April 30, 2025 • 43 mins
Stephanie and Zac dig in to a couple of last week's slew of Executive Orders and examine their potential implications for public educators. They welcome guest Diana Laufenberg, executive director of Inquiry Schools (https://www.inquiryschools.org/) to pull apart recent rulings from around the country on the Trump Administration's attempts to make federal curriculum policy by weaponizing funding allocated for helping students in poverty.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_03 (00:00):
Hi, I'm Zach Chase.
SPEAKER_02 (00:16):
Hi, I'm Stephanie Melville.
SPEAKER_03 (00:17):
And this is Academic Distinctions.
A little bit first, a little bitof housekeeping as we get
started on why you would evenwant to listen to the two of us
talk about education news,policy, research, and the like.
SPEAKER_02 (00:31):
Most recently, I worked in the US Department of
Education, specifically in theNational Center for Education
Statistics, or NCES, which washoused in the Institute of
Education Sciences, or IES.
In that space, I dealt with datascience in K-12 spaces, helping
the department think more morebroadly about what data science
education might look like forstudents and why it was
(00:52):
necessary to think about.
Prior to that, I worked at thedistrict level for my local
school district as a high schoolmath coach.
And before that, I was asecondary math teacher where I
taught classes from seventhgrade all the way up to AP
calculus and AP stats.
I think being an educator isjust in my blood.
SPEAKER_03 (01:09):
And I also most recently worked at the federal
level.
I've also worked in the Obamaadministration, both times in
the Office of EducationalTechnology, helping to write the
National Educational TechnologyPlan, along with pretty much
anything else that fell on myplate at the time.
Outside of the federal world,I've worked at the district
level as a technologycoordinator, curriculum
(01:30):
coordinator, library and mediaservices coordinator.
I've worked with schools acrossthe country and the world, and I
have been also a classroomteacher teaching middle and high
school students English languagearts.
That's the best word of all ofthat to mess up is English
language arts.
(01:50):
Either way, we are your hostsfor this journey.
This episode is one of our Ed inthe news episodes.
We'll be alternating each week.
So this episode, we're going tolook at three key stories going
on right now in the world ofeducation and try to boil it
down, give it some context andhelp folks understand what they
can care about and what theymight be able to do about these
(02:10):
issues.
Next week's episode will be oneof our in-depth episodes.
We'll be looking at the world ofBloom's taxonomy.
I said that like it wasn't goingto be exciting, but it is going
to be really exciting.
Right, Stephanie?
SPEAKER_02 (02:24):
It really is.
There's a lot of history behindit that's worth unpacking and
figuring out what it is thatwe've been doing and how we got
there.
SPEAKER_03 (02:31):
Speaking of unpacking.
SPEAKER_02 (02:35):
You just get back from vacation.
SPEAKER_03 (02:37):
No, I just got back from executive order land.
So in the last 72 hours, we'rerecording this on Friday.
The White House has unveiled atleast at our count at this
point, seven executive orders.
We're going to be talking aboutone of them, and that is the
(02:58):
Advancing ArtificialIntelligence Education for
American Youth Order.
And Stephanie, you, of course,know the difference between an
executive order and executiveaction No, I
SPEAKER_02 (03:09):
was really, well, I mean, I do, but I was hoping
that you could explain it just alittle tiny bit for the
listeners at home, becausethose, those words get thrown
around, like everybodyunderstands them all the time.
And I kind of think that maybewe don't.
SPEAKER_03 (03:22):
Sure.
So here's our civics education.
Let me start with the executiveorder.
An executive order is prettymuch what it says on the tin.
In this case, it is theexecutive branch ordering one of
its agencies or differentpersonnel within that branch to
take some sort of specificaction, usually around a central
theme.
In this case, artificialintelligence.
(03:43):
Executive action is what thataction is, what they're
directing folks to do or whatthe administration is doing
along a specific timeline.
subject area or topic.
And then there's the fact sheet.
And this is the piece that yousee in the public most because
it is sort of like a pressrelease listing all of the
different things anadministration is going to do
(04:03):
related to a topic.
So it takes that executiveorder, strips out kind of the
legalese and puts it into moreplain English so that it is
something that is easilycommunicable across platforms.
Yeah, yeah, that's right.
In the show notes, we'll put areally helpful explainer from
Georgetown's Government AffairsInstitute that pulls all that
(04:24):
apart.
For those of you who are like,oh, I want to read more about
this.
But let's step in.
Stephanie, this executive orderhit and it was all over my
LinkedIn feed.
What did you think about it whenyou read it?
SPEAKER_02 (04:39):
At first glance, it's not bad.
And, you know, I say this assomeone who kind of wants it to
be bad just because, you know, Idon't have my job at the
department anymore.
But it talks about equippingteachers with the tools to use
it and teaching about it,getting students to learn about
it, getting America to be astrong developer of tools and
then tech that use it, right?
(05:01):
There's even a mention ofprioritizing NSF grant funding
of research in the Grants forteacher training.
Like there's a lot in there.
That first read through isn'ttoo far off from the policy memo
I wrote with another ed fellowcalling for close to the exact
same thing.
SPEAKER_03 (05:18):
I will also say not too far off from what was put
out by Edsafe AI Alliance acouple of days ago.
They put out, and we'll link toit in the show notes,
Opportunity at Scale, the Casefor Public Infrastructure for AI
in Education.
So some real crossover there.
(05:38):
I would also say...
Not too different from theexecutive order issued by the
Biden administration in 2023,saying, you know, AI, we think
we think there's somethingthere.
We'd like to figure it out.
There are some key differencesthere.
But I want to hear what youthought about on second glance.
SPEAKER_02 (05:55):
Yeah.
Second glance is it's reallyless promising.
Like create a task
SPEAKER_03 (05:59):
force.
Many people I've tried to date.
SPEAKER_02 (06:01):
Keep going.
Right.
I know.
So they want to create a taskforce.
That's great.
You know, but
SPEAKER_03 (06:07):
task force on that task force.
Keep
SPEAKER_02 (06:11):
going.
On that task force, do you wantto put the Secretary of
Education?
SPEAKER_03 (06:14):
Deal.
