Category: Curriculum

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.

Reading Matters, Redux

I am an avid reader, devouring books at an even more rapid rate now that I’m retired. I have read before sleep since I was a little girl, and now I have the luxury of reading during the day as well. Books sustain me, they entertain me, they show me new worlds and new worldviews. I cannot imagine a life without reading.

Sadly, I have become a unicorn. Last September I blogged about the dramatic decrease in reading. The stats are compelling. The data from the National Endowment for the Arts’ 2022

Survey of Public Participation in the Arts (SPPA), shows the regression of reading as a pastime.

(www.arts.gov)

This fiction-reading rate was the lowest in the history of the SPPA, a survey that goes back more than three decades. Daily reading for pleasure in the US has experienced a sustained decline, dropping 40% over the past two decades. (Ibid.)

Those stats are skewed, though, because they offer an average rather than a mean, so heavy readers skew the percentage upward. Consider these stats:

  • 40% of Americans don’t read a single book per year.
  • 27% of Americans read no more than four books per year [even when digital, audio, and print formats are included].
  • The median American read two books in 2025. The average reader clocked in with eight. To put it starkly? 19% of American adults did 82% of the country’s reading. (https://lithub.com)

Students don’t read for fun as much as they used to, either.

(www.the74million.org)

On March 19, 2026, my favorite Chicago Tribune columnist, Heidi Stevens, made yet another argument for reading: “Books are little empathy gardens, feeding and growing the stuff that makes us feel, makes us care, makes us human.” (www.chicagotribune.com) She references neuroscience at Emory University (https://esciencecommons.blogspot.com) to support this claim. She reminds us that books are a way to walk in someone else’s shoes, to imagine their lives and learn to care about them.

In a new study from the University of Florida and University College London, experts affirm this value of reading: “Reading for pleasure has long been recognized not just as a tool for education, but as a means of supporting mental health, empathy, creativity and lifelong learning.” (https://news.ufl.edu)

Stevens acknowledges that current English curricula may not be designed to foster a love of reading, and I agree. We need to meet students where they are before we can lead them to the texts we so value. We should include more appealing choices because we have never needed to encourage reading more than we do now, in this time of division and lack of empathy. Stevens writes,

Because empathy doesn’t just seem like the best way forward right now. It seems like the only way.

What better way to pivot and heal from a chapter like the one we’re in now, a chapter marked by constant cruelty and chronic chaos? What better way to recoil, reflexively, from the next leader who comes along behaving like the one we have now? (Ibid.)

Last September, I wrote, “Reading well develops critical thinking skills, grows vocabulary, and makes us better writers. It introduces us to wider worlds and other ways of being. It helps us figure out who we are and what we believe. Why would we settle for less?” All of that is true. Let’s add a piece that’s more critical now than ever, though: let’s read widely so we may rediscover our shared humanity and rebuild an inclusive and welcoming society.

Will A.I. Triumph?

I am mortified! The New York Times posted a quiz, “Who’s a Better Writer: A.I. or Humans?” They offered five pairs of writing samples in a variety of styles and genres. They asked A.I. to “to choose an existing piece of strong writing and then craft its own version using its own voice.” Readers then indicated their preference for each pair. (nytimes.com)

Certain that I could tell the difference, confident that A.I. could not have as strong a voice, I plowed through the quiz quickly. I was wrong. I choose more A.I. than human-written passages. Even my scientist spouse did better than that!

What happened? I can blame the small sample, the particular genres chosen that don’t happen to be my favorite, or even the stars not aligning… but I think the truth is that A.I. has made huge progress in writing effectively.

So, confession over, what are the implications for writers and the teaching of writing? I’m going to switch gears here: instead of offering evidence-based and cited information, I’m going to share my own musings.

