And so it begins…
I am on sabbatical in Spring 2023, unpacking deeper learning in elementary and middle schools. I have been named a New Pathways Fellow by Getting Smart in support of this work. If you would like to know more, I made a one-page summary of what I am hoping to accomplish (the text is below as well). If there is an inquiry- and problem-based learning school that serves grades K-8 that you think I should try and visit, or if you’d like to learn more about what I’m doing and learning, please get in touch!
What do students, teachers, and leaders do in ‘deeper learning’ elementary and middle schools that is different from their traditional peers?
‘Deeper learning’ environments are cropping up all around the world in reaction to student boredom and disengagement, the globalization and automation of many job sectors, the increasing complexity of our digital and online information landscape, learning equity and workforce concerns, the need for adaptive and transformative societal innovation, and other factors. However, with some exceptions (e.g., EL, Design39, or EPiC), most of the schools that are featured in deeper learning research, advocacy, and publicity conversations often are at the secondary level (e.g., The Met or High Tech High).
As deeper learning networks like Big Picture Learning, New Tech Network, High Tech High, and others extend their models into lower grades, they are meeting long-standing, student-centered models such as Montessori, Waldorf, Reggio Emilia, and democratic schools that are moving upward from the other direction. Grades K through 8 are where all of these movements come together! My Spring 2023 sabbatical will focus on both the instructional and leadership sides of deeper learning in grades K through 8, with an emphasis on critical thinking and problem solving, greater student and educator agency, real-world authentic work, and rich technology infusion (inquiry, PBL, challenge- or place-based learning, high-quality STEM, entrepreneurship, etc.). I am building upon the work in my previous book, Leadership for Deeper Learning, in which my colleagues and I interviewed principals of 30 innovative schools around the world and then followed up those interviews with site visits, observations, on-site photographs and videos, and additional conversations with students and teachers.
Finances, Publicity, and Other Supports
I am road tripping around the country to visit innovative elementary and middle schools. My costs are pretty simple: just mileage, meals, and hotels (and occasionally airfare and rental cars) as I aim to visit several dozen schools nationwide. I already have secured funding for about half of my total anticipated budget of $30,000. If you know anyone who might be willing to lend financial, publicity, expertise, or other support, please get in touch at or 707-722-7853 (my cell).
Thanks for your interest in this work! You can follow along at #DLEMS #deeperlearning #NewPathways. I also will be sharing my learning at the Getting Smart website and in other spaces. Stay tuned!
I’ve been playing around with ChatGPT from OpenAI. Below are a few prompts and the responses generated by the artificial intelligence (AI) of ChatGPT. Be sure to see the last question below! Your thoughts?
Can Holden Caulfield be considered a tragic hero?
Holden Caulfield, the main character in J.D. Salinger’s novel “The Catcher in the Rye,” could be considered a tragic hero. A tragic hero is a literary character who is noble and has good intentions, but who is ultimately flawed and makes mistakes that lead to their downfall. Holden fits this description because he is a complex and sensitive character who is trying to find his place in the world. However, his actions and decisions are often misguided and cause him to suffer and struggle. Despite his flaws, Holden remains a sympathetic and relatable character, which is a key characteristic of a tragic hero.
What are different forms of energy?
There are many different forms of energy. Some examples include kinetic energy, which is the energy of motion; potential energy, which is stored energy that can be converted into kinetic energy; thermal energy, which is the energy of heat; electrical energy, which is the flow of electric charge; and radiant energy, which is the energy of light or other electromagnetic radiation. These forms of energy can be converted from one form to another, and they are all essential for various processes and phenomena in the natural world.
What are the differences between Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes?
Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes are two different types of the disease. Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disorder in which the body’s immune system attacks and destroys the cells in the pancreas that produce insulin, a hormone that regulates blood sugar. This type of diabetes is typically diagnosed in childhood or adolescence and requires regular insulin injections to control blood sugar levels.
Type 2 diabetes, on the other hand, is a metabolic disorder in which the body does not produce enough insulin or does not effectively use the insulin it does produce. This type of diabetes is typically diagnosed in adulthood and can often be managed with lifestyle changes, such as diet and exercise, and medication.
Some key differences between Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes include:
- Cause: Type 1 diabetes is caused by an autoimmune reaction, while Type 2 diabetes is caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors.
- Age of onset: Type 1 diabetes is typically diagnosed in childhood or adolescence, while Type 2 diabetes is typically diagnosed in adulthood.
- Treatment: Type 1 diabetes requires regular insulin injections, while Type 2 diabetes can often be managed with lifestyle changes and medication.
- Progression: Type 1 diabetes tends to progress rapidly, while Type 2 diabetes tends to progress more slowly.
Overall, the main difference between the two types of diabetes is the cause and the way in which they are treated.
Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes are two different forms of the disease. Type 1 diabetes, also known as insulin-dependent diabetes or juvenile diabetes, is a chronic condition in which the pancreas produces little or no insulin, a hormone that regulates blood sugar. Type 1 diabetes is typically diagnosed in children and young adults, and it is treated with insulin injections or an insulin pump.
Type 2 diabetes, also known as non-insulin dependent diabetes or adult-onset diabetes, is a chronic condition in which the body does not produce enough insulin or does not use insulin effectively. This form of diabetes is more common than Type 1 diabetes and is often associated with obesity and lack of physical activity. It is typically diagnosed in adults, but it is also becoming more common in children and teenagers. Treatment for Type 2 diabetes may include lifestyle changes, such as diet and exercise, oral medication, and insulin injections.
Some key differences between Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes include:
- Causes: Type 1 diabetes is caused by an autoimmune disorder, while Type 2 diabetes is often caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors.
- Age of onset: Type 1 diabetes is typically diagnosed in children and young adults, while Type 2 diabetes is typically diagnosed in adults.
- Treatment: Type 1 diabetes is treated with insulin injections or an insulin pump, while Type 2 diabetes may be treated with lifestyle changes, oral medication, and insulin injections.
- Prognosis: The long-term outlook for individuals with Type 1 diabetes is generally good with proper management, while the long-term outlook for individuals with Type 2 diabetes may be more variable and can depend on several factors, including the severity of the disease and the person’s overall health.
What are the best foods to eat in Thailand?
Thailand is known for its delicious and varied cuisine, which is influenced by Chinese, Indian, and Malay culinary traditions. Some of the best foods to eat in Thailand include:
- Tom yum: a spicy and sour soup made with shrimp, lemongrass, galangal, and kaffir lime leaves
- Pad Thai: a stir-fried noodle dish made with rice noodles, tofu, shrimp, egg, and peanuts
- Green curry: a rich and fragrant curry made with coconut milk, green chilies, and a variety of vegetables and meats
- Som tam: a spicy green papaya salad made with shrimp, peanuts, long beans, and a lime dressing
- Fried rice: a popular and versatile dish made with rice, eggs, onions, and a variety of meats and vegetables
- Mango sticky rice: a sweet and satisfying dessert made with glutinous rice, mangoes, and coconut milk.
These are just a few examples of the many delicious foods that can be found in Thailand. It is worth trying a variety of dishes to experience the full range of flavors and textures that Thai cuisine has to offer.
What is (34.16 * 54.87) / 31?
The result of (34.16 * 54.87) / 31 is approximately 32.35. To calculate this, we first need to multiply 34.16 and 54.87 to get 1882.0872. We then need to divide this result by 31 to get approximately 32.35.
What are polynomials and what do we use them for?
Polynomials are mathematical expressions that consist of variables and coefficients. They can be written in the form a0 + a1x + a2x^2 + a3x^3 + … + anx^n, where a0, a1, a2, a3, …, an are the coefficients and x is the variable. Polynomials are used in many different fields to model and solve a variety of problems. Some common uses of polynomials include:
- Describing the motion of objects: Polynomials can be used to model the position, velocity, and acceleration of objects moving in a straight line or in a plane.
- Modeling population growth: Polynomials can be used to model the growth of a population over time, taking into account factors such as birth rates, death rates, and migration.
- Solving equations: Polynomials can be used to find the solutions to equations, including those that cannot be solved using algebraic methods.
- Interpolating data: Polynomials can be used to estimate the values of a function between known data points, allowing us to make predictions and extrapolations.
- Optimization: Polynomials can be used to find the maximum or minimum values of a function, which can be useful for solving optimization problems in fields such as engineering and economics.
Overall, polynomials are a powerful and versatile tool that can be used to model and solve a wide range of problems.
Will Social Security run out of money?
The Social Security Trust Funds, which are used to pay for Social Security benefits, are currently projected to be exhausted by 2035. This means that if no changes are made to the program, the Trust Funds will no longer have enough money to pay for all of the promised benefits. However, it is important to note that even if the Trust Funds are exhausted, the Social Security program will still have enough revenue coming in from payroll taxes and other sources to pay for about three-fourths of promised benefits.
The Social Security program has been running a deficit for several years, and the gap between the program’s revenues and expenses is expected to continue to grow in the coming decades. This is due to a number of factors, including the aging of the population, increases in life expectancy, and slower economic growth. In order to ensure the long-term solvency of the Social Security program, it may be necessary to make changes to the program, such as increasing payroll taxes or reducing benefits.
Overall, it is likely that the Social Security program will need to be modified in some way in order to continue to provide benefits to future retirees. However, it is important to remember that the program has been successful in providing income security for millions of Americans for many years, and it will continue to play a critical role in the country’s retirement system.