SPEAKER_02 (06:16):
Well, not in my mind.
She's kind of establishedherself as somebody who's not a
credible and knowledgeablesource for this work, right?
SPEAKER_03 (06:23):
This work being public education?
SPEAKER_02 (06:25):
Or AI in public education.
Or A1, maybe.
SPEAKER_03 (06:31):
All right.
We get one of those jokes perepisode.
SPEAKER_02 (06:33):
Yes.
Yes, yes.
All
SPEAKER_03 (06:35):
right.
Okay.
SPEAKER_02 (06:37):
Anyway, like, who's creating these resources and
trainings that teachers aregoing to get?
Who's enforcing the qualitycontrol?
Is there even quality control?
We know there's significantbiases in AI outputs, given the
anti-DEI stance of thisadministration, that doesn't
seem to be high on the list ofpriorities of addressing or even
acknowledging.
And because of this, I can'thelp but read this as something
(06:57):
that's going to make ourworkforce a bunch of output
producers and clickbait buildersfocused in on ways to earn
corporations extra money ratherthan using it for meaningful
innovations like healthcare forearly detection models.
SPEAKER_03 (07:11):
So I would say that's a hard turn between your
first and second.
My reading of this, a couple ofthings were really interesting
to me.
My very first instinct was whois going to do this work?
Because as folks have read orheard about across the last few
months, very few people who dothis work are left at the U.S.
(07:34):
Department of Education.
As I said earlier, I come out ofthe Office of Educational
Technology.
We had a whole team craftingguidance and policy
recommendations around this.
artificial intelligence ineducation.
Some really, really good stuff.
We will link in the show notesspecifically for leaders of
schools to say, here are somequestions that you can ask to
(07:55):
help make sure this goes well,as well as some guidance for
developers saying, hey, ifyou're going to be in a school
community doing things in aschool community, here's some
knowledge you should have.
And also making sure that humansare the drivers of these pieces
and not vendors and not commerceand not saying, all right, how
can we get the most money out ofthis piece?
(08:15):
Who's going to do the work isthe first piece.
And as you said, I'm a littlebit worried that because that
line of defense is not there inthe department and the
guardrails are off, that this isjust going to get contracted out
to folks.
And it could get contracted outto great folks and it could get
contracted out to not so greatfolks.
But we really don't know becausethere isn't a civil servant or a
(08:38):
civil service piece here thatcan keep things back.
So that was one piece.
The other piece and thedifference there and the
difference...
I think if you look at theEdsafe AI Alliance piece and
even the Biden administration'swork is that there isn't a
mention about, as you said,bias.
There isn't a mention in thereabout bias.
(09:00):
Safety, data, those kinds ofconsiderations.
And that is the piece thatreally worries me.
It kind of feels like we'regoing to let everybody do the
thing and the market decides.
And when we're talking about howkids act and how kids learn and
the lives of kids and teachers,then I really worry when we say
we're just going to let marketforces step in.
(09:22):
A really great piece that wewill also link.
The show notes, by the way, forfolks, the show notes on our
episodes are going to be robust.
because we do a lot of nerderyto get to the recording.
So there's a great piece thatwas out this morning from Audrey
Waters that we will link inreally thinking through this
executive order as well.
(09:43):
But that was where I came downis like, how are we going to
make sure we're keeping peoplesafe?
How are we going to know whoowns the data?
What are the questions folksshould be asking?
And I just don't think it'sthere.
I will say it was the firstpiece out of the administration
of, hey, we want to do somethingversus, hey, we want to tear
everything down.
Because
SPEAKER_02 (10:01):
of my work as a coach at the district level, I
can tell you, specifically fromthat lens, a lot of educators
are just not prepared to talkabout data literacy, let alone
AI, like the foundations are notthere.
The teacher prep programs don'trequire educators to to learn
(10:22):
about data science, dataliteracy, AI, understanding
those models, data safety.
It's just not there.
And maybe this piece of thisexecutive order is going to help
to do that.
But I just...
Like you said, there's nothingin the fact sheet that talks
about social responsibility oracknowledging the potential harm
(10:42):
when AI is unrestrained or isbeing used with an untrained
eye.
And so it just...
Like who gets to say whether ornot my data gets sold to the
highest bidder to develop somemodel?
And that to me is just, itleaves me wanting more.
(11:03):
Like I have the womp wompplaying in the back of my head
when I read it.
Like there's so much that needsto be addressed.
The executive order says that AIcould be used to improve teacher
training, but also evaluation.
Like, are you kidding me?
NEA is gonna have a field daywith that one if they haven't
already.
SPEAKER_03 (11:21):
Yeah, I think the other piece here that is
incredibly important is theresearch on any of this and its
effectiveness with students andits effectiveness in improving
teacher quality is in itsinfancy.
And so there's also this turn tomove all of this conversation
and all of this training and allof this embedding of these
(11:43):
things into these educationalsystems without any any real
robust evidence that specificpractices are helpful in
improving learning and teaching.
Now, where I would like to seethis is solving problems, right?
(12:04):
And so I think that there istremendous room to start at a
smaller scale and work alongsideeducators and say, what is the
problem that you have?
that is keeping you fromdeveloping important and deep
and effective relationships withstudents.
(12:24):
A lot of the work around AI isaround efficiencies, is stopping
and saying, all right, what iskeeping teachers from having
more time in the human aspectsof their role?
SPEAKER_02 (12:36):
Yes.
SPEAKER_03 (12:36):
What are the pieces of bureaucracy, of paperwork, of
those kinds of things that wecould pull and say, all right,
the AI can help you with this.
SPEAKER_01 (12:45):
Yes.
SPEAKER_03 (12:46):
It raises a ton of questions, right?
So there are a lot of examplesof teachers planning lesson
plans.
And so if you were talking abouta school that has been working
really hard toward a specificpedagogical inquiry or
project-based learning orproblem-based learning or
experiential learning or any ofthose kinds of models or a
really draconian authoritarianmodel, right?
(13:07):
If that's what you think is bestfor kids.
Well, you're wrong, but ifthat's where you're going.
Yes, thank you.
