Category: Education Reform

Do Alpha Schools Deliver on Their AI Promise?

A recent article in the Chicago Tribune about a second Alpha School opening up in Chicagoland piqued my curiosity. I decided to do a deep dive into their programming and any research and evaluation I could find.

There are some features I love. I avidly support the small student/teacher ratio, the time devoted to life skills and real-world experiences, their project-based and problem-based learning, and the use of their mascot, Steve the Yet Yeti, to promote a “growth mindset” [the conviction that learners can grow and develop through hard work and learning from failures].

But we should be concerned about the level of self-promotion and lack of outside validation and the dependence on AI tutoring that marketing expert Edward Nevraumont says “is closer to ‘turbocharged spreadsheet checklist with a spaced‑repetition algorithm.’” (www.astralcodexten.com) Unbound Academy, for example, an Arizona charter school that claims to use the Alpha Schools curriculum, “projected 60% proficiency in math off a baseline of 34% and ended the year with 10% compared to an Arizona state average of 34%. They projected 65% proficiency in ELA off a baseline of 40% and ended with 28% compared to an Arizona state average of 42%.” (www.edweek.org)

Alpha Schools uses the NWEA MAP (Measures of Academic Progress) to measure progress. MAP uses a computerized adaptive that is adapts as each child progresses. It is not considered a standardized test, and “schools are allowed to modify their preferences when interpreting data

which can inflate scores and performance.” Their results are “based entirely on an internal analysis of NWEA MAP test data and haven’t been independently verified by third parties. Critics have also challenged the statistical methodology, alleging use of ‘inflated MAP growth ratios’ and ‘misused medians’ to produce impressive but potentially misleading results.” These concerns led the state of Pennsylvania to reject their proposal for a school there. (https://npec.colorado.edu) Van Schoales , a senior policy director at the nonpartisan Keystone Policy Center, warns that “The website is covered in figures suggesting that Alpha students are not merely doing better than students elsewhere but blowing the doors off them. No outside study supports any of it, and the MAP and SAT numbers are close to meaningless without knowing whether Alpha students are being compared with students of similar background. That comparison matters more here than usual: tuition runs as high as $75,000 a year, and every family in the building went looking for this school. (https://fordhaminstitute.org) Where is the evidence of their highly touted success?

Alpha Schools claim they can help students do twice [or now 2.6 times] the learning in only two hours each morning, though students often self-report needing more time than that. They say they accomplish this by depending on Artificial Intelligence [AI] tutoring with “guides” to help students. Is Alpha Schools dependence on AI tutoring for academics effective when most current research says it is valuable as a supplement rather than a replacement for instruction? If the AI programs are more like worksheets than Socratic dialogues, do they foster critical thinking effectively? What sort of training and preparation do the “guides” have? I could not find answers to these questions.

Educational neuroscientist Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath, author of The Digital Delusion: How Classroom Technology Harms OurKids’ Learning– And How to Help Them Thrive Again, argues that “If learning could truly be accelerated at the rates claimed by Alpha schools, then students would finish a complete K–12 education by the second year of elementary school – an obviously absurd implication. EdTech developers have long promised faster and easier learning. But speed and ease have never been the hallmarks of deep education. Real learning is slow, effortful, and deliberate.” He reminds us that covering content does not equate real learning. He defines learning at the effort to “‘think through knowledge’ and ‘transform ideas’. The time students spend revising ideas, debating them, and applying them across varied contexts is not wasted time.” (https://npec.colorado.edu)

Gerald LeTendre, an educational policy researcher at Pennsylvania State University, says that good tutoring is not equivalent to good teaching. “There’s no evidence in the literature that you can substitute a pure AI tutoring model and still achieve all of the multiple effects that one gets from studying in a classroom.” Indeed, a 2025 literature review of 28 studies that involved a total of nearly 5,000 K–12 students found that while AI-driven intelligent tutoring systems generally had positive effects, the advantage was negligible when compared with nonintelligent tutoring systems that also used active learning models without relying on AI. (www.scientificamerican.com)

Another article warns about the limitations of the teaching guides. “When a child hits a conceptual wall that requires a human to explain it differently—not replay a

video or serve up a parallel problem—the system breaks. Guides are facilitators, not subject-

matter teachers. Multiple parents describe guides who gave incorrect methods just to push

a student past a stuck point and keep their dashboard metrics looking clean.” (www.aifunlab.io)

The guides are “outsourced foreign contractors with no teaching background.” (https://terryu.stubstack.com)

We need to ask what the impact of a reliance on screens over human interaction is? Doctors and psychologists warn that overuse of technology can have damaging effects on young kids – and make teens more likely to suffer from social anxiety, low self-esteem and depression. “I believe it’s dangerous to wipe teachers from classrooms,” said Joe Vercellino, a Detroit Teacher of the Year and founder of The Lion Heart Experience, which brings mental health programming to schools. “What I worry about is what it will take away from our human development.” (https://nypost.com)

Stanford University Researchers at the Scale Initiative for Learning emphasize the importance of a strong student-tutor relationship “as an essential contributor to engagement and improved outcomes in high-impact tutoring. “o date, AI does not replicate human relationships. Most AI tutoring developers interviewed describe the goal as applying specific AI strengths rather than replacing human relationships.” (https://scale.stanford.edu)

I also question Alpha Schools’ use of extrinsic motivation and rewards. Students rack up Alpha Bucks by hitting daily academic minimums, mastering lessons, and turning in work on time. They buy rewards that actually matter to them: AirPods, Taylor Swift merch, snacks, or access to the lounge. They also offer the 100-for-100 to new students, paying students $100 for every 100% they make on the Texas STAAR test. (https://alpha.school/blog) Although extrinsic rewards may prompt desired behaviors, do they develop a lifelong love of and commitment to learning? Should learning be transactional? What will cause students to continue to learn when rewards are no longer part of the package?