Can we custom design babies with CRISPR?
CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) is a gene-editing technology that allows scientists to make precise changes to the DNA of living organisms. While CRISPR has been used to edit the genes of plants, animals, and other organisms, it is not currently possible to use it to design custom babies.
The use of CRISPR and other gene-editing technologies to modify the DNA of human embryos is a highly controversial and complex issue. There are many ethical, legal, and technical challenges that must be considered before it can be done safely and responsibly. In addition, there are many potential risks and unknowns associated with using CRISPR to edit the genes of human embryos, and further research and development is needed before it can be considered a viable option.
At present, it is not possible to use CRISPR or any other technology to design custom babies. While gene-editing technologies may hold great promise for the future, they also raise many complex and difficult questions that must be carefully considered.
Should I get a fixed rate or adjustable rate mortgage?
It is difficult for me to advise you on whether to get a fixed rate or adjustable rate mortgage, as this decision will depend on your individual circumstances and financial goals. Fixed rate mortgages have an interest rate that remains the same throughout the life of the loan, while adjustable rate mortgages have an interest rate that can fluctuate over time.
Fixed rate mortgages are a good option for people who want the security of knowing what their monthly mortgage payment will be for the entire loan term. They are also a good option for people who plan to stay in their home for a long time and want to lock in a low interest rate.
Adjustable rate mortgages, on the other hand, may have a lower interest rate initially, but the rate can increase or decrease over time based on market conditions. These loans may be a good option for people who expect their income to increase over time and who are comfortable with the potential for changes in their monthly mortgage payment. They may also be a good option for people who plan to sell their home or refinance their loan before the interest rate adjusts.
It is important to carefully consider your financial situation and goals before deciding whether a fixed rate or adjustable rate mortgage is right for you. You may want to talk to a financial advisor or mortgage lender to get more information and advice.
Compare and contrast the styles of Vincent Van Gogh and Jean-Michel Basquiat
Vincent Van Gogh and Jean-Michel Basquiat were two highly influential artists who worked in different time periods and had distinct styles. Both artists are known for their unique and distinctive approaches to art, and their works have had a lasting impact on the art world.
Van Gogh was a Dutch post-Impressionist painter who is known for his expressive use of color and brushwork. His paintings often featured bold, swirling lines and vibrant colors, and they were heavily influenced by emotion and personal experience. Some of his most famous works include “The Starry Night” and “Sunflowers.”
Basquiat, on the other hand, was an American neo-expressionist painter who is known for his distinctive style that combined elements of graffiti, pop art, and abstract expressionism. His paintings often featured figures, symbols, and words, and they were often marked by a raw energy and intensity. Some of his most famous works include “Untitled” and “Hollywood Africans.”
One key difference between the styles of Van Gogh and Basquiat is the use of color. Van Gogh’s paintings are known for their bold and vibrant colors, while Basquiat’s paintings often featured a more limited color palette, with a predominance of black, white, and gray. Another difference is the subject matter of their paintings. Van Gogh’s paintings often depicted landscapes and still lifes, while Basquiat’s paintings often featured figures and symbols that were inspired by his experiences as a young, black artist in New York City. Despite these differences, both artists are known for their unique and powerful styles, and their works continue to be celebrated and studied today.
What is the best way to teach reading?
There is no one “best” way to teach reading. Different teaching methods and approaches may be more effective for some students than others. Some common strategies for teaching reading include phonics-based instruction, which focuses on teaching students the relationship between letters and sounds, and whole language instruction, which emphasizes the meaning of words and sentences. Other strategies include using reading comprehension activities, such as discussing and answering questions about a text, and providing students with a variety of reading materials that are interesting and engaging to them. Ultimately, the best way to teach reading will depend on the individual needs and abilities of the students.
Why are teachers leaving the profession?
There are many reasons why teachers may leave the profession, and the specific reasons can vary depending on the individual teacher and the context in which they work. Some common reasons why teachers may leave the profession include:
- Burnout: Teaching can be a demanding and stressful profession, and many teachers may experience burnout after working in the field for a long time. Burnout can be caused by factors such as heavy workloads, lack of support, and lack of recognition for their work.
- Low pay: Many teachers are paid relatively low salaries, especially when compared to other professions that require similar levels of education and experience. This can make it difficult for teachers to make ends meet and may lead them to seek higher-paying jobs in other fields.
- Lack of support: Teachers often work in challenging environments, and they may not receive the support they need to be effective in their jobs. This can include inadequate resources, lack of administrative support, and inadequate professional development opportunities.
- Negative attitudes towards teachers: Teachers may be subject to criticism and disrespect from students, parents, and the general public. This can create a negative working environment and may lead teachers to feel unappreciated and unsupported.