And you're inquiring an AI tohelp you generate or modify a
lesson plan.
Where is it pulling that?
What's the pedagogical stance ofthe AI?
And what's the training that anAI has had?
And where does that come from?
(13:27):
Because we want to make surewe're adhering to the philosophy
and the model that's presentwithin the school.
So I think the efficienciespiece is there.
I think that This train has leftthe station.
It's going to be moving forward.
The question is, how can we dothis as safely and thoughtfully
as possible so that if and whensomething implodes or we find
(13:50):
out this thing was doing thisthing that we didn't understand
anyway, that we put some safetynets and some guardrails around
these things to keep it fromgoing wrong.
Again, a ton of this stuff inOET slash the department's
documents.
And so we'll make sure we linkthose in the notes.
(14:11):
I do want to say before we moveon, what would you say are the
key questions for practitioners?
So that's classroom teachers,school leaders, district
leaders, policymakers.
What are some key questions orpractices that you would hope
you see in the field based onthe experience that you've got?
SPEAKER_02 (14:32):
So that's a great question.
So for me, as a former educator,I'd really like to know, you
know, where does the data comefrom?
How is the data being used?
Who owns it?
You know, but also, who are webringing to the table to kind of
help make those decisions?
Is this a shared decision makingprocess?
(14:52):
Are we involving the communityfor our students?
And to what end should this behelpful?
What about you?
SPEAKER_03 (15:01):
My questions would be, are we making sure that the
adults who are responsible forchildren's safety and learning
have the capacities that theyneed and have the comfort and
have the sense of assurance thatthey know how to use these tools
before we turn them on and turnthem over to students?
(15:25):
Yeah.
isn't always where I've been ontechnology.
And I think that that like, butI think this is a different
technology.
Right.
Right.
So I have said in the past.
Yeah.
And I've said in the past, like,if you want kids to create
something and tell a story orcreate a presentation, and all
you know, is PowerPoint orGoogle Slides.
(15:49):
So that's all you ask studentsto do.
Then you are limiting what youcan learn about and the ways
that students can learn to tellstories.
And that is still true.
I still stand by that.
But this is a wholly differentpiece, right?
Like if the slides go wrong, itis probably because of something
I did wrong as a user.
And so there's a different levelof like validation of like, is
(16:14):
that yellow?
Is that background yellow?
Like I can verify that and Iknow to verify that.
But I want to know as a teacher,do I have good ways and
practices for verifying theinformation I'm getting from an
AI of any kind of like agenerative AI or an AI that's
telling me sort your kids intothese groups or any of those
pieces?
Like, do I have what is what isnecessary to do these things
(16:36):
rather than just saying like.
Somebody saying, no, no, no.
Trust it.
Trust it.
So that that'd be my first pieceis like, do all the adults who
are responsible for the learningand safety of kids, safety of
kids have what they need?
SPEAKER_02 (16:49):
Yeah.
The risk is greater.
The risk is greater.
It's not just a PowerPoint.
Like it's it's student data.
It's teacher data.
SPEAKER_03 (16:56):
It's also just being wrong, right?
SPEAKER_02 (16:58):
True.
That too.
SPEAKER_03 (17:00):
Like you asked it a question and you got the right,
you get the wrong answer, but ifnobody in the system knows how
to verify that it's the right orthe wrong answer, then we're in,
then we're in deep trouble.
Right.
Um, And, and so there's a,there's a level of comfort that
I think is necessary andcapacity that is necessary and
making sure that all the adultshave that before we open it up
to, to kids.
(17:22):
Right.
Like you make sure the electricfences are turned on in Jurassic
park before you bring Timmy inbecause, well, actually that's
the opposite of how this willwork.
You get the point.
So that
SPEAKER_02 (17:32):
we saw how it turned out.
SPEAKER_03 (17:34):
Not great.
Or Skynet, I guess Terminatorwould have been a better
example.
We really aren't, mining thatone as much as I thought we
would when this whole generativeAI thing started.
So that's my piece.
Do the adults have the supportsthat they need?
And then I would go along withyou.
Are we talking to families andcommunities to help them
(17:55):
understand and build this piece?
And then a thing that I will sayover and over again is Are we
letting the time we talk aboutAI literacy, or as you said,
data literacy, are we lettingthat eat up the time where we
really need to be focusing onthe foundations of just
literacy?
(18:15):
Right?
So good digital literacy, goodAI literacy, good data literacy
come from the skills of criticalthinking and evaluating sources
and making arguments and thosekinds of things.
And so oftentimes...
that can crowd out thatinstruction, which is fine if
you are a student who has acertain kind of background that
means that you've got thecultural knowledge and
(18:37):
competency and capital.
But if you're a kid whosecognitive load is taken up by a
bunch of other stuff, maybe workor home or any of other things,
then you need that that literacyunderstanding.
You need that foundation to besecure, or you're going to miss
the AI data and digitalliteracy.
(18:59):
And we have historically, as allparties will say, messed up the
literacy side of things.
Not just like the science ofreading stuff, but the like, can
you make a good argument?
SPEAKER_01 (19:14):
And
SPEAKER_03 (19:14):
you evaluate sources.
So that'd be the other piece islike at a higher level, at like
a district leadership level is,are we crowding out literacy
skills in favor of thesespecialized literacies?
Because if we are, then noteverybody's going to get an
invitation to the party.
(19:46):
Welcome back.
Before we kick off this nextsegment, we want to welcome our
guest executive director ofInquiry Schools and TED Talker,
racking up over 2.5 millionviews.
She's a celebrity.
Please welcome DianaLeffenberger to the pod.
Hi, Diana.
SPEAKER_00 (20:05):
Hello, guys.
That was utterly ridiculous.
But I am very glad to join you.
I'm excited to talk about what'sbeen going on in the news
surrounding...
education in the last week orso.
SPEAKER_03 (20:19):
It's been a doozy.
We're going to wrap up the showtoday starting with the
Department of Education's loveletter.
I say that only because it wassent and dated February 14th,
2025.
to SEAs, LEAs, it's a bit of amishmash.
(20:41):
It's a bit of ridiculousness.
Let me give you the high points.