The required Alpha Schools Bootcamp is notoriously stressful. Every freshman at an Alpha High School must complete a set of 18 challenges that the program considers essential life skills, like “selling an idea, speaking compellingly in public, teaching themselves something difficult, receiving critical feedback productively, working effectively with others, and doing demanding work without complaint.” Students must pass a test to show mastery, and they do have unlimited opportunities to succeed. (https://alpha-high-bootcamp.vercel.app/ But students in the bootcamp “are also required to pass an eyebrow-raising heart rate challenge, in which they’re hooked up to live monitors in front of their classmates and presented with a pre-recorded video of their parents berating them.” (https://futurism.com) Is that part of a humanitarian approach to education? What about the required social media posts that must achieve a minimum of 100 organic followers? (Ibid.)

If Alpha Schools students are indeed more successful academically than their peers in public schools, how much of that is due to the inherent self-selection? With a tuition range of $40,000 to 75,000 a year, aren’t their students likely to have stronger backgrounds and more drive to succeed? Doesn’t the high tuition self-select a student body that comes to school already advantaged, especially since under-performing students are invited to leave?

Despite all these red flags, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon promotes Alpha Schools. During a Fox Business interview, she said, “I certainly believe AI is definitely a tool used correctly, and I’ve seen it in action,” McMahon said in the interview. “I have visited the Alpha School in Austin, Texas, where they use AI for the first two hours every single morning… It is incredibly effective.” (https://truthout.org) She said she was very impressed by her visit to the Austin campus. (www.kxan.com) And in a CNN interview this summer, when Dana Bash asked her if Alpha Schools were a proper model, McMahon replied, “It’s working wonderfully.” (www.nytimes.com) Of course, this is the same cabinet member who once referred to artificial intelligence as A1, the steak sauce. She may be easily taken in, but I join the many educators who seek serious evaluation of Alpha Schools before we consider them the answer for the future of education.

Schools must change. They are not adequately addressing students’ needs, nor are they preparing them for the future. But let’s not jump to this model without more information…

we should be wary. There must be a better way.

The Tech Backlash

Whether it’s Jeremy Adams, a high school social studies teacher, writing about his students’ fatigue with the overdose of technology in their lives or the Gallup survey of 14-29-year olds that shows they are becoming “increasingly skeptical of — and downright mad at — AI, ” (www.the 74million.org), a tech backlash seems to be building momentum. The Gallup poll quantifies the change clearly: “Gen Zers’ strong agreement or agreement that they feel excited about AI has dropped 14 percentage points to 22%, while hopefulness has fallen nine points to 18%, and anger has increased nine points to 31%. At the same time, anxiety about AI is steady at 42%.” (https://news.gallup.com/poll)

A senior education researcher at Gallup, believes there might be a link between recent revelations about the harmful nature of social media and AI-related distrust. Zach Hrynowski points out that many of the respondents came of age just as former surgeon general Vivek H. Murthy called for a warning about its use. “Year over year, among that super user group, they’re much less excited, they are much less hopeful — and they are more angry,” he said. “So this is not a case of some people who are adopting it and loving it and some people who are just avoiding it and feel negatively about it.” He goes on to say that Gen Z is keenly aware of the risks of technology in general, “whether it’s social media, whether it’s AI or screen time.” (www.the74million.org/)

Examples of this discontentment abound. In May, the 2026 graduating class of the University of Central Florida booed a real estate development executive whospoke about how “the rise of artificial intelligence is the next Industrial Revolution” and about “living in a time of profound change.” (www.theguardian.com) The same month, when pro-AI  Big Machine Records CEO Scott Borchetta said, “AI is rewriting production as we sit here”,  Middle Tennessee State University graduates jeered. (the-independent.com) Glendale Community College in Arizona used AI to read graduates’ names and many were skipped. President Tiffany Hernandez acknowledgement that the school was using AI to read names for the ceremony “was met with resounding boos.” (nbcnews.com) Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt was also booed by students as he spoke about the rise of artificial intelligence during his speech at University of Arizona’s graduation ceremony. (bbc.com)

Students have reason to be skeptical about technology and its impact on them. AI threatens their job plans and hopes, social media has been shown to be harmful to their psyches, and technology has too often failed its promise to improve our educational system. According to two new reports, schools that retreat from AI create “’the worst of both worlds’ — students who can neither think independently nor use AI effectively,” while schools that embrace AI run into a wide array of problems and misfires. Furthermore, many educators acknowledge that “AI is currently being thought of as a productivity tool for the education system that we have, rather than a tool to radically improve teaching and learning and outcomes for kids,” said Robin Lake, Executive Director of Center on Reinventing Public Education. (www.the74.million.org2)

There is another path. Author and expert on student-centered learning, Stephanie Malia Krauss assures us, “‘We don’t have to remove all tech…We need to remove toxic tech’ and bring back play and adequate sleep.” She considers any other approach an empty gesture. Krauss considers tech toxic if it keeps kids from what they need to be happy and healthy, to learn and develop. But she supports what she calls “humane tech”:  technology that actually assists or amplifies the ability to tap into the essentials that keep us healthy and happy. She decries the approach of schools that see the solution as removing all tech for two reasons: that prevents the limits of humane and productive technology, and it allows us to ignore what she describes as “the other ‘dangerous weather conditions’ that I talk about — being overtapped, overworked, and overwrought, really afraid for our lives, safety issues that students feel.” (www.the74million.org3)

Jeremy Adams is right. Technology is valuable as a supplement to teachers themselves, but it must not replace them. He says it better than I ever could:

This is why — especially in this era — the humanity of teachers and the personal vitality of our classrooms are essential. The voices of instruction our children hear should be the voices of teachers who know and care about their students — not Alexa, not Siri, not some anonymous digital interface designed to maximize engagement rather than human flourishing.