Overall, there are many factors that can contribute to teachers leaving the profession, and addressing these issues will require a combination of efforts from teachers, school districts, and policy makers.
What are some AI-proof jobs?
It is difficult to predict which jobs will be “AI-proof” in the future, as the capabilities of artificial intelligence (AI) are constantly evolving and new technologies are being developed. However, some jobs that are generally considered to be less susceptible to automation by AI include:
- Jobs that require complex problem-solving and critical thinking skills: AI systems are generally good at performing tasks that require a high degree of repetition and precision, but they are less effective at tasks that require creativity and abstract reasoning. Jobs that require these skills, such as research, policy analysis, and strategic planning, may be less vulnerable to automation.
- Jobs that require empathy and emotional intelligence: AI systems are not currently able to replicate the ability of humans to understand and respond to emotional cues and social dynamics. Jobs that require these skills, such as therapy, counseling, and social work, may be less vulnerable to automation.
- Jobs that require physical presence: Some jobs require workers to be physically present in a specific location, such as to perform hands-on tasks or interact with people. Jobs that require physical presence, such as construction, healthcare, and education, may be less vulnerable to automation.
- Jobs that require specialized knowledge and expertise: AI systems are not currently able to replicate the depth and breadth of knowledge and experience that many workers have developed over the course of their careers
The Commonwealth of Kentucky has leaned hard into the 4 Shifts Protocol to support its schools’ technology integration and instructional redesign work. Over 650(!) Digital Learning Coaches (DLCs) across the state have received a copy of Harnessing Technology for Deeper Learning and are working with their local educators to use the protocol to redesign lessons and units for deeper learning, greater student agency, more authentic work, and rich technology infusion.
Although many thousands of educators and schools across the globe are using the 4 Shifts Protocol, I believe that Kentucky currently is the largest single deployment of this redesign work. Kentucky also is investing heavily in project-based learning, and the protocol is a nice bridging mechanism and support for that complex work.
Julie Graber and I are grateful that the protocol has been useful to so many educators in so many places. Kentucky (and others), please let me know what I can do to support this work. Happy to chat or visit anytime!
It’s always gratifying to see your resources being used by educators. I’ve worked with the Bismarck Public Schools multiple times on leadership, vision, and instructional design for deeper learning (and we featured Legacy High School in Leadership for Deeper Learning). They’ve got an amazing group of educators there and I always love to see what they’re up to… Thanks for sharing, Tanna!
I had the pleasure recently of appearing on the Navigating Education podcast with Matt Rhoads. Episode 59 was titled Leadership and Instructional Design for Deeper Learning. Matt and I had a wide-ranging discussion about the design and leadership decisions that foster deeper learning by students.
[this blog post is a follow-up response to the Twitter exchange with Van Schoales posted below]
Although I’ve admired your work for years, you and I have never met, which means that we don’t have a relationship to lean into. Seth Godin reminds me that ‘if your audience isn’t listening, it’s your fault, not theirs.’ So please take this post as a very-public apology for whatever anger or defensiveness I sparked by my tweet. I’m sure that it could have been worded more artfully, and I regret not phrasing it in a way that maybe would have been received better. I offer this longer-form blog post as an attempt to bypass the lack of nuance available in 280 Twitter characters. I tend to do much of my thinking out loud in front of others, because their feedback makes me smarter.
I don’t know if you had a chance to read my previous blog post, Much ado about NAEP, but I tried to make two key points. The first was that the timing of the March 2022 NAEP tests should give us pause when interpreting the results. Most educators in America probably would tell us that, as difficult as the 2020-2021 school year was, the 2021-2022 year was even tougher. Kids and families still were dealing with incredible trauma, children showed us daily in classrooms (or by their absences) that they needed more support, and we didn’t do a great job of effectively serving large numbers of our young people. Then we had another big COVID spike right before the NAEP administration, and we have absolutely no idea how that impacted student test-takers except that probably a whole bunch of them (and their families) were ill, absent, struggling, etc. during the months that immediately preceded the test. We also know that these things were most true for our least-resourced children. All of this together feels like a reason to take the 2022 NAEP results not just with a grain but a giant boulder of salt. It’s difficult enough in normal times to help our students feel motivated for standardized tests. It’s even tougher given the March 2022 context and when NAEP results don’t mean anything to students personally.
The second point that I tried to make was that ‘Proficient’ on NAEP doesn’t mean what most folks think it does. To quote Tom Loveless, former director of the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution, in most states the Proficient label is “significantly above” what most state policymakers and assessments deem as ‘grade level,’ and the more accurate NAEP proficiency level for most states would be closer to Basic. This is rarely if ever mentioned in media coverage of NAEP results. Accordingly, most people tend to interpret ‘proficient’ in the ordinary sense of the word rather than in an aspirational sense, which is why I mention it whenever I think it is relevant (e.g., in my tweet). As I said in my blog post post, we can have some interesting discussions about whether Basic or Proficient is the right NAEP target for states, but we should at least recognize that Proficient is very aspirational in most parts of the country.