Efforts worth considering:

  • Writers have been reading. Our kids have not been reading. We must do more to foster the habit of reading, especially the reading of good writing and of passages longer than sound bites.
    • Resurrect the pattern of Silent Sustained Reading using printed books for young students to build the habit of reading and to improve attention spans.
    • Revise book choices in school to include works with more appeal alongside some of the canon.
    • Consider using excerpts of longer works.
    • Develop book clubs in classrooms where students choose what to read more freely and then “sell” their choices to their classmates.
  • Let go of formulaic writing like the five-paragraph essay. That’s exactly the kind of writing that A.I. can do, perhaps even better than most of us. Instead, look for more meaningful writing tasks that depend on the author’s voice.
  • Teach the concept of author’s voice and of original work. Perhaps start with music and have students identify singers whose voice is instantly recognizable; then play with writing samples. Perhaps offer a quiz like the one the New York Times provided, but choose strong works likely to have an appeal over the A.I. version.
  • Provide more writing time in class without access to technology tools. If students are using tablets or laptops, turn off the internet access temporarily to limit access to technology tools like A.I.
  • Use a writing workshop approach and portfolio grading to show that the process of writing matters and helps writers produce better finished works.
  • Teach students to use A.I. to assist them instead of replacing their own efforts:
    • Brainstorming tool
    • Sounding board – let it play devil’s advocate to make the opposite case in a persuasive piece, for instance.
    • Help with character development and word building.
    • After developing one’s own outline for a piece, ask it for one and use additional ideas for scaffolding.
    • Feed a draft into A.I. and ask it to create an outline – that will show disorganized and disconnected parts.
    • Help with sentence variety by asking it to evaluate and improve variety in sentence length, type, and openings.
    • Help with transitions.
    • Identify a specific, desired tone like “conversational” and ask A.I. to revise the piece in that tone.
  • Show students A.I. written passages riddled with misinformation and passages that are badly written as exemplars of what’s wrong with using A.I. in place of their own writing.
  • Teach students to write effective and specific prompts for A.I. Not only will they get more out of their A.I. collaboration, but that in itself is a form of writing that will help them improve their clarity and focus.

We have been using technology to improve writing since the advent of personal computers and the internet. Spellchecks, grammar checks, and internet research are old hat. More sophisticated programs have offered tools to evaluate and improve readability, sentence variety, etc. Before the turn of the century, the high school where I taught for my last 24 years was the beta site for AT&T’s writing analysis program, Writer’s Workbench. I had my writers run their drafts through the analysis, then turn in their first draft along with the analysis and their revision. I saw huge growth for many of them. I know we can figure out how to use these tools for good.

And I know that we have to figure that out. We don’t have a choice. I graduated high school before most of the technology that students now take for granted. I didn’t have a calculator and needed to depend on a slide rule (which, I admit, I never fully mastered). I wrote lots of papers in high school and over 80 in college, all of which were drafted longhand on yellow legal pads with arrows and asterisks to my revisions, before most of them were typed on a manual typewriter. I got my first electric typewriter in college, my first computer in 1981. I have watched the inevitable progression of tech into every aspect of our lives. I helped promote that progression by having a paperless problem-solving classroom in the 1990s where students used Palm handhelds, a web target to share files, a classroom computer, and CDs to turn in their work. I commented on and graded their work directly on their CDs. I responded to their writing in the computer lab in real time, and I had my writers turn in their portfolios digitally. Instead of fearing the constant new opportunities, I worked to harness them

A.I. is here. It isn’t going away. Are we brave enough, determined enough, smart enough to figure out how to harness it? I certainly hope so!

“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?

Reading Matters

American students can’t read well. That news, supported by data from the National Annual Assessment of Progress, should worry all of us. These test scores, the first since before the pandemic, show a stark decline that had begun even before the pandemic. We can’t blame Covid alone. Students are struggling, and their lack of adequate reading skills may limit their ability to function as adults in our society. This national snapshot cuts “across demographic divides of race, class and sex,” despite progress in the science or early reading teaching. (nytimes.com)

I am both saddened by these findings and concerned about their long-term impact on both students and on society as a whole. The New York Times article cited above acknowledges the likely role of technologies that have replaced reading time, including teens’ use of screen time for social media and videos. I believe the shift from paper to screens, from books to messaging, videos, and chats – that this paradigm shift is indeed one factor.