Letter was sent to folks saying,hey, if you want to receive your
federal funds, Title I dollars,then you need to eliminate DEI
programming, curriculum,unclear.
And you need to sign this lettersaying that you're not doing
(21:03):
anything with DEI and then youwill be able to get your money.
This is kind of a bit of ashakedown.
There are oftentimesrequirements to receive federal
funds, certifications that youhave to do, reports that you
have to give, tend not to bethis way.
And so the NEA, the AFT, acouple of other plaintiffs filed
(21:27):
suit across the country andsaid, we think this is wrong.
It turns out that a couple ofdifferent judges around the
country, three so far at the notokay.
And they have stopped and put aninjunction on this whole thing
for two kind of interesting keyreasons.
(21:52):
The first is that the letterdoesn't adequately or even
explicitly define what theadministration means by DEI
initiatives.
It is a bit of a banana pantsletter.
I will read a little bit of itin a second.
The second is that they said,and this is what's really
(22:12):
interesting, given theadministration's kind of motto,
as it were, or catchphrase oflet's give it back to the
states.
The judges said that this was anexample of federal overreach,
that the federal government wasoverreaching what was allowable
in its attempt to controlcurriculum at the state and
(22:34):
district level.
Really kind of fascinating,really given the fact that
they're saying, hey, we need togive this back to the states.
The federal government doesn'thave a role in education, except
for, of course, everything.
So that's what we're going totalk about in this half of the
(22:54):
show.
Diana, anything you want to talkabout with the kind of heart of
SPEAKER_00 (23:01):
this case?
So there's a lot of differentangles you can look at this
particular letter from.
I think it would be useful toknow that the reason they
consider that a federaloverreach is because education
has always been a 10th Amendmentreserved power as it is stated
in the Constitution.
It's not expressly granted ordealt with in the Constitution.
(23:21):
And so it tacitly gets left as areserve power.
And that's where that federaloverreach comes.
And when you hear about that,even the elimination of the
education department, a lot ofthat comes from this idea that
education was a reserve powersupposed to be left with the
states.
So when you get a court sayingthis is federal overreach, it's
(23:43):
interesting to your point,because this is exactly the
opposite of what thisadministration has been telling
us they're about.
And so, yeah, so that is, yeah,that's, pretty fascinating as a
logical leap to be making withthis particular administration.
SPEAKER_03 (24:04):
If you look at the letter, I don't recommend that
you do.
There are a lot of logicalleaps, rhetorical gymnastics
that are required here, and Thelimited injunction is really
interesting as well.
We should also say that Diana isnot a legal scholar.
She's not an attorney, but she'sa real good social studies
(24:25):
teacher, which if you can getone of those, you're set for
life.
So that's where we stand on thisDEI love letter to schools.
It is interesting also to notethat the letter kind of throws
K-12 in with higher education.
It's not really clear what it isthey're against, as the judges
(24:51):
bore out in their rulings.
So really interesting.
So that's it.
We're done, right, Stephanie?
SPEAKER_02 (24:57):
Yeah.
Yeah.
Absolutely.
No.
You know, the issue that I havewith this whole thing and the
definition of DEI, it's like...
Realistically, it's refusing tolook at the larger arguments
about DEI in schools againstthem.
(25:17):
Broadly speaking, there's anargument that everyone should be
able to succeed.
They're making this argumentthat everybody should be able to
succeed if they try hard enough,but that's not what we're
seeing.
The data exists.
P-values exist.
SPEAKER_03 (25:32):
What do?
I'm sorry?
SPEAKER_02 (25:34):
P-values.
SPEAKER_03 (25:35):
That's...
I'm 12 right now.
SPEAKER_02 (25:39):
You should be.
You should be.
So p-values are basically, anddon't hate me stats friends,
p-values show the likelihoodthat something would happen
purely by chance.
And the research indicates thatinequities happen frequently
enough in education that theyaren't probably just a chance,
but more likely by design,whether intentional or
(25:59):
accidental.
So systems do what they weredesigned to do, intentionally or
not.
And sometimes we have to changethem to have better outcomes for
certain groups of people to notstart from a disadvantaged point
from the get-go.
SPEAKER_03 (26:14):
So, Diana, is this EO saying that's not what's
happening?
SPEAKER_00 (26:22):
Yes.
It is using the word race veryfrequently throughout this
particular EO to invoke the ideathat if any...
kid of color, person of color isafforded something that a white
person is not, it is inherentlydiscrimination and therefore not
allowed under Title VI of theCivil Rights Act.
SPEAKER_03 (26:43):
Even though the thing that they are affording
them is something that is meantto make up for where the system
has limited them in the past.
SPEAKER_00 (26:51):
Absolutely.
You would have to erase anenormous part of your
understanding of Americanhistory to believe that our
country has not historicallyused race as a proxy to hold
people back, to knock peopledown, to remove opportunity, to
remove access.
(27:12):
I mean, you've got to do a lotof forgetting and be quite blind
not to see that in ourhistorical record.
SPEAKER_03 (27:18):
would you, would you say we have any evidence of
that?
SPEAKER_02 (27:22):
There's a huge pool of data that showed disparate
outcomes from inherentlyinequitable and damaging
practices.
They're still deeply entrenched.
You know, we're not that farremoved from the historical
practices like Diana was talkingabout, you know, how like Jenny
from Jenny from the block, ifyou will, who maybe did not
(27:42):
handle her, her, her, her,Mental health very well and got
locked away in an institutionfor the rest of her life.
You know, like there's there's awhole lot of examples
historically and and massivefunds of data that show that
we're not really out of the messthat we were in.
SPEAKER_00 (28:05):
I was going to say, we've made strides and we have
been moving in a direction.
It is very incremental.
It is no big swings, I wouldsay, have been made, but it was
incremental in our improvementfor some of these outcomes.
However, we're not there yet.
And we're not going to get therethrough an EO that basically
(28:26):
says, we're all good now.
There is nothing holding anyoneback from being their full
potential and regardless ofrace, national origin.
Everything is equal.
Everybody's fine.
Game on.
SPEAKER_03 (28:41):
We have this outside of education.
And you mentioned the Title VIof the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
But let's start at theConstitution, right?