Eye contact. Conversation. Personal relationships. No code or product required.

The kids know this. The kids want this.

Shame on us if we fail to give it to them.

(www.the 74million.org)

Reinventing High Schools for the Future

If you’ve read my blog before, you probably already know that I’m a passionate fan of problem-based learning experiences and real-world, hands-on learning. These approaches help students learn to work collaboratively for a meaningful purpose, to think critically to justify their solutions, to build schools that focus on real-life skills integrated with academic content, and to prepare for a future ever more uncertain.

Recently I’ve collected an array of schools that do just that. Each has a different focus, but all of them value the life skills their approaches develop. For example, the Grand Rapids Public Museum School (GRPMS) has learners work in small and collaborative cohorts co-taught by teachers. The community is their classroom, and their mission is to “use place-based design thinking and the museum context to create learning experiences that develop confident, creative, and competent thinkers, doers, and leaders.” They have an impressive list of core competencies as goals: “Read Critically; Reason Quantitatively; Learn Independently; Lead Inquiry; Explore Social Phenomena; Communicate Effectively; Collaborate on Teams; Build Community; Design Solutions; Develop Self-Knowledge; Cultivate Well-Being; and Think and Act Globally.” (https://grps.org/schools/high-school/gr-museum-hs/) At this school, housed inside the Grand Rapids Public Museum itself, students “help museum staff collect, process, and curate new materials in a design lab where they play a role in designing and updating existing exhibits.” They’ve found artifacts like a spacesuit from an Apollo mission and a flapper dress from the 1920s, and they’ve recorded interviews about the artifacts and created podcasts. (https://xqsuperschool.org/where-we-work/grand-rapids-public-museum-school) At this school the content is integrated across subject areas, and classroom activities are blended with community-based experiential projects. How powerful that approach must be!

Another example, Elizabethtown High School is the only high school in its northeast Tennessee district, in a region hit hard by opioid epidemic and poverty. Teachers there invited a sociology class to design a school that could earn an XQ Super School grant.  As a result, they added two new classes the following school year, “Community Improvement” and “Entrepreneurship.” Students were able to work in the community; build relationships with government, non-profit, and business leaders; and start their own community project or business. One sociology class “investigated and helped solve a cold case from the 1980s, leading the authorities to identify the murder suspect.” They started in 2018, and subsequent students continued “investigating links between that crime and a series of murders. In 2024, their work became the subject of iHeart radio’s hit true-crime podcast series ‘Murder 101,’ now set to become a feature-length film.”

Other students there have found their own opportunities to make a difference. A student is now liaison to the local school board, and the at the prompting of students, the school has a Cyclone Student Center where students can find school resources and college information. (https://xqsuperschool.org/where-we-work/elizabethtown-high-school) Yet another student took on painting murals in the community during her senior year, even though she knew nothing about it prior to that effort. As an alumna, she still leads this ongoing project that’s transforming the downtown. Another student learned how to network and build relationships to make art “a viable business endeavor while providing a public service.” (https://ehs.ecschools.net)

These schools are not alone in their reinvention of high school. Crosstown High in downtown Memphis, a charter school with about 480 students, is sited within a one-million-square-foot landmark with over 40 business and agencies. It recruits students from all over Memphis who then learn “through projects, such as analyzing pollution in local soil and its correlation to cancer rates.” (https://xqsuperschool.org/where-we-work/crosstown-high) 

The learning framework at Crosstown High is action-based:

  • Center learning around authentic, real-world problems
  • Incorporate student voice and choice
  • Build in feedback, revision, and public exhibitions
  • Align projects with both academic content and transferable skills

(https://crosstownhigh.org/adult-learning)

In 2024, award-winning documentary filmmaker Lee Hirsch premiered “The First Class,” a documentary that goes inside Crosstown High to tell the story.

Check out Thomas A. Edison High School is an anchor school among the 100-plus city high schools participating in FutureReadyNYC, a consortium for career-connected learning. Their students choose from thirteen different career tracks that allow them to seek internships and earn industry certifications. They can also earn college credit. The school focuses on developing five essential skills—communication, collaboration, giving and receiving feedback, design thinking, and professionalism. That focus guides classroom work, with students and teachers collaborating to co-design curricula suited to the modern world and workplace. For example, an English class may include a student-run theater. (https://xqsuperschool.org/where-we-work/thomas-edison) They don’t focus on career skills in place of academics; they integrate the two. Their vision: “Thomas A. Edison Career and Technical Education High School envisions empowering every student to become a leader of tomorrow by excelling academically, technically, and civically through strong collaboration among faculty, students, parents, and community partners.” (https://www.taehs.org)

Take a look at Brooklyn STEAM Center, a school that “delivers innovative, industry-informed experiences that empower students—treated as young professionals—to shape their futures. (www.spacesmith.com) The Brooklyn Navy Yard behind the school hired Spacesmith, a design firm keyed to each client’s mission, to expand it. As a result, “school leaders and contractors, along with architects and interior designers from Spacesmith, put the entire high school body in the driver’s seat to design their future.” Already a bastion of student-centered learning, the school sought student input both pre-design and during design and construction. Students played a central role in designing quieter and more private spaces, adaptable classrooms, acoustic and health-grade materials, and glazed classroom entrances enhance transparency and connection. They learned a whole new level of advocacy and collaboration. (https://schoolconstructionnews.com)

My own students experienced this kind of learning in my problem-based learning classroom. Even as they worked for the school, public and private agencies, and a Chicago law firm to solve real-world problems, they met curriculum standards and developed academic skills. You can read all about it in Tales Told Out of School, my teaching memoir.