Here in Colorado, about 75% of 4th graders met the Basic NAEP standard in math for 2022, and about 36% met the Proficient standard. In 8th grade, about 63% of Colorado students met the Basic NAEP standard in math in 2022, and about 28% of students met the Proficient standard. Those results are essentially equivalent to the 2022 national NAEP averages for math. For reading, about 68% of Colorado 4th graders met the Basic NAEP standard in 2022, and about 38% met the Proficient standard. For 8th grade, about 73% of students met the Basic NAEP standard for 2022 in reading, and about 34% met the Proficient standard. Colorado students’ NAEP results in reading were a few percentage points higher than the 2022 national averages. As many have noted, all of the scores for both Colorado and the nation are down from 2019, which is to be expected.
In my blog post, I also quoted Loveless’ statement that, because the NAEP Proficient standard is so aspirational, “If high school students are required to meet NAEP proficient to graduate from high school, large numbers will fail. If middle and elementary school students are forced to repeat grades because they fall short of a standard anchored to NAEP proficient, vast numbers will repeat grades.” [emphasis added]. We also have evidence that similar percentages of students in nominally higher-performing countries also would have trouble meeting the NAEP Proficient mark. NCES has done the work of mapping Colorado’s state standards for proficiency to NAEP equivalent scores. For math, Colorado’s standard is well above NAEP Proficient in 4th grade and close to Proficient in 8th grade. For reading, Colorado’s standard is much closer to Proficient than Basic in both 4th and 8th grade. Colorado’s standards clearly are more aspirational than those of most other states. Accordingly, fewer Colorado students will be deemed ‘at grade level’ than if our benchmarks were set closer to those elsewhere.
All of which brings us to the concerns that you note in the Denver Public Schools (DPS). DPS is one of 26 urban districts that was sampled in 2022 and, as you stated at DPS Boardhawk, results were worse than for Colorado and for the nation as a whole. DPS’ 4th grade math, 8th grade math, and 8th grade reading results all were essentially equivalent to the large city averages. DPS’ 4th grade reading results were generally a few percentage points higher than the large city averages. Enormous equity gaps exist across student subcategories and, unfortunately, NAEP noted that the 2022 performance gaps are not significantly different from those of 2017. Here is a more-detailed breakdown for DPS in a few categories (click on the links to see these tables):
- 4th grade math
- White students: 92% Basic, 62% Proficient
- Black students: 49% Basic, 12% Proficient
- Hispanic students: 48% Basic, 13% Proficient
- School lunch not eligible: 77% Basic, 47% Proficient
- School lunch eligible: 48% Basic, 10% Proficient
- 8th grade math
- White students: 81% Basic, 53% Proficient
- Black students: 41% Basic, 11% Proficient
- Hispanic students: 40% Basic, 10% Proficient
- School lunch not eligible: 66% Basic, 35% Proficient
- School lunch eligible: 38% Basic, 10% Proficient
- 4th grade reading
- White students: 84% Basic, 63% Proficient
- Black students: 46% Basic, 14% Proficient
- Hispanic students: 37% Basic, 14% Proficient
- School lunch not eligible: 72% Basic, 48% Proficient
- School lunch eligible: 36% Basic, 11% Proficient
- 8th grade reading
- White students: 88% Basic, 58% Proficient
- Black students: 54% Basic, 15% Proficient
- Hispanic students: 52% Basic, 16% Proficient
- School lunch not eligible: 76% Basic, 42% Proficient
- School lunch eligible: 51% Basic, 16% Proficient
Yikes! Those performance gaps are both troubling and persistent! They’re also similar to the other large city districts that were sampled, better than some and worse than others. Denver basically is in the middle of the pack for the 2022 NAEP sample of large city school districts.
To quote my own tweet, these performance “divides continue to be of concern.” Like you, I believe that DPS should be extremely transparent about those performance gaps. Also like you, I hope that DPS identifies publicly some concrete plans and actions to remedy its existing equity issues. Additionally, I’m cognizant of the difference between NAEP performance gaps and NAEP performance levels (which is what I was trying to say, albeit artlessly, in my tweet). If Colorado makes it harder for students to be deemed ‘proficient’ than in most other states, of course we’re going to say, “look, fewer kids are proficient!” That’s how we set up the system in the first place (and, once again, we can have a rich discussion about where the line should be set for proficiency). We’re also probably going to say that fewer students are ‘proficient’ in a large urban school system because, sadly, that’s basically the pattern that we see in big city school districts all across the country. Equity gaps are large and persistent in America for students of color, who live in poverty, whose primary language isn’t English, or who have a disability, and the past couple of decades of school reform haven’t done much to alter those. DPS isn’t doing great on these fronts, but it’s not an outlier either.
