the amount of instruction that student Q needs in pursuit of mastery of a lesson, a unit, a 'grade level,' etc. will differ from the amount that student R needs, which means that, yes, they’ll face different quantities of schooling. That’s the alternative to the batch-processing of today’s age-based attendance-and-promotion systems. It means treating kids differently.

As much as I agree with the sentiment, there is still a lack of personalized learning models addressing the needs of all learners, particularly those at risk.

Online schools have made efforts to offer self-paced learning, but often fall short in providing the necessary support and resources for struggling students. These students may fare worse in online environments compared to traditional schools.

I am fully on board with the theory and the mindset that is required. We absolutely should have an education system that adapts to each student’s unique learning needs and provides the necessary resources and support to ensure their success. I’ve simply not seen it done effectively … yet.

Student Thinking vs. Student Engagement→

If I were developing a school leadership curriculum for new principals, this article in ASCD, by Jim Heal and Bryan Goodwin, would be required reading for the first day.

But there's another form of engagement that's all too common in many classrooms that cuts against these definitions: the illusion of engagement. Students may appear engaged—creating ornate dioramas, glitzy posters, exploding volcanos, or other "busy" projects, for example—but ultimately, they do very little actual learning or thinking about their learning.

Deep learning occurs when students are given the opportunity to answer authentic, challenging, and thought-provoking questions, and are invited to share their thought processes aloud. However, this kind of teaching is not easy. It requires content knowledge, skill, and flexibility to adapt to students' needs, as well as a significant amount of tenacity to resist students' attempts to do the minimum amount of work required for a passing grade.

Principals have a critical role to play in building a professional culture that promotes collaboration and problem-solving among teachers, while also keeping expectations for students and staff high. This is essential for creating an environment that supports teachers in their efforts to promote deep learning and meaningful engagement among their students.

Empowering Students to Own Their Education→

Alyson Klein, for Education Week, describes Synergy at Mineola High School:

So the Mineola team turned the district’s credit-recovery program, which had generally served kids in danger of not graduating, into a school that strives to give students far more say over when and how they learn, combined with career exploration, hands-on experiences, and mental health supports.

The Synergy program at Mineola High School is a school-within-a-school that allows students to have greater control over their learning experience. It is open to all students who want to learn in a different way. The unique aspect of the program is that it was originally designed to meet the needs of students who were at risk of not graduating, but it has also proven to be a great fit for any student who desires more autonomy and control over their education.

I’ve written about the benefits of districts investing in historically underserved schools and communities. Providing resources and attention to support students with the highest level of needs serves to create a more equitable education system while also creating a model for the rest of the district to learn from and copy.

Mineola is doing that at Synergy and students are responding. We all should do the same.

Spinning Our Wheels→

Frederick M. Hess, writing for ASCD:

"There's a familiar "spinning wheels" aspect to school reform that can make it tough for any proposed change to actually stick. But this post-pandemic era, with its new landscape, could be a moment of punctuated equilibrium rather than another spin of the wheel.

Rising to that challenge requires leaders to find more promising ways to support students, confront learning loss, and effectively use billions in emergency federal aid."

Hess lists an approach to rethinking education that involves leading inquiry with questions, being precise and specific about the problems being solved, being deliberate about the process and open to new solutions, and rejecting change for change’s sake.

While I appreciate his optimism and agree with his points, I think we’re unfortunately about to see another ”spin of the wheel” in most communities. The intertia of the status quo is strong, and the traditional structures and processes in education have been in place for a long time. Those who have benefited from the way things are will naturally resist any changes that threaten their advantages, regardless of how beneficial those changes may be for the larger community.

Leaders who are pushing for change, particularly in light of the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, must be willing to put themselves out there and take a bold stance. This often means going against the status quo and facing resistance, even when the leaders, themselves, may be among those benefiting from the way things are.

To overcome these challenges, leaders must be proactive in forming coalitions that can help drive change. By working together with like-minded individuals and organizations, leaders can help insulate themselves against attacks and criticism, and build a strong foundation for change.

The Gender Gap in Academics→

I first wrote about the underperformance of boys back in 2015. Dual-enrolled students at my high school did well in general, but on average, girls' GPAs in college were 1.05 points higher than boys', even though they did the same on standardized tests going in. Fast forward to today, and the problem still exists:

“Many social scientists agree that contemporary American men are mired in malaise, even as they disagree about the causes. In academic performance, boys are well behind girls in elementary school, high school, and college, where the sex ratio is approaching two female undergraduates for every one male. (It was an even split at the start of the nineteen-eighties.)”