At a time when students are so disengaged and often not even present, offering learning opportunities that prepare them for the future is an invaluable approach. American public schools suffer from inertia, and change is somehow always harder than it should be. It’s up to all of us – students, parents, teachers, taxpayers, citizens – to demand that change occur now.

Maine Is onto Something

I stumbled onto a program in Maine that may become a national model. Now used in 84 high schools (about 2/3 of all Maine high schools), Jobs for Maine Graduates “teaches high school students 30 ‘soft’ or ‘durable’ skills — including communication, leadership, goal-setting, and adaptability — and awards badges to students who master them.” (https://www.the74million.org)

Created by the Maine state legislature in 1993, this program initially focused on at-risk students. Officials are now expanding this approach in a separate non-profit, GenUS. It starts in middle school with practice of simple skills like accountability, budgeting, and digital safety. High school students can earn “Micro-credentials” by submitting “Evidence of Learning” that is reviewed against clear rubrics; successful demonstrations are awarded as digital badges with embedded metadata, making skills visible, portable, and recognized by colleges and employers. “Aligned with learning standards, Maine’s Economic Strategic Development Plan, and national frameworks, Micro-credentials form the building blocks that stack into larger Credentials of Value within the GenUS Competency to Credential Model.” The goal is to expand this program nationally. (https://gen-us.org/)

Maine also has an Extended Learning Opportunity program [ELO] “to help Maine youth gain a better understanding of their career opportunities, acquire valuable foundational and 21st Century skills, as well as create meaningful connections to employers in our state.” These hands-on experiences, which emphasize community-based career exploration, take place outside of the traditional classroom, and students can earn elective or core credit. “These programs include paid work experiences, expanding educational opportunities in rural Maine, work skills development, and increasing engagement of otherwise disengaged youth. ELO Expansion Grants totaling $7.1 million have been awarded for 38 ELO programs across Maine covering 13 of Maine’s 16 counties since 2022.” (www.maine.gov/)

By 2025, Maine DOE grant-funded ELO programs have seen:

  • 3,000+ core and elective credits earned.
  • 6,000+ student participants.
  • 3,000+ new school-employer partnerships.
  • 8,000+ community and business engagements.

(https://mainedoenews.net)

Yet another program launched in 2022: the Maine Outdoor Learning Initiative is “a statewide effort to connect Maine’s young people to the outdoors through engaging, hands-on learning opportunities. In its first two years, more than 2,500 students have participated in programs ranging from hiking and kayaking to farming and forestry.” An expansion grant in 2024 increased its reach to about 4,000 students. (https://content.govdelivery.com)

Maine also has an apprenticeship program for learners 16 years of age and over that has grown dramatically. “In 2019, 757 registered apprentices, or 26% of the total, were ages 16–24. By 2025, that number had more than doubled to 1,591, representing 42% of all apprentices statewide.” It is a work in progress. While areas like construction, manufacturing, healthcare, education have thrived, the state lacks a consistent set of benchmarks applicable to all industries and a coherent statewide strategy for employer engagement and youth recruitment. (www.maine.gov) To address those concerns, Maine has been accepted as one of the ten states to participate in The Future Ready Apprenticeship Center as an “Apprenticeship America” center. (www.careerwiseusa.org)

More localized programs exist, too. Career Access through National service and Outdoor Education, or CANOE, “will offer classroom instruction, experience through service and in-person training modules with Maine-based outdoor businesses and professionals… to create pathways into and to expand year-round outdoor recreation jobs in central and western Maine, in fields such as fishing, whitewater guiding, trail building and maintenance, outdoor business, retail, manufacturing and hospitality.”  Because jobs in rural Maine are scarce and because the outdoor recreation industry is a major contributor to Maine’s economy, this program aims to equip participants with the skills they need “to access good jobs while advancing the region as a four-season outdoor recreation hub.” (https://mainebiz.biz)

We know that too many American youth suffer from anxiety and depression. Today’s youth have grown up during a pandemic, an epidemic of school shootings, and a breakdown of norms and institutions. They are battered by the threats of polarization, climate change, the impact of AI, misleading social media, etc. We know that too many aren’t hopeful about the future. Why don’t more states develop the kind of leadership that Maine is modeling. We may not be able to solve all the problems that bedevil them – and all of us – but we can show them a path that leads to a more hopeful future. We can offer them more agency. We know how. It’s time for us to make it happen.

AI’s “Jagged Intelligence”

If you’ve read my earlier blogs about Artificial Intelligence and teaching, you know that I’m convinced it’s here to stay, that the questions we should be answering are how can we use it to improve teaching and how can we limit the harm it can do. I don’t pretend to have the answers, but I’m committed to the questions and exploring our options.