You said in your tweet that I should be “outraged by Black and Latinx proficiency levels.” Am I – and, without speaking for them, probably my colleagues at the University of Colorado Denver – outraged about proficiency gaps? Yes, of course. Just like you, we also care about equity and we all are fighting for historically-marginalized children across a variety of fronts. Am I personally outraged about proficiency levels? Less so, given the fact that Colorado decided to set a much higher bar than most other states. ‘Proficiency’ is a politically-determined label, not a context-free indicator. If DPS was in most states in America, we would say that 41% of its Black students were ‘at grade level’ in 8th grade math instead of 11%. That number is still terrible, particularly compared to their White student peers, but it’s not “1 in 10” either. Again, if Colorado sets the bar higher, by definition fewer students will be proficient. For me, the gaps are much more alarming than whatever level we apply to children’s performance. I think that the concern is in the inequity, not the label?
Van, this is a long post. You may disagree with much of what I said here, and who knows if you even read through to the end or not. But if you did, let me close with this: I think that you and I both have a similar passion for equity in schools, and I also think that we both have a passion for making school different, particularly for historically-marginalized children and families. I might be wrong, but I don’t think so. Given your work with DSST and The Odyssey School of Denver and my work around instructional redesign and leadership for deeper learning, I think that we might have a really interesting and productive conversation together. Let me know if you ever want to have a meetup. I’m happy to join you for lunch or coffee at whatever location is easy for you.
Thanks in advance if you actually read through all of this. Hope we get a chance to talk sometime.
Scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) are down after the pandemic. Surprise!
Four big thoughts on all of this…
1. Below is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) graph of daily COVID cases in the U.S. Note the huge spike in January 2022 due to the Omicron variant. Also note that the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) chose to administer the NAEP tests in March 2022, during the downswing of that huge spike in cases and after two years of COVID trauma (six weeks later America hit the 1 million dead mark). How many kids, families, and educators were ill, recovering from being ill, or still traumatized from loved ones’ deaths, illnesses, or long recoveries? We’ll never know.
2. Always remember that the labels for NAEP ‘proficiency’ levels are confusing. Journalists (and others) are failing us when they don’t report out what NAEP levels mean. For instance, the New York Times reported this graph today from NCES:
“Appalling,” right?! That’s what the U.S. Secretary of Education, Miguel Cardona, said about these results. Just look at those low numbers in blue!
BUT… ‘Proficient’ on NAEP doesn’t mean what most folks assume it does. NAEP itself says that ‘Proficient’ does not mean ‘at grade level.’ Instead, the label Proficient is more aspirational. Indeed, it’s so aspirational that most states are not trying to reach that level with their annual assessments. See the map below from NCES (or make your own), which shows that most states are trying for their children to achieve NAEP’s Basic level, not Proficient:
Once again, in the words of Tom Loveless, former director of the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution, “Proficient on NAEP does not mean grade level performance. It’s significantly above that.” So essentially the New York Times and others are reporting that “only one-fourth of 8th graders performed significantly above grade level in math.” Does that result surprise anyone?
Loveless noted in 2016 that:
Equating NAEP proficiency with grade level is bogus. Indeed, the validity of the achievement levels themselves is questionable. They immediately came under fire in reviews by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Academy of Education. The National Academy of Sciences report was particularly scathing, labeling NAEP’s achievement levels as “fundamentally flawed.”
Loveless also stated:
The National Center for Education Statistics warns that federal law requires that NAEP achievement levels be used on a trial basis until the Commissioner of Education Statistics determines that the achievement levels are “reasonable, valid, and informative to the public.” As the NCES website states, “So far, no Commissioner has made such a determination, and the achievement levels remain in a trial status. The achievement levels should continue to be interpreted and used with caution.”
Confounding NAEP proficient with grade-level is uninformed. Designating NAEP proficient as the achievement benchmark for accountability systems is certainly not cautious use. If high school students are required to meet NAEP proficient to graduate from high school, large numbers will fail. If middle and elementary school students are forced to repeat grades because they fall short of a standard anchored to NAEP proficient, vast numbers will repeat grades. [emphasis added]
In 2009, Gerald Bracey, one of our nation’s foremost experts on educational assessment, stated:
In its prescriptive aspect, the NAEP reports the percentage of students reaching various achievement levels—Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. The achievement levels have been roundly criticized by many, including the U.S. Government Accounting Office (1993), the National Academy of Sciences (Pellegrino, Jones, & Mitchell, 1999); and the National Academy of Education (Shepard, 1993). These critiques point out that the methods for constructing the levels are flawed, that the levels demand unreasonably high performance, and that they yield results that are not corroborated by other measures.
