Tag: Teachers

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.

Don’t Let AI Write Students Out of the Story

I am old enough to have used — or tried to use — a slide rule in high school math, so I remember the kerfuffle over the emergence of handheld calculators. Oh, no, people exclaimed: kids won’t learn their times tables! Indeed, calculators and subsequent tech have changed what kids learn and how they do math. Every advancement in technology has impacted education, for both good and bad. Word processing and text analysis have transformed my own writing and the way I interacted with students’ writing for the better, even as it empowered students to plagiarize more easily — definitely a worse outcome.

My attitude toward emerging tech has always been to embrace what is useful even as I worked to limit any harm. Why, then, do I feel so threatened by the ubiquity of artificial intelligence. I believe the impact of this tech on learning is different. Calculators didn’t replace mathematical learning and processes; they just shifted the labor and focus. When students use AI to write, however, the only meaningful process they might engage is crafting a prompt, and that doesn’t require the deep thinking of crafting their own writing. 

Gallup tells us that “The percentage of high school students who report using GenAI tools for schoolwork is growing, increasing from 79% to 84% between January and May 2025.” (https://newsroom.collegeboard.org) That percentage appears to be growing. More and more students use AI not as a tool for writing, but as a complete substitute for it.

What are those students sacrificing? What does learning to write well offer that is lost with dependence on AI?

My answer? So much… Research supports a multitude of benefits from developing the capacity to write with clarity and effective expression. The cognitive psychologist Dr. Ronald

T. Kellogg considers writing a “technology for thinking.” His article lists key benefits of writing:

  • Deepening knowledge
  • Helping readers retain what they have read.
  • Building executive planning skills
  • Developing metacognition — “the ability to think about our thinking, weigh alternate viewpoints and revise for clarity and style.”
  • Forcing writers to stress-test ideas
  • Allowing the writer to respond to counterarguments and cite sources.
  • Revising as a practice of self-critique and self-improvement
  • Empowering because it allows self-expression
  • Dealing with emotions productively through journaling (www.nytimes.com)

I would add a few more benefits:

  • Writing to learn: the very act of writing can be a tool to for the author to figure out what they’re thinking, to gain more understanding, to examine topics critically, to make connections, etc.
  • Developing voice: great writers develop a recognizable and specific voice, just like many singers. HS student Hadley Benson writes about the program for middle schoolers that she leads. With the help of high school students, these middle schoolers learn and practice public speaking in a safe, supportive environment, culminating in their delivering a public speech. She says they gain confidence when they “believe their own thoughts are worth sharing, even when they come out wrong the first time. Students who feel they have a voice at school are seven times more motivated to learn.” [www.the74million.org)
  • Generating “original” thought: even if there is “nothing new under the sun,” writers who come up with a meaningful idea on their own – before discovering that others have had that idea as well – develop their own thinking and engage with the material in a deeper and more meaningful way. I will never forget the epiphany my remedial students had: they were reading Of Mice and Men and asked me why Steinbeck always referred to a character as “Curley’s wife” instead of giving her a name. When I turned the question back to them, they decided she wasn’t a person in her own right, a powerful discovery they made on their own. Turning everything over to AI will rob students of discoveries like that.  

This long list of the benefits of writing may not be fully realized when students depend on artificial intelligence. We should be wary. Last year, a small study from M.I.T. showed that individuals who wrote in partnership with A.I. chatbots recorded lower brain activity while they wrote, compared with those who worked without chatbots. The writers who used A.I. struggled to remember what, exactly, they had written, and felt little ownership over their work. This long list of the benefits of writing may not be fully realized when students depend on artificial intelligence. We should be wary. Last year, a small study from M.I.T. showed that individuals who wrote in partnership with A.I. chatbots recorded lower brain activity while they wrote, compared with those who worked without chatbots. The writers who used A.I. struggled to remember what, exactly, they had written, and felt little ownership over their work.  (https://arxiv.org). These findings join a growing body of research suggesting that frequent A.I. use can degrade critical thinking.

For students with still-developing minds, the most urgent question, then, is how to protect thinking in a world where it has become so easy to outsource writing.