The Constitution has racismbaked into it.
SPEAKER_01 (28:52):
What?
Written in.
SPEAKER_03 (28:54):
Yep.
SPEAKER_01 (28:54):
No.
SPEAKER_03 (28:56):
Enslaved people count as three-fifths of a
person, right?
To kind of...
SPEAKER_00 (29:01):
For electoral population count.
Yep.
SPEAKER_03 (29:04):
Right, exactly.
And voting rights forlandowners, they were for white
men.
These things are baked into notjust the Constitution, but laws
outside of the Constitution,local laws, state laws, these
things were baked in.
But similarly, we have as acountry worked to...
(29:27):
remediate some of those pieces,right?
So we have the 14th Amendment,the 15th Amendment, the 19th
Amendment, the Civil Rights Actof 1964, the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, IDEA,like all of these pieces were
built in.
But the premise here is I think,and again, it is muddled and
confusing.
I would read it, but it wouldmake this podcast very
(29:48):
confusing.
The premise here is that becausewe have those laws, I think this
is the premise, because we havethose laws, we've done it.
That legislation...
This is on the face of theargument that legislation has
taken care of things, and sothey are fixed, as though we
hadn't created ripples throughtime, generational systems and
(30:12):
inequities that affect folks inpoverty, that affect folks with
special needs, that affectpeople of color, that affect
women, any of these folks thathave historically been kept out
of of these things.
The premise there is that itisn't there and it's not true.
But we do know how to make itbetter.
It just takes time.
(30:32):
And I think there's an argumentthat's attempting to be made,
although I do not think in goodfaith, that we're done.
That we have the laws and sothat is done.
So the other piece of this, sothat's the DEI piece, right?
That's the argument that's beingmade for why DEI needs to go
away.
(30:54):
The other piece that's in there,and I think it's incredibly
important that we talk a littlebit about it, is the weaponizing
or threatening to remove fundingfrom schools by suggesting that
the problems are solved, like wejust said.
We're a long way.
And then we also have, andStephanie, you worked for NCES,
Institute for EducationalSciences, right?
You worked.
(31:14):
We are seeing a ton of databeing dumped, erased, scraped,
defunded, because those are thedata that we use.
to tell the stories of theinequities between these groups.
And no matter where you stand onstandardized tests, no matter
what, that is a common measurethat we have that shows that
(31:38):
these gaps still exist, right?
It doesn't matter if you thinkthey are good for academic, but
this is a common measure.
It's one of our very few commonmeasures that shows this.
And now we're destroying thedata that show that.
SPEAKER_02 (31:55):
And that's not metaphorical.
They are literally taking itdown from the websites.
They are not renewing contracts.
If
SPEAKER_03 (32:06):
you follow it on LinkedIn, you see scientists
saying, hey, this is going to godark.
I can't access the data that Ineed to do my work.
The researchers, it's gone.
So that is going away becauseit's harder to say, things are
unequal when you don't have thedata that you need to show that
they are unequal.
SPEAKER_00 (32:23):
And even if they collect the data going forward,
I think it's fair to assume thatthey will not be disaggregating
that data based on race.
So while the data may existgoing forward, it will not be
able to be analyzed at thatlevel to be looking for
disparate outcomes and theinequality that exists.
SPEAKER_03 (32:44):
So then my question becomes, As they say, well, the
states have it.
So let's say we turn this all,like, Diana, you're in
Wisconsin.
Let's say we turn this, we'llreturn equity back over to the
states.
Is Wisconsin ready?
Is Wisconsin prepared?
SPEAKER_00 (33:01):
So we're getting all of the responsibility for
federal programming, butpotentially not the money or the
infrastructure to do it.
Is that our assumption?
Yeah.
I mean, no.
No, we're not ready for that.
I would say that most stateshave ceded their responsibility
(33:27):
and control over to the federalgovernment as the laws have
required for the past severaldecades around most of this data
and most of theseresponsibilities.
Therefore, not cultivating thatlevel of experience or capacity
within their own systems.
To do that, again, I've saidthis with many of these things,
like if this is the outcome thatthey want and I don't think it's
(33:51):
a great idea and I think it'sflawed and what have you, okay,
there is a manner in which youcould do this where you do least
harm.
And that is a phased approach.
That is slow.
That is deliberate.
that is building people up asyou take something down at the
federal government.
And as we are learning with thisadministration, that is not
(34:13):
their motto.
I mean, they're of theengineering, move fast and break
things.
And what's particularly- People,people.
Yeah.
But what's particularlyhorrendous is that many of these
things that they're breakinghave wildly negative outcomes
for children, specifically inour systems.
(34:36):
And it goes past education intomore general impacts on the
child.
This is going to be messy atbest, catastrophic at worst.
And the people most vulnerablein the system are the children.
And that's who's going to beimpacted most greatly.
SPEAKER_03 (34:52):
It's kind of like if you went to your local grocery
store and they were like, youknow what, we're not doing that
anymore.
We know you've got a yardproblem.
Um, so why don't you go aheadand, and grow your own food?
Um, and you'd be like, Oh, couldI just, I don't have, I'm not
prepared for my garden.
No, actually we're just shutdown.
Um, we're done.
(35:14):
And then the expectation is thatyou can survive.
Yeah.
Right.
Um, yeah, you should haveplanned better.
SPEAKER_00 (35:20):
Yeah, no, that's exactly, that's exactly what it
is, Zach.
It's, it's wanting you to allthis doesn't have capacity to do
something you have never, youhave not been asked to do for
potentially 25 years.
SPEAKER_03 (35:30):
The other piece that's here, I think, in kind of
setting aside the lack ofcapacity, money, people,
experience, all of those kindsof things.
The other piece here that is atplay that I think is really
important to pay attention to isthat you're requiring states to
adhere to the ideologicalnon-statutory whims of the
(35:52):
leaders rather than the law ofthe land, right?
That this is like...
There is law.
Elementary and SecondaryEducation Act says this money
goes here for this based on thisformula.
That law has not been changed,has not been amended, has not
been thrown out.
None of that has happened.
Right.