In spite of the criticisms, the U.S. Department of Education permitted the flawed levels to be used until something better was developed. Unfortunately, no one has ever worked on developing anything better—perhaps because the apparently low student performance indicated by the small percentage of test-takers reaching Proficient has proven too politically useful to school critics.
For instance, education reformers and politicians have lamented that only about one-third of 8th graders read at the Proficient level. On the surface, this does seem awful. Yet, if students in other nations took the NAEP, only about one-third of them would also score Proficient—even in the nations scoring highest on international reading comparisons (Rothstein, Jacobsen, & Wilder, 2006).
Similarly, James Harvey, executive director of the National Superintendents Roundtable (he also helped write A Nation at Risk), noted:
The NAEP benchmarks might be more convincing if most students elsewhere could handily meet them. But that’s a hard case to make, judging by a 2007 analysis from Gary Phillips, former acting commissioner of NCES. Phillips set out to map NAEP benchmarks onto international assessments in science and mathematics.
Only Taipei and Singapore have a significantly higher percentage of “proficient” students in eighth grade science (by the NAEP benchmark) than the United States. In math, the average performance of eighth-grade students could be classified as “proficient” in [only] six jurisdictions: Singapore, Korea, Taipei, Hong Kong, Japan, and Flemish Belgium. It seems that when average results by jurisdiction place typical students at the NAEP proficient level, the jurisdictions involved are typically wealthy.
We can argue whether the correct benchmark is Basic or we should be striving for Proficient, and we all can agree that more kids need more support to reach desired academic benchmarks. But let’s don’t pretend that ‘Proficient’ on NAEP aligns with most people’s common understandings of that term. We should be especially wary of those educational ‘reformers’ who use the NAEP Proficient benchmark to cudgel schools and educators.
3. Lest we think that these NAEP results are new and surprising, it should be noted that scores on NAEP already were stagnant. Achievement gaps already were widening. After nearly two decades of the No Child Left Behind Act and standards-based, testing-oriented educational reform – and almost 40 years after the A Nation at Risk report – the 2018 and 2019 NAEP results showed that the bifurcation of American student performance remained “stubbornly wide.” We continue to do the same things while expecting different results, instead of fundamentally rethinking how we do school.
4. The pundits already are chiming in on the 2022 NAEP results. They’re blaming overly-cautious superintendents and school boards, “woke” educators, teacher unions, parents, online learning, video games, social media, screen addiction, “kids these days who don’t want to work,” state governors, and anything else they can point a finger at. As I said yesterday, it’s fascinating how many people were prescient and omniscient during unprecedented times, when extremely challenging decisions needed to be made with little historical guidance, in an environment of conflicting opinions about what was right. Despite the massive swirl of disagreement about what should have occurred during the pandemic, many folks are righteously certain that they have the correct answer and everyone else is wrong. The lack of grace, understanding, and humility is staggering.
Also, look again at the graph above. One way for journalists, commentators, and policymakers to frame those results is to call them ‘appalling.’ Another way is to say:
Scores are down but, even during a deadly global pandemic that shut down schools and traumatized families, the math and reading achievement of about two-thirds of our students stayed at grade level or above. How do we help the rest?
Always consider how an issue is framed and whose interests it serves to frame it that way (and why).
We can whirl ourselves into a tizzy of righteous finger-pointing, which is what many folks will do because it serves their agenda to do so. Or we can
I think that it’s unlikely that many states, schools, and communities will actually do this because of the fragility and brittleness of our school structures. But I’m pretty sure that the path forward is not simply doubling down on more math, reading, and testing, and it sure isn’t uncritically accepting NAEP results.
Most schools here in the U.S. now have been back for a month or two. And I’m hearing from educators that things are … ‘better.’ Which has me wondering, “How are we defining better?”
As we all know, the end of the 2020 school year and the entire 2020-21 school year were an incredible challenge. Schools shut down. People died. Everything was disrupted, and everyone was scared and anxious. Then, over the summer of 2021, we were much too optimistic about an allegedly ‘normal’ return to school. And it wasn’t. In many (most?) schools, the 2021-22 school year was somehow even tougher than the previous one as we experienced extremely high levels of student refusal and absenteeism, educator stress and burnout, and so on.
In a conversation with Catlin Tucker, I wondered how much better last school year could have been if we had leaned more into relationships and care. There was so much policy rhetoric around students’ ‘learning loss.’ Accordingly, many schools jumped much too fast into their traditional instructional processes without really addressing the trauma that children (and educators) still were carrying with them at the beginning of the school year. And it didn’t work.