Dr. Steve Graham, a writing expert and educational psychologist at Arizona State University, asserts that “Intellectual growth occurs at every stage, from brainstorming to fine-tuning a final draft. If writing is thinking, then any part of the struggle that is outsourced to technology amounts to relinquishing some freedom to perceive. How will students ever know what they really think of anything — whether it’s “The Crucible” or A.I. itself — if they ask a machine to spit out an answer for them?” (www.nytimes.com)

Artificial Intelligence can be a useful tool, but it is no replacement for a writer’s own work, and dependence on it can limit personal growth. A Brookings study finds AI undermines educational and social-emotional development, as well as teacher-student trust. “The risks we found are things like shortcutting learning so that you have less cognitive development,” said Rebecca Winthrop, who heads Brookings’ Center for Universal Education and is an author of the report. Their brains are still developing and school should ideally help them practice critical thinking and “sustained engagement with challenging material.” Yet for most young people, AI isn’t a “cognitive partner” but a surrogate. It doesn’t accelerate their development — it diminishes it via cognitive offloading. The result, researchers say: declining skills across the board. (www.the74million.org2)

Teachers can lead students to use AI as an appropriate tool for many stages of the writing process and preparation for it: brainstorming, initial feedback on drafts, identifying gaps in thinking, explaining complex ideas, offering multiple perspective, etc. None of these replace the students’ own synthesis and expression.  

Michael J. Coren says it better than I ever will:

“AI may be making our work better. There’s new evidence it’s making our thinking worse.

When AI tools are accurate — and they get better every month — the gains can be profound. The costs are less obvious but could be just as real: a steady erosion of our natural intelligence.

Imagine hiring a personal trainer. Your goal is to get stronger. But when you go to the gym, you tell your personal trainer to lift the weights for you.

The next hour is a blur of motion as “you,” via your hired muscle, lift more than ever before in your life. Each time you call out another set, the trainer lifts hundreds of pounds with perfect form. Having never broken a sweat, you inscribe your name on the building’s wall of fame.

That, in a sense, is what many do with AI when they direct it to solve the algebra equation, draft the client memo or write the code achieving the task at hand, but eroding their own ability to.” (www.washingtonpost.com)

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)

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.

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!

A Happy Success

Last week I had the privilege of speaking with a double class of sixth graders and their two teachers. I told the story of how this came about in the previous blog; now I can tell what it was like.

Before I started talking about writing nonfiction and the importance of revision, I encouraged them to interrupt with questions at any point. They frequently did, asking to see my books, asking if I made money writing them, asking where I got my ideas. You could power a city with their energy!

When I asked why they wrote, the first answer was, “for fun”—my heart sang. When I asked about purposes for writing, they were able to list many. They also understood the importance of audience, agreeing that a letter to a grandparent would describe their weekend differently from one to a buddy. And when I asked about artificial intelligence and both its impact on and role in writing, their sophistication blew me away. Students referenced the unreliability and poor quality of AI writing, though they acknowledged using it.

I talked about my own writing journey, from being in a junior high writing group and seeing my poems—bad though I now know they were—in print to the writing of my most recent book, my first work of fiction. I encouraged them to read widely because it was fun and would make them better writers. Many nodded at that, and some even described their favorite books and series. Others complained that they hadn’t found books of interest, and I encouraged them to use librarians as resources, assuring them that once they found the right books, they would want to read them. I told the story of my scientist husband’s journey from near-illiterate writer to accomplished memoirist, thanks in good part to the support a writing group. They were responsive and engaged; I found their gusto inspiring.

Then they formed small groups to revise the AI-drafted poorly written paragraph I’d sent. They could read it on the whiteboard, and all of them had it on their Chromebooks. Despite the occasional grumbling about group work, their groups did rewrite the paragraph. Some just reworded it without reducing the wordiness, but some did a really good job. If I were to do this again, I would emphasize finding the main idea and amplifying it without extras, and I would explain the difference between revising and editing better.

After our debriefing, students began to pack up. One brought me a part of her story to read, several surprised me by asking for autographs, and one gave me the picture that you see here as a gift. They really made me feel validated. I hope they found it to be a good learning experience. I know I learned from them.

When I research the state of education for my blogs, the doom and gloom can be daunting. This experience gave me far more hope than the research implies. Two committed teachers working together with a large group of learners, coping with some chaos to produce enthusiastic and effective results—that’s what schools should be like.   

I’m so glad I had this chance… but I confess that I no longer have the stamina more teaching would require. I came home and took a nap! So thank you, students and teachers, for inviting me, and keep on writing!

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.

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.