So that letter came and Congresshas passed a law and it was
(36:17):
signed into the ratification wasright in 2015.
Right.
That law is the law of the land.
And so asking people to say, youhave to, you have to do this and
agree to this.
If you want to get this moneythat we are legally required to
send to you is a, is a whole newway of playing.
Like we've said, do this so youcan get your money before as a
(36:37):
federal government, but this isa different way of playing the
game that is incrediblydangerous and disrupts systems
that take care of our mostvulnerable populations.
SPEAKER_02 (36:48):
And we're back full circle, you know, like we're
just right back at to the top.
of where we started.
Executive orders, baby.
Yeah, executive orders.
SPEAKER_03 (36:59):
Find the cracks.
All right, last question here.
What are we wondering?
As we watch this, as we gothrough the podcast, what are
the questions, what are wewondering watching how all of
these things unfold?
SPEAKER_00 (37:14):
I think one of my top questions is how will the
courts continue to respond tothis level of Norm smashing that
the administration seems to bedoing with regard to legislated
in place laws and statutes andtrying to executively order them
(37:37):
away.
How the courts continue torespond and try to protect the
rule of law, I think, issomething it's really
interesting to watch.
SPEAKER_03 (37:45):
Stephanie,
SPEAKER_02 (37:47):
I'm wondering how states are going to react.
You know who who's going to bendthe knee.
Right.
Will they demand access tofederal funds if they're being,
I'm sorry, if they're takingover that federal work?
What's the voter response goingto be in all of this?
SPEAKER_03 (38:03):
So yeah, we'll take over your work.
Now give us all the money thatwe sent back or the money that
we would have been promised.
SPEAKER_02 (38:10):
Yeah, come on.
What am I paying you for ifyou're not going to do it?
SPEAKER_03 (38:12):
I have a pretty big concern around and question
around recruitment and retentionefforts for new teachers.
Teaching wasn't the sexiest job,wasn't the sexiest profession
yet.
And we are not making it lookstable or better at this
particular point.
And Diana, I think you weresaying something about the fact
that all of those EOs came outat the same time.
SPEAKER_00 (38:35):
Yeah.
That was a lot of...
That was a lot going on in sevenEOs all at once.
And I really...
I haven't seen it yet.
It may exist.
By all means, somebody throw usa comment if it does.
But I...
I'm starting to, you know, Imean, there's some definite
(38:56):
through lines that you're goingto see in all of this.
And I keep wanting to thinkabout what are the threads that
they're pulling through all ofthese EOs that we can start to
surface as the more complex butnot complicated pieces of this
for folks to understand whatthey're doing versus every
single time he does one of theseEOs, we have to sit down and
(39:18):
take it apart and parse it andwhat's the fact sheet say, but
rather, Oh, this is anotherexample of, you know, they're,
desire to take away civil rightsprotections.
Oh, that's just another onethat's going against civil
rights.
Oh, that's just another onethat's going against states'
rights and ignoring reservepowers.
(39:39):
Oh, that's another one.
I think we need to start askingourselves, what's the through
line in these?
What's the bigger theme so thatwhen we talk about them, we can
group them together?
SPEAKER_03 (39:49):
I would also say I am very curious about what the
administration's If these areall connected, if there's a
through line, what is theadministration's end game with
AI and education?
Is this connected?
This one, again, seems like itwas written in a different way
with a different language andtone than the other EOs.
(40:11):
But how is this all connected?
What's the end game there?
Yeah.
I want to finish off before weclose with what we promise in
the core values, if you listento the trailer.
What can folks do?
Because there's a lot of, ifwe're listening to this, and as
we say these things, I thinkdesperation and worry in those
(40:33):
pieces.
And we know that the good workin classrooms and schools is
happening across the country.
But there's a question of whatcan we do if our funds are being
weaponized against us if wedon't take care of the kids who
need it, which is all kids.
And I think the answer and theadvice that makes the most sense
to me is if you are running adistrict or you are running a
(40:53):
school, work to make as simpleand transparent as possible how
these federal funds impact thechildren in your care.
Point two is These are thenumber of teachers we have
because of Title I.
These are the staff developmentcoaches that we are helping our
teachers improve their practicebecause of Title II.
This is why our school is saferbecause of Title IV.
(41:15):
Making very transparent andclear how those funds work is
incredibly important.
We'll put in the show notes alsothe folks over at InnovateEDU
put together a Google folderthat lists each state in the
country and what they would loseif there was an elimination of
EdR&D research funding, as wellas contact information for your
(41:38):
senators to let them know whatyou think.
We'll drop that link to thefolder in the show notes.
SPEAKER_00 (41:42):
And then the last little bit I'd put on there and
is at the teacher level, justnever stop sharing the wonderful
stories of what's happening inyour classrooms with your
students and what's going rightwith the kids that you get to
work with every day.
You can never have too much ofthat to help communicate the
reason why all of this is soimportant is because of that
good work that's happening inyour classroom.
SPEAKER_02 (42:04):
Thank you so much, Diana, for joining us today.
It's been a real pleasure.
I especially love that brightspot.
Find the bright spot at the endIt's so easy to get down in the
dark places.
Remembering to find the brightspot is a good one.
SPEAKER_00 (42:20):
It was great to be here.
Thanks for inviting me.
SPEAKER_03 (42:23):
And thanks to everybody who listened.
Join us next week when Stephanieand I try to tackle the pyramid
of Bloom's taxonomy questionmark.
It should be pretty interesting.
SPEAKER_02 (42:35):
Yes, it's going to be great.
So until next time, like,follow, subscribe.
We are Academic Distinctions.
Hi, I'm Zach Chase.
SPEAKER_02 (00:16):
Hi, I'm Stephanie Melville.
SPEAKER_03 (00:17):
And this is Academic Distinctions.
A little bit first, a little bitof housekeeping as we get
started on why you would evenwant to listen to the two of us
talk about education news,policy, research, and the like.
SPEAKER_02 (00:31):
Most recently, I worked in the US Department of
Education, specifically in theNational Center for Education
Statistics, or NCES, which washoused in the Institute of
Education Sciences, or IES.