I hypothesized in that discussion that if we had started the first few weeks with a significant focus on relationships and care and getting students and families the supports that they needed (say, 80% of our time and energy) and a lesser emphasis on the academic stuff (say, 20%), we could have laid the groundwork for a much smoother school year as we created a stable foundation that allowed us to transition back to ‘normal’ expectations. But many schools didn’t do that, at least not sufficiently to remedy the problem. It was as if we knew that our young people still were traumatized but didn’t want to address it genuinely, at the levels that our children deserved. Sure, we recognized and paid lip service to the issue, and maybe even halfheartedly implemented some new socio-emotional learning (SEL) program, but we didn’t really meet kids’ needs. The proof was obvious as we mostly tried to return to regular learning-teaching practices and then wondered why kids’ behavior, attendance, and academic performance were so terrible and why teachers were incredibly stressed and leaving the profession.
The past few years have shown that the rigidity of our school systems is also a brittle fragility, particularly during a time of dire need for young people and their families. The saddest part of last school year may have been that we could have hit the reset button at any time. We could have taken a pause from school as we know it, invested more deeply into kids rather than content, and built, together, to where we needed to be. But we chose not to. We just kept on with the things that weren’t working, and children and educators paid the price.
All of which brings us to this school year, which supposedly is ‘better.’ And I’m wondering why. Did we finally transform how we interact with our children? Did we finally center their emotional and trauma needs and establish foundational structures of relationship and care that allow us to learn together in functional community? Or, as I suspect from the many educator discussion areas that I’m in, at the beginning of this year did we just lean more heavily into ‘expectations’ and ‘consequences’ that ignore underlying root causes and instead emphasize control and compliance? In other words, if one end of a continuum might be framed as ‘Kids are struggling so they need care’ and the other end might be framed as ‘Kids are struggling so they need control,’ which end of the continuum did our schools lean into? Did we create new, effective systems of care or did we just socialize and force our young people into submission (as we always seem to do)?
How about your school? What did it lean into this year?
This year there are not one… not two… but THREE 4 Shifts Protocol sessions at the annual InnEdCO conference!
I do a basic introductory workshop on Monday. Gina and Robbi have created a fabulous workshop and I can’t wait to see their session in action on Tuesday. Then I will try and extend all of this work even further during my Wednesday workshop. Descriptions are below…
Monday, June 13
Redesigning for deeper learning and student engagement [2-hour workshop]
Many schools have created future-ready vision statements and college- and career-ready profiles of a graduate. But most schools still are struggling to transition their day-to-day classroom instruction to include more critical thinking, problem-solving, creativity, and other ‘future-ready’ student competencies in ways that are substantive, meaningful, and aligned to those vision statements and graduate profiles.
This workshop focuses on how to redesign classroom instruction for future-ready learning. We will use the free 4 Shifts Protocol to redesign lessons, units, and other instructional activities together for deeper learning, greater student agency, more authentic work, and rich technology infusion. The protocol contains concrete, specific ‘look fors’ and ‘think abouts’ that allow educators, coaches, and instructional leaders to shift students’ instructional work in deeper, more robust directions. The protocol is a useful complement to SAMR, TPACK, Triple E, and other frameworks that schools may be using, and also is an excellent capacity-building bridge to more complex inquiry and PBL projects.
This active, hands-on workshop is intended for teachers, instructional / technology coaches, and school leaders who are prepared to roll up their sleeves and dive into this important instructional redesign work!
Tuesday, June 14
A permanent pivot: [Re]design your lessons [2-hour workshop]
Gina Francalancia-Cancienne & Robbi Makely
This session incorporates Dr. Scott McLeod’s 4 Shifts Protocol and is designed to introduce teachers to practical skills to (re)design lessons focusing on deeper learning, greater student agency, more authentic work, and rich technology infusion. Teachers will learn to recognize the four shifts, evaluate ways to personalize the four shifts, (re)design a lesson, and use the four shifts to permanently pivot to incorporating the shifts into future.
This session is targeted for teachers PK-12, special education, literacy programs, gifted and talented classrooms, instructional coaches, and administrators.
Wednesday, June 15
Using blended learning structures to facilitate deeper learning [2-hour workshop]
New technologies give us new possibilities. In this workshop we will identify several different blended learning structures and how they might be used to facilitate students’ deeper learning, greater student agency, and more authentic, real world work. Station rotations, genius hours, flipped classrooms, flex models, and other blended learning strategies can create powerful pathways for our children. Bring a computer and come prepared to roll up your sleeves and engage in some active (re)design discussions!
This active, hands-on workshop is intended for teachers, instructional / technology coaches, and school leaders who are prepared to roll up their sleeves and dive into this important instructional redesign work!
Hope you’ll join us for one or all of these sessions!
So these are front and center in our schools, right? Not content, right?
Image credit: World Economic Forum, 2020