Recently I had the privilege of reading Mason Broxham’s blog on Riddance called “The Accountability Gap.” As someone who believed that guardrails are our best hope to limit harm, I was startled to read, “At Riddance, we’ve observed a pattern in our investigations: When two or

more AI systems overlap, the guardrails designed to reduce harm and prevent Terms of Service (ToS) violations stop working like they should.” (www.riddance.ai) He goes on to explain that this is a structural phenomenon. Because AI is sometimes “stitching together AI scenes that were not necessarily problematic in isolation,” and because platform moderation is automated, AI is not capable of recognizing the harmful content that evolves from these patchwork efforts.

“The AI that made the content had no mechanisms in place to understand the harms it perpetuated, and the AI moderating the content had no general concept of what those harms look like in the first place,” he argues. Human beings make decisions in a context that informs those choices. Humans live in a “real, messy world of interconnected reasons and norms” that informs their “decision-making calculus.” AI models lack this kind of overall context, creating what Broxham calls the “accountability gap.”

This thunderbolt struck terror in my generally optimistic vision. If guardrails cannot create real accountability, what can educators do? I posed the guardrail issue to my husband and sons, all of whom work/worked in tech. In the AI arms race, one son sees a dire future while the other works on building better guardrails. My spouse argues that “humans using AI will probably be able to work around the above guardrails. Furthermore, immoral builders of an AI system can just not put in needed guardrails. All this means is that just like before AI, humans will be able to be immoral and illegal even using AI.” My pessimist son lists tools with capacities that keep me awake at night.

I struggle to maintain some optimism in the face of these discussions, and the inertia of education and the overwhelming power of AI make me wonder if we’re doomed. I don’t have an answer. I do know that we’re failing to ask enough questions, to bring together enough human minds to counter this trajectory. But we cannot afford to wait. I hope that people smarter about this than I am are doing more than I currently know… We need them to.

“The Future Is High School”

One of my favorite resources, XQ “exists to transform high school in America so every student graduates ready for the world they’re entering—prepared to thrive in college, career, and life.” Having spent most of my career working in and with high schools, I remain convinced that they are not only ripe but also overdue for systemic reform. So it was with bated breath that I read XQ’s new policy report, “The Future Is High School.” (policyactions.xqinstitute.org)

XQ proffers ten specific policy changes. For each they specify what the change does, why it matters, and what the criteria should be for its implementation.

Two of the policies have had my support for years. One involves identifying the Core Competencies necessary for high school graduates. XQ argues that academic knowledge and skills matter but that “today’s graduates need a more expansive toolkit that includes timeless, transferable skills like communication, problem solving, and critical thinking.”

I’ve written before about my belief in the “Essential Qualities of a Glenbard Graduate” that my district developed decades ago. After a hiatus, this revision appeared in 2019: “● Communicates – A graduate communicates effectively in a variety of ways and understands their audience. ● Thinks Critically – A graduate needs to identify problems and find multiple ways to solve them. They also examine and challenge assumptions and make decisions based on evidence.  ● Embraces Diversity – A graduate has empathy for others, respects diverse backgrounds and seeks varied points of view to deepen understanding. ● Creates – Our graduates create solutions to real world problems. They also generate original ideas, solutions and products and are open and responsive to new ideas and perspectives.  ● Collaborates – More than just working with others, they take responsibility to work together for a common goal. They also receive, provide and learn from constructive feedback. ● Is Self-Empowered – Graduates have a growth mindset and build strong relationships. They advocate for themselves and have realistic goals.” (www.glenbard87.org) I love this more proactive version and wish all high schools would develop similar profiles for their graduates. Focusing on what students can and should be able to do is far more powerful than measuring specific content knowledge, especially at a time of information glut and information growth. Competencies like this encourage lifelong learning skills and adaptability.

The second policy I’ve long supported is the use of Mastery-Based Credits. In this system, students earn credit for what they know and can do rather than just how many hours they’ve been in class. Although a surprising number of states [Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Rhode Island] allow this approach, and still others allow a capstone project or other demonstration of mastery, too many states still depend upon Carnegie Units. (https://reports.ecs.org) Introduced in 1906, these units simply measure 120 hours of “seat time” regardless of the amount of learning. (www.carnegiefoundation.org) The passage of time is not a meaningful measure, and I sincerely hope more states will adopt a mastery-based approach.

I’m also a fan of XQ’s policy on Internships and Apprenticeships. They argue that rigorous, real-world learning happens everywhere, not just in the classroom, and that these opportunities “enable students to explore potential career pathways, gain valuable workplace experience, and graduate with the knowledge and competencies necessary for success after high school.” I couldn’t agree more. Many of the students who joined my “Tech Squad” in high school, helping faculty navigate newer forms of technology, got internships in high school that led them to their careers. I’d also advocate for another program my district had for several years: rotating faculty members accompanied groups of students to workplaces to learn about employers’ expectations/needs and about opportunities for life after high school. So many students found that eye-opening and motivating. Hearing businesses extol virtues like teamwork, lifelong learning, and a good work ethic was far more powerful than anything we teachers could promote.

And I love that XQ recognizes the need for Professional Development [PD]for staff so they can implement these changes effectively. States should require better PD for pre-service teachers, fund ongoing PD for existing faculty, and publish resources that provide models of excellence and guidance. I would add teaching coaches and mentors within the school.