I do not believe it is the only factor. If we fail to recognize some of the additional forces at play, we will be even less successful at bringing students back to reading. We need to ask ourselves how the following patterns impact this issue:

  • How many kids grow up in a home with books, without adults who read to them?
  • How many kids even see the adults in their lives reading?
  • Given our tendency to overschedule kids with playdates, schooling, organized sports, etc., from a very early age, how many kids have the time and energy to indulge in reading for pleasure?
  • Given the shortened attention spans of kids identified by research, how might we support their making the effort that reading requires?
  • Does increased use of short texts in place of longer works in schools mean that students don’t build the habit of sustained reading?
  • Does the pressure of short, single, right answers in our test-driven curriculum push for superficial focus?
  • How much choice do we allow students in their reading, so that they find something compelling to push them to finish?
  • Given that television shows and movies require less active engagement, what are we doing to show the pay-off of the greater effort that reading requires?
  • Does the overscheduling of our older students, given their involvement in extracurricular activities and/or employment, preclude time for independent reading?

Until we acknowledge the variety of factors at play and find a consensus on how to support reading, we are destined to have a less literate work force and citizenry. That matters. I believe that readers not only find a source of pleasure and relaxation, but they discover a window into other worlds, ways to learn about more than our immediate present, and ways to tackle the big questions like what it means to be a good citizen or a collaborative worker.

There are solutions already available and more that we can generate. In thirty years, Dolly Parton’s amazing Imagination Library program has given over 270 million free, age-appropriate books to families, providing homes without books a shot. Project Head Start, whose funding has been under attack by the current administration, provides reading experiences to preschoolers who may not have them at home. School can reconsider how they structure reading assignments and—perhaps even more important—how they ask students to engage with their reading. Meaningful discussions about big ideas in the text seem far more effective than worksheets and busywork. We can stop using multiple choice and short answer tests that belie the importance of the content of books, instead helping students make meaningful connections. We can consciously teach students to expand their attention span by building it up slowly, incrementally, and purposefully. Our sons went to Montessori schools and a progressive public school, all of which included a period of “silent sustained reading.” Our children grew to love that time and continued to choose to read at home. Schools can also lessen their focus on academic achievement as early as kindergarten and offer more time for less structured play and for free reading. And other educators and parents, wiser than I, can offer additional strategies to help our children read widely and well.

Today we picked up a book on hold at our local library, and we were behind a mom whose toddler was returning a pile of children’s books. I told her about the research and complimented her on raising a reader. He then looked up and said, “I can’t read myself yet. But I’m practicing.”  She thanked us as they walked off hand in hand. Wouldn’t we wish that for every child?

Reading well develops critical thinking skills, grows vocabulary, and makes us better writers. It introduces us to wider worlds and other ways of being. It helps us figure out who we are and what we believe. Why would we settle for less?

No More Backsliding!

I was sad but not surprised to read the results of the National Science Foundation’s meta-analysis of gender-stereotyping of children. They conclude that “at age 6, children already believe that boys and men are better at computing and engineering; girls increasingly endorse this belief in older ages. These stereotypes therefore have ample time to affect children’s motivations and behaviors as children engage with these subjects in formal schooling and select diverging pathways in later grades.” (psycnet.apa.org)

Nearly thirty years ago I first encountered articles and studies about why girls were avoiding math and science classes at ever earlier ages. Although I’m an English teacher and writer, the rest of my family is in STEM fields, and I see how important they are and the opportunities they offer. Even though I ran three other extracurricular activities, I started a group called WIMS [Women in Math and Science]. We met after school every month to look at the research and plan activities. I connected them with women scientists at Fermilab, and they reached out to girls at the middle school and grade schools. I was hopeful.