In that space, I dealt with datascience in K-12 spaces, helping
the department think more morebroadly about what data science
education might look like forstudents and why it was
(00:52):
necessary to think about.
Prior to that, I worked at thedistrict level for my local
school district as a high schoolmath coach.
And before that, I was asecondary math teacher where I
taught classes from seventhgrade all the way up to AP
calculus and AP stats.
I think being an educator isjust in my blood.
SPEAKER_03 (01:09):
And I also most recently worked at the federal
level.
I've also worked in the Obamaadministration, both times in
the Office of EducationalTechnology, helping to write the
National Educational TechnologyPlan, along with pretty much
anything else that fell on myplate at the time.
Outside of the federal world,I've worked at the district
level as a technologycoordinator, curriculum
(01:30):
coordinator, library and mediaservices coordinator.
I've worked with schools acrossthe country and the world, and I
have been also a classroomteacher teaching middle and high
school students English languagearts.
That's the best word of all ofthat to mess up is English
language arts.
(01:50):
Either way, we are your hostsfor this journey.
This episode is one of our Ed inthe news episodes.
We'll be alternating each week.
So this episode, we're going tolook at three key stories going
on right now in the world ofeducation and try to boil it
down, give it some context andhelp folks understand what they
can care about and what theymight be able to do about these
(02:10):
issues.
Next week's episode will be oneof our in-depth episodes.
We'll be looking at the world ofBloom's taxonomy.
I said that like it wasn't goingto be exciting, but it is going
to be really exciting.
Right, Stephanie?
SPEAKER_02 (02:24):
It really is.
There's a lot of history behindit that's worth unpacking and
figuring out what it is thatwe've been doing and how we got
there.
SPEAKER_03 (02:31):
Speaking of unpacking.
SPEAKER_02 (02:35):
You just get back from vacation.
SPEAKER_03 (02:37):
No, I just got back from executive order land.
So in the last 72 hours, we'rerecording this on Friday.
The White House has unveiled atleast at our count at this
point, seven executive orders.
We're going to be talking aboutone of them, and that is the
(02:58):
Advancing ArtificialIntelligence Education for
American Youth Order.
And Stephanie, you, of course,know the difference between an
executive order and executiveaction No, I
SPEAKER_02 (03:09):
was really, well, I mean, I do, but I was hoping
that you could explain it just alittle tiny bit for the
listeners at home, becausethose, those words get thrown
around, like everybodyunderstands them all the time.
And I kind of think that maybewe don't.
SPEAKER_03 (03:22):
Sure.
So here's our civics education.
Let me start with the executiveorder.
An executive order is prettymuch what it says on the tin.
In this case, it is theexecutive branch ordering one of
its agencies or differentpersonnel within that branch to
take some sort of specificaction, usually around a central
theme.
In this case, artificialintelligence.
(03:43):
Executive action is what thataction is, what they're
directing folks to do or whatthe administration is doing
along a specific timeline.
subject area or topic.
And then there's the fact sheet.
And this is the piece that yousee in the public most because
it is sort of like a pressrelease listing all of the
different things anadministration is going to do
(04:03):
related to a topic.
So it takes that executiveorder, strips out kind of the
legalese and puts it into moreplain English so that it is
something that is easilycommunicable across platforms.
Yeah, yeah, that's right.
In the show notes, we'll put areally helpful explainer from
Georgetown's Government AffairsInstitute that pulls all that
(04:24):
apart.
For those of you who are like,oh, I want to read more about
this.
But let's step in.
Stephanie, this executive orderhit and it was all over my
LinkedIn feed.
What did you think about it whenyou read it?
SPEAKER_02 (04:39):
At first glance, it's not bad.
And, you know, I say this assomeone who kind of wants it to
be bad just because, you know, Idon't have my job at the
department anymore.
But it talks about equippingteachers with the tools to use
it and teaching about it,getting students to learn about
it, getting America to be astrong developer of tools and
then tech that use it, right?
(05:01):
There's even a mention ofprioritizing NSF grant funding
of research in the Grants forteacher training.
Like there's a lot in there.
That first read through isn'ttoo far off from the policy memo
I wrote with another ed fellowcalling for close to the exact
same thing.
SPEAKER_03 (05:18):
I will also say not too far off from what was put
out by Edsafe AI Alliance acouple of days ago.
They put out, and we'll link toit in the show notes,
Opportunity at Scale, the Casefor Public Infrastructure for AI
in Education.
So some real crossover there.
(05:38):
I would also say...
Not too different from theexecutive order issued by the
Biden administration in 2023,saying, you know, AI, we think
we think there's somethingthere.
We'd like to figure it out.
There are some key differencesthere.
But I want to hear what youthought about on second glance.
SPEAKER_02 (05:55):
Yeah.
Second glance is it's reallyless promising.
Like create a task
SPEAKER_03 (05:59):
force.
Many people I've tried to date.
SPEAKER_02 (06:01):
Keep going.
Right.
I know.
So they want to create a taskforce.
That's great.
You know, but
SPEAKER_03 (06:07):
task force on that task force.
Keep
SPEAKER_02 (06:11):
going.
On that task force, do you wantto put the Secretary of
Education?
SPEAKER_03 (06:14):
Deal.
SPEAKER_02 (06:16):
Well, not in my mind.
She's kind of establishedherself as somebody who's not a
credible and knowledgeablesource for this work, right?
SPEAKER_03 (06:23):
This work being public education?
SPEAKER_02 (06:25):
Or AI in public education.
Or A1, maybe.
SPEAKER_03 (06:31):
All right.
We get one of those jokes perepisode.
SPEAKER_02 (06:33):
Yes.
Yes, yes.
All
SPEAKER_03 (06:35):
right.
Okay.
SPEAKER_02 (06:37):
Anyway, like, who's creating these resources and
trainings that teachers aregoing to get?
Who's enforcing the qualitycontrol?
Is there even quality control?
We know there's significantbiases in AI outputs, given the
anti-DEI stance of thisadministration, that doesn't
seem to be high on the list ofpriorities of addressing or even
acknowledging.
And because of this, I can'thelp but read this as something
(06:57):
that's going to make ourworkforce a bunch of output
producers and clickbait buildersfocused in on ways to earn
corporations extra money ratherthan using it for meaningful
innovations like healthcare forearly detection models.