Addressing academic differences between boys and girls in our current culture is a complex and delicate task. We're navigating a social landscape where conversations around gender equality and toxic masculinity are ongoing, and any efforts to support boys specifically may be met with skepticism or resistance. Yet, it’s essential to address this challenge, understanding that the purpose of school is to lift everyone up and create equal opportunities for success.

Solutions should emphasize supporting all students and creating a safe space for candid conversations about their experiences. By placing a strong emphasis on learning and growth, and listening to each student’s individual needs, we can begin to understand the issue of boys performing worse than girls in school. Then, by encouraging open dialogue among educators, parents, and students, we can collaboratively work on strategies that are adapted to meet a variety of learning needs. By doing this, we are likely to help boys succeed and make learning more inclusive and equitable for everyone.

Strong systems are mandatory for keeping schools running through turnover→

Elizabeth Dampf, Director of Professional Learning at Round Lake Area Schools, writing for ASCD:

"The amount of time new teachers spend running around finding answers is wasteful, and they know it. Teachers who quit usually cite lack of support as their main reason, even in districts that have mentoring programs and PLC structures. Attrition among new teachers was high even before the pandemic: In 2019, the Economic Policy Institute found that more than half of teachers reported feeling unsupported, causing a quarter to consider quitting as a result. So, where's the disconnect? For my money, it's in the lack of organizational support—in other words, the lack of clear processes and easily accessible resources."

Clear procedures and policies are like caffeine for the entire school. They provide the energy and direction needed to keep things moving, even when the days get long.

Imagine working at a hospital where there are no clear rules about how to clean equipment or treat patients. Can you imagine the chaos and danger that would ensue? Yet, in education, we often expect new teachers to figure things out on their own, with little help or direction. It's unacceptable. We need to put clear systems and procedures for our teachers at the top of our list, just like hospitals put safety protocols at the top of their list for their patients. It's not just about making sure things run smoothly; it's also about making sure our students and staff are safe and do well.

Moving Beyond the Carnegie Unit→

In December, Sarah D. Sparks interviewed the President of the Carnegie Foundation, Tim Knowles for EdWeek. From Knowles:

"We learn through immersive experience, we learn from mentors, from experts in apprenticeships and internships, and from peers. As individuals, we learn at highly variable rates depending on the subject of study. So the idea that time and learning can be conflated at such a deep level as we see it in our current system really needs to be changed."

The Carnegie Unit is about as relevant to our teenagers as a flip phone. It's like trying to navigate a complex landscape with a road map. The world is always changing, and it's time for our schools to catch up.

"By making the Carnegie unit so instrumental to what we define as school, the classroom and the schoolhouse have become almost a singular place for learning."

The Carnegie Unit has become a barrier to progress, hindering many schools from meeting students' potential. We need to improve by providing new learning models promoting immersive experiences, real-world projects, and flexibility. We must overcome conventional classroom hurdles to embrace new initiatives such as project-based, place-based, and competency-based learning.

Yet, teachers cannot do it alone. They need leaders who can balance risk and safety while promoting innovation and collaboration. Together, we must test new ideas and provide students access to various learning experiences that prepare them for future challenges. It is time to move forward with imagination, courage, and a dedication to excellence.

Prioritizing Change in Schools→

Doug Reeves and Robert Eaker writing for ASCD on what needs to change when leading change:

"Leaders must stop waiting for buy-in and giving resisters veto power over essential changes that will have lifetime impacts on students."

Acknowledging and addressing the concerns of those who resist change is crucial, but it's equally important to keep the bigger picture in mind. The primary goal of any school should be to provide the best possible education to students. Therefore, changes that can improve student learning should not be compromised because of resistance from a few individuals.

"Leaders need to take decisive action and say without equivocation, 'This is what we will accomplish in the next 100 days.'"

It’s easy to get bogged down in planning and discussions, but at some point, leaders need to take action. When it comes to implementing change in schools, this is especially important, as every day without making progress is a day when students are not receiving the education they deserve.

"Initiative fatigue, combined with poorly communicated changes, insufficient support, and unnecessary complexity, undermines even the most logically sound change efforts."

Implementing change in schools is no easy feat. It requires effort, resources, and a willingness to step outside one's comfort zone. However, when making particularly challenging changes, the difficulty level only increases. It can be tempting to focus on implementing easy changes first, but this approach can quickly lead to an overwhelming number of initiatives.

As leaders, we must prioritize changes and focus on those that will significantly impact student learning. This requires careful consideration and a deep understanding of our students' needs. We must be willing to tackle the hard stuff head-on, even if it means facing resistance or discomfort.