I also support Next-Generation Assessments that “that widen the lens on learning to reliably measure mastery of real-world skills like creative problem-solving, alongside academic content.” Multiple choice tests and short answer exams focus on one right answer. Meaningful assessments also evaluate process, like portfolios for writing. One of the reasons I loved my work in problem-based learning [see prior blogs] is that it invited a multitude of possible answers and it also valued and evaluated process. Life after high school is not a multiple-choice test!

Of course, all of these changes would require Redesigned Transcripts, adopting a “new student transcript, badging, or record system, such as learning and employment records (LERs), that awards students badges or other types of credentials for demonstrating the requisite knowledge, skills, and competencies. States need both the infrastructure to demonstrate student competencies and also the artifacts (e.g., badges) to be included.” It is often said that we pay attention to what we measure. Instead, let’s measure what we should be paying attention to.

There are four more recommended policies that you can explore in the published report. (policyactions.xqinstitute.org) These first six strike me, however, as the most compelling and effective way to ensure that the future is indeed high school.

Today’s high schools should prepare students for the world they’ll face after high school. They should develop a disciplined, motivated, and adaptable workforce to face the ever-changing realities of life in the future. Our old system doesn’t do that. Isn’t change overdue?

In Support of Teachers

I am sitting at a table at Sturdy Shelter Brewing in Batavia for my third book event in two weeks. It’s been nice to sell a few books, but the real value of each event has been meeting people and talking about education.

I particularly treasure conversations with those still in the classroom. I know: teaching is harder than it ever was in my time, but this country depends on these teachers to help prepare our youth for an evermore uncertain future. Each one of them has stories to tell.

At my reading last Sunday night, after I read the opening of my novel about a teacher in Texas who struggles with micromanagement and limits on the history she can include, a current teacher came up to me, eyes moist, to thank me. A history teacher herself, she struggled even here in liberal Illinois. That same night one of the facilitators, a teacher I know and respect, told me how much harder it had gotten. Mental health issues, absenteeism, a lack of cooperation and collaboration, helicopter parents, cheating and misuse of AI – the list of challenges seems pretty overwhelming.

I heard the same issues from teachers who stopped by my table at the local authors event at my public library last weekend. I read an entry from my favorite teacher’s blog where even he, one of the most reflective and committed teachers I know, wrote about burnout and discouragement.

I do indeed feel fortunate to have taught where and when I did. I faced plenty of challenges, but nothing like those crippling too many teachers today. My book events bring me face-to-face with those teachers, and I ache for them.

What does this mean for us as a country? We need to face these challenges head-on. We need to find ways to support teachers who are still deep in the trenches, doing their best to make a difference for their learners. Teachers and students need more than the lip service we freely offer them—they need us to work to change the culture, to provide support services, to make their workload manageable. The future holds further challenge, and our students are ill-prepared for it, our teachers too worn out. We simply can’t afford to wait.

You can make a difference. Learn about your school’s programs. Go to board meetings to support reasonable budgets. Consider volunteering. Ask what the schools need.

I’ve written often about our failure to meet the needs of our students and the cost to their learning.  Now I’m asking my readers to think about how to support teachers who are trying to help those learners. If our teachers are too burned out to prepare our children for the future that awaits them, we’re in even deeper trouble than we thought. All of us have a stake here.

Team Teaching, A Proven Concept

Although some claim that team teaching in American public schools was a response to the Sputnik launch and the need to innovate in education, most credit William Alexander with popularizing the concept. At a 1963 conference at Cornell University, he presented a plan to establish “teams of three to five middle school teachers who would be in charge of team teaching content to large groups of pupils, ranging from 75 to 150.” He foresaw “several pedagogical and intellectual benefits, including the development of dynamic, interactive learning environments; creation of a model for facilitating the teaching of critical thinking within or across disciplines; and establishment of new research ventures and partnerships among faculty.“ Alexander acknowledged that teamed teachers would need to adapt their instructional strategies and course planning in order to collaborate successfully. (www.researchgate.net)

We now have research to support many benefits of team teaching, yet it largely disappeared in the 1970s. Larry Cuban writes, “as a buzzword, team teaching in K-12 classrooms flew like a shooting star across the educational sky in the 1960s and disappeared by the mid-1970s leaving little cosmic dust in its wake.” (larrycuban.wordpress.com)

Why did we let such a promising initiative wither? Many factors may have contributed to its decline, but I can think of four: it’s hard to do well because it requires a learning curve and professional development; other innovative initiatives may have displaced it, there are so many different approaches to teaming, and American education is a remarkably inert institution that resists change.

Why does it matter? Research proves that team teaching improves teacher retention and morale while helping teachers meet the ever-increasing diversity of needs of their students.

An Education Week article says that more than 1,100 schools across 18 states use team teaching models. For example, at a Mesa, Arizona, elementary school, two teachers led a highly interactive fifth grade lesson while maintaining order.  The article posits that team teaching may boost retention “because the team models address some of the most difficult tensions that bedevil the teaching profession: It helps students connect to more adults, protects institutional memory in school buildings, and gives teachers timely support to improve their own craft.” When teachers are asked how to boost their morale, additional staff is second only to pay raises. That’s even more true as teachers overall become younger and less experienced and the gap between highest- and lowest-performing students continues to increase. They cite Arizona State University’s Next Education Workforce, and Opportunity Culture, a model designed by the North Carolina-based nonprofit Public Impact as an effective example. That program offers core-content teachers support staff, including counselors or tutors, and gives those teams more autonomy. Another example: the Ector County district in Odessa, Texas adopted Public Impact’s Opportunity Culture team-teaching model in 2019 to cope with and reduce staff vacancies. It’s working: “vacancies dropped from 350 in 2018-19 to less than 30 in 2024-25, even accounting for pandemic disruptions.” (https://edweek.org)

Research supports these efforts. Huriya Jabbar, an associate professor of education policy at the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California, found that “the most effective teaching teams quickly develop collective lesson plans, procedures, and student data. Some teams had well-organized systems for tracking calendars, lesson plans, and modifications they’d made over time.” He acknowledges the barriers to this approach: “For all their purported benefits, teaching teams remain comparatively rare in schools. Logistically, they are a heavy lift: They require extensive and ongoing training for teachers, outreach to parents and community groups, and sometimes even physical changes to classroom layouts.” (Ibid.)