SPEAKER_03 (07:11):
So I would say that's a hard turn between your
first and second.
My reading of this, a couple ofthings were really interesting
to me.
My very first instinct was whois going to do this work?
Because as folks have read orheard about across the last few
months, very few people who dothis work are left at the U.S.
(07:34):
Department of Education.
As I said earlier, I come out ofthe Office of Educational
Technology.
We had a whole team craftingguidance and policy
recommendations around this.
artificial intelligence ineducation.
Some really, really good stuff.
We will link in the show notesspecifically for leaders of
schools to say, here are somequestions that you can ask to
(07:55):
help make sure this goes well,as well as some guidance for
developers saying, hey, ifyou're going to be in a school
community doing things in aschool community, here's some
knowledge you should have.
And also making sure that humansare the drivers of these pieces
and not vendors and not commerceand not saying, all right, how
can we get the most money out ofthis piece?
(08:15):
Who's going to do the work isthe first piece.
And as you said, I'm a littlebit worried that because that
line of defense is not there inthe department and the
guardrails are off, that this isjust going to get contracted out
to folks.
And it could get contracted outto great folks and it could get
contracted out to not so greatfolks.
But we really don't know becausethere isn't a civil servant or a
(08:38):
civil service piece here thatcan keep things back.
So that was one piece.
The other piece and thedifference there and the
difference...
I think if you look at theEdsafe AI Alliance piece and
even the Biden administration'swork is that there isn't a
mention about, as you said,bias.
There isn't a mention in thereabout bias.
(09:00):
Safety, data, those kinds ofconsiderations.
And that is the piece thatreally worries me.
It kind of feels like we'regoing to let everybody do the
thing and the market decides.
And when we're talking about howkids act and how kids learn and
the lives of kids and teachers,then I really worry when we say
we're just going to let marketforces step in.
(09:22):
A really great piece that wewill also link.
The show notes, by the way, forfolks, the show notes on our
episodes are going to be robust.
because we do a lot of nerderyto get to the recording.
So there's a great piece thatwas out this morning from Audrey
Waters that we will link inreally thinking through this
executive order as well.
(09:43):
But that was where I came downis like, how are we going to
make sure we're keeping peoplesafe?
How are we going to know whoowns the data?
What are the questions folksshould be asking?
And I just don't think it'sthere.
I will say it was the firstpiece out of the administration
of, hey, we want to do somethingversus, hey, we want to tear
everything down.
Because
SPEAKER_02 (10:01):
of my work as a coach at the district level, I
can tell you, specifically fromthat lens, a lot of educators
are just not prepared to talkabout data literacy, let alone
AI, like the foundations are notthere.
The teacher prep programs don'trequire educators to to learn
(10:22):
about data science, dataliteracy, AI, understanding
those models, data safety.
It's just not there.
And maybe this piece of thisexecutive order is going to help
to do that.
But I just...
Like you said, there's nothingin the fact sheet that talks
about social responsibility oracknowledging the potential harm
(10:42):
when AI is unrestrained or isbeing used with an untrained
eye.
And so it just...
Like who gets to say whether ornot my data gets sold to the
highest bidder to develop somemodel?
And that to me is just, itleaves me wanting more.
(11:03):
Like I have the womp wompplaying in the back of my head
when I read it.
Like there's so much that needsto be addressed.
The executive order says that AIcould be used to improve teacher
training, but also evaluation.
Like, are you kidding me?
NEA is gonna have a field daywith that one if they haven't
already.
SPEAKER_03 (11:21):
Yeah, I think the other piece here that is
incredibly important is theresearch on any of this and its
effectiveness with students andits effectiveness in improving
teacher quality is in itsinfancy.
And so there's also this turn tomove all of this conversation
and all of this training and allof this embedding of these
(11:43):
things into these educationalsystems without any any real
robust evidence that specificpractices are helpful in
improving learning and teaching.
Now, where I would like to seethis is solving problems, right?
(12:04):
And so I think that there istremendous room to start at a
smaller scale and work alongsideeducators and say, what is the
problem that you have?
that is keeping you fromdeveloping important and deep
and effective relationships withstudents.
(12:24):
A lot of the work around AI isaround efficiencies, is stopping
and saying, all right, what iskeeping teachers from having
more time in the human aspectsof their role?
SPEAKER_02 (12:36):
Yes.
SPEAKER_03 (12:36):
What are the pieces of bureaucracy, of paperwork, of
those kinds of things that wecould pull and say, all right,
the AI can help you with this.
SPEAKER_01 (12:45):
Yes.
SPEAKER_03 (12:46):
It raises a ton of questions, right?
So there are a lot of examplesof teachers planning lesson
plans.
And so if you were talking abouta school that has been working
really hard toward a specificpedagogical inquiry or
project-based learning orproblem-based learning or
experiential learning or any ofthose kinds of models or a
really draconian authoritarianmodel, right?
(13:07):
If that's what you think is bestfor kids.
Well, you're wrong, but ifthat's where you're going.
Yes, thank you.
And you're inquiring an AI tohelp you generate or modify a
lesson plan.
Where is it pulling that?
What's the pedagogical stance ofthe AI?
And what's the training that anAI has had?
And where does that come from?
(13:27):
Because we want to make surewe're adhering to the philosophy
and the model that's presentwithin the school.
So I think the efficienciespiece is there.
I think that This train has leftthe station.
It's going to be moving forward.
The question is, how can we dothis as safely and thoughtfully
as possible so that if and whensomething implodes or we find
(13:50):
out this thing was doing thisthing that we didn't understand
anyway, that we put some safetynets and some guardrails around
these things to keep it fromgoing wrong.
Again, a ton of this stuff inOET slash the department's
documents.
And so we'll make sure we linkthose in the notes.
(14:11):
I do want to say before we moveon, what would you say are the
key questions for practitioners?
So that's classroom teachers,school leaders, district
leaders, policymakers.
What are some key questions orpractices that you would hope
you see in the field based onthe experience that you've got?
SPEAKER_02 (14:32):
So that