I wasn’t entirely wrong. We did make progress.

But we’re slipping again. According to Northwest Evaluation Association research, although the disparity between middle school math and science scores disappeared in 2019, the gap has returned. One author posited that teachers may be reinforcing old stereotypes and/or the renewed focus on boys’ learning after they fell behind may affect girls. Whatever the reason, we’re losing ground here. (www.the74million.org)

Indianapolis schools have tackled this issue by creating Girls IN STEM Academy. Its mission: “Helping elementary-age girls’ science hopes take flight.” They’ve enrolled 65 girls but plan to grow to 300. The Girl Scouts are a partner. Purdue Polytechnic High School students will mentor the girls, seeking to create a pipeline that eventually boosts the female attendance there, as well as at colleges.

“With women making up just a third of the STEM workforce and about the same majoring in STEM fields in college, according to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and American Association of University Women, experts see a need to start encouraging girls early in a STEM focus.” The article claims that  there are only three other girls elementary schools with a dedicated STEM focus — Innova Girls Academy in New York, Rise STEM Academy for Girls in Kentucky and Solar Preparatory School for Girls in Texas. (indianacapitalchronicle.com)

 

Girls make up nearly half the population of school-age children, and our country cannot afford to discard their talents. STEM careers are highly desirable, and girls should be encouraged to seek them along with boys. Early support of STEM makes a difference. “Researchers have found that high-quality academic preparation and exposure to STEM is a key influence in high schoolers’ chances of landing a STEM career.” (www.the74million.org2)

It’s time for change.

Caught in the Crossfire

The research I do for this blog has driven my concern about teachers being “handcuffed” by micromanagement and censorship in far too many states. Texas and Florida may lead this unhelpful pack, and my growing frustration sought an outlet.

Until now, my writing has been non-fiction, but nearly two years ago, a creative and talented teacher named Claire Peters started pestering me in my dreams, in the shower, on long car rides. My mythical colleague had a story to tell and hounded me to tell it. Reluctantly, I let myself be drawn in. Claire’s story led me to research schools, communities, and laws in Texas, to merge real places and issues into this telling. Although this novel is fiction, it’s grounded in what happened to teachers in Texas during the 2022-2023 school year, interference and micromanagement that continue to this day. The realities drew me in, and I hope they draw my readers in, too.

I didn’t know the ending when I began. I just let Claire lead me, and this is where we landed.

In hindsight, a conversation with a fellow writer reminded me that I, too, had experienced this kind of micromanagement in my very first teaching job, an experience so challenging that it nearly ended my teaching career at the start. You can read all about it my teaching memoir, Tales Told Out of School: Lessons Learned by the Teacher.

I was lucky. I was pregnant with our second child when that school year ended, and we were committed to my being home with our children once my husband finished graduate school. Taking care of our sons gave me a five-year respite which created the space for me to try teaching again. Decades later, I’m grateful for that second chance. But that first experience clearly pushed Claire’s story for me.

I give you Claire Peters. She isn’t me, but I think we’d be friends if she were human. And I’m grateful for her pushing me to tell this story. I hope you found her as compelling as I did. 

And I hope her story generates conversations about what it means to be a good teacher in a system that discourages good teaching. I believe that the best teachers coach learners to ask open-ended questions and then seek answers for them. I believe that the point of studying the humanities is to better understand people and lead to better decisions in the future. I believe that history teachers help learners discover the past so that we are not condemned to repeat its mistakes. How, then, can a teacher caught in the cultural crossfire coach learners effectively? How can that teacher encourage questions and independent thought when history is whitewashed and connections are discouraged?

I don’t have answers, but I will always pose questions. We need to protect independent thought, to raise independent thinkers. We cannot do that with our hands tied.

Note: My book is available through Harvey’s Tales in Geneva, Illinois [https://harveystales.com/] and on Amazon in paperback and Kindle.