Another Education Week article describes the June 2025 findings of researchers at Arizona State University and the Center on Reinventing Public Education on improved retention of teachers.  “… after controlling for teacher and school characteristics, that the teamed teachers were half as likely to leave their schools as their non-teamed peers.” Teamed teachers felt more autonomy about their pedagogy and were able to be more creative. (https://edweek.org2)

Through surveys, the researchers found the New Education Workforce teachers were more likely than teachers in the district working solo to feel they had a say in education decisions at their school. Teamed teachers were also more likely than solo teachers to feel control over their schedules and able to take creative approaches to instruction. Teachers, both solo and in teams, who reported a stronger sense of autonomy in their teaching were more likely to remain in their schools. That autonomy matters. “The study showed that having clear team support and accountability, coupled with flexibility for teachers within those teams, were associated with the highest teacher retention.” (Ibid.)

A  study, conducted by the Mary Lou Fulton College for Teaching and Learning Innovation at Arizona State University in collaboration with the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE), found multiple benefits to team teaching, including  both improved teacher retention and greater teacher-driven decision-making. (https://www.datiak12.io)

Another initiative, The Next Education Workforce model (NEW) uses eight key elements in their team model: “1) teachers share a roster of students, (2) teachers share multiple learning spaces and move across these spaces throughout the day, (3) teachers have and use team planning time, (4) team members have different roles and responsibilities, (5) teachers adjust their schedule according to the needs of both teachers and students, (6) teachers group and regroup their students based on students’ needs and interests, (7) teachers use data to tailor learning to each student, and (8) teachers provide each student with rigorous learning opportunities.” They assert that this approach allows deeper and more student-centered learning, with improved student and teacher motivation and performance. (www.ascd.org)

NEW already works with 28 districts in a dozen states, where 241 teams of teachers use the ASU model, and in the next two years it will expand team teaching in dozens of new schools in California, Colorado, Michigan and North Dakota. (https://hechingerreport.org)

NEW also offers flexibility instead of a one-size-fits-all model. They support school communities in constructing the model that best fits their needs. (https://www.the74million.org)

I myself had two wonderful team-teaching opportunities that improved my own pedagogy and motivation. When the teacher next door and I both taught Junior Honors English, although our classes met at different times, we planned our lessons together, meeting every few Friday afternoons to do that. We also arranged for interactions among our students, like a joint student-run Medieval Festival to which the entire school was invited. Those experiences nurtured both of us as well as our students. I also had the privilege of actually sharing a classroom and team teaching with the chair of the Special Education department as we mainstreamed a number of kids into our joint American Literature class. Again, I learned so much from my partner, our lessons grew ever more creative, and we all were inspired. I so preferred these experiences to being a solo practitioner!

Why, then, if we know the benefits and believe they outweigh the obstacles and challenges, aren’t we doing this more? This investment would reap huge dividends if only we had the will to make it happen.

Texas Again and Again!

I keep wanting to tackle other topics in this blog, but the Texan culture warriors just won’t take a break, so I won’t either.

Despite the assertions of too many, the United States is not and has never been a Christian country. Our founding fathers, particularly Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, advocated for a separation of church and state to protect religious freedom and prevent government overreach into religious affairs. They believed that the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”) and Free Exercise Clause (“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”) created a “wall of separation” between government and religious institutions. The 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates the First Amendment’s protections, including the Establishment Clause, to the states, ensuring that state governments cannot infringe upon religious freedom. 

Yet Texas continues to push Christianity in schools. In 2021 Texas passed legislation requiring schools to display “In God We Trust” signs as long as they are donated by a private foundation. Last May Governor Abbott signed a bill requiring schools to post the Ten Commandments even though last June a Federal Court found a similar bill from Louisiana unconstitutional. And this session lawmakers are even pushing bills to allow a religious study or prayer period in schools. (texastribune.org)

All of this would be bad enough, but last November, Texas adopted Bluebonnet, a bible-infused curriculum, making it, “the first state to introduce Bible lessons in schools in this manner, according to Matthew Patrick Shaw, an assistant professor of public policy and education at Vanderbilt University.” Critics maintain that even with recent revisions, the lessons remain biased toward Christianity, are sometimes misleading, and teach complex topics better suited for older children. Others warn that the materials overstep parents’ rights to make decisions about the role of religion in their kids’ lives. (abc7ny.com)

Texas won’t even reveal the authorship of the bill or its cost, claiming that the work falls under a disaster declaration that the Governor used to speed up the delivery of supplies during the pandemic. This clearly intentional lack of transparency and this rationalization have not satisfied some state Board of Education members, who say the curriculum borders on proselytizing and promotes a distinctly evangelical view of American history. The curriculum extends its Christian focus and is not always age-appropriate or accurate. For example, “A teacher’s guide for a third-grade lesson on ancient Rome, for example, devotes eight pages to the life and ministry of Jesus — presenting many of the events as historical facts, scholars say. But the Islamic prophet Muhammad isn’t named anywhere. A kindergarten lesson on “Goldilocks and the Three Bears” draws parallels to Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount. And an art appreciation lesson walks 5-year-olds through the creation story from the Book of Genesis.” (www.the74million.org)

Other concerns have been identified by Mark Chancey, a religious studies professor at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, who said he submitted over 80 comments to the state. He points out distortions in the story of Queen Esther, and his analysis showed that the authors relied overwhelmingly on a 1978 version of the Bible that he called a “distinctively evangelical translation” that was “made by evangelical scholars for evangelical Christians.” (Ibid.)

And the bill is suspiciously similar to others produced by Christian right bill mills in a national push to provide model legislation to help states embed Christianity in their schools.  (www.the74million.org2)

Proponents like Jonathan Covey, director of policy for Texas Values, argue that the First Amendment “does not demand strict governmental neutrality towards religion…There is nothing the U.S. Supreme Court has laid down requiring equal time or equal treatment among religious sects.” (www.the74million.org3)  https://www.the74million.org/article/in-close-vote-texas-approves-reading-program-laden-with-bible-lessons/?utm_source=The+74+Million+Newsletter&utm_campaign=fb1300fd77-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2022_07_27_07_47_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_077b986842-fb1300fd77-177359832 The courts have often disagreed, so lawsuits will continue to be filed.

There is some good news. “Texas won’t force districts to use the materials, but is offering up to $60 per student — a total of $540 million — to any that adopt the program. That’s an incentive many are unlikely to turn down at a time school systems are projecting deficits and calling for tax increases to offset them.” (www.the74million.org) Indeed, many of the largest districts in Texas are choosing not to adopt this reading program or to use only parts of it. Texas has 1200 public schools and about 600 charters, but between May and late July, only 144 districts and charters had ordered the materials, and only one of the 20 largest districts intends to use them. (www.the74million.org4)

Yet the Texas Education Agency continues to push the program. It insists that free state support will help students perform well on tests, and it made the materials available months before other options. State lawmakers authorized contracts with businesses to “promote, market and advertise” Bluebonnet and appropriated $243 million to districts to help with implementation costs, like coaching for teachers. (Ibid.)

So: a reading program infused with Christianity that is biased, non-inclusive, inaccurate, not nuanced… what could go wrong? The hypocrisy of leaders and parents who insist that parents should decide how to raise their children in all arenas, including religion, while they embed a specific religion into state curriculum, is staggering. And Texas is not alone in this pursuit. Our constitution and basic rights are being assailed, and we need more public reaction to stop it.

Remembering Why We Teach

Last Saturday I had the privilege of launching my new novel at our favorite local bookstore, Harvey’s Tales, in Geneva, Illinois. My first foray into fiction, Caught in the Crossfire evolved from the research I’ve done for this blog. I’ve written often about the pressures teachers are under, the micromanagement and censorship they face in many states. As my frustration continued to rise, a mythical teacher named Claire Peters emerged in my dreams, in the shower, on long car rides, and she urged me to tell her story. I did, and the writing of it became therapeutic. I had no sense of whether anyone else would care. To my surprise, teachers I’d never met, teachers who saw local articles and publicity about the upcoming launch, joined us on Saturday. Although the heat was gruesome, they – and others – stuck it out and talked about the book.

I loved the conversation about our passion for teaching, our concerns for current students and teachers and the struggles they face, the importance of teaching… I could go on! We acknowledged, though, the new challenges that teachers and students, along with parents and administrators, face.

I really loved being a teacher until I didn’t. At the end of my public school career, changes in my school and my role didn’t appeal to me, and I was wise enough to resign and lucky enough to be able to resign. But I continued in education in multiple ways because it is who I am at the very core. These women agreed. We’re all relieved not to be dealing with the current challenges, and those very challenges are far worse in states like Texas and Florida. Writing about a mythical teacher’s struggles in Texas proved cathartic for me, and I hope this story sparks lots of conversation among educators and others alike.

I find solace in Rachel Jorgenson’s August 2023 Edutopia post, “Why I Keep Teaching.” (edutopia.org) She acknowledges that the “teaching profession has rarely felt more bleak” yet insists that the work of teachers matters. She lists four reasons:

  • Every time I show up for work, a student might change my life for the better.
  • My work has invisible ripple effects
  • My head and my heart are engaged every day
  • My work is an investment in a brighter future

Her conclusion expresses my views on teaching better than I ever could: “Our work has an impact, whether we see it or not. We may be planting seeds that don’t come to fruition until decades later. Showing up for students with love, empathy, kindness, and selflessness makes a tremendous impact, whether or not we know it.”

I’ve been one of the lucky ones. I’ve had students reach out to me years later, showing me I mattered to them.

I’ve often likened teaching to the title of a favorite children’s book, Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day. When it’s going well, there’s nothing like it: seeing a student make a discovery and develop understanding is a gift to both the student and the teacher, but sometimes we all have “terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day[s].” Rachel Jorgensen and the teachers I met at my book launch remind me that we must make the good days count and make the others worth it.

Note: Caught in the Crossfire is available from Harvey’s Tales (https://harveystales.com/) and directly from the author or Amazon. In mid-July it will be available at bookstores in six states, including Powell’s Books in Portland, Oregon, and Barnes & Noble in New York City and Salt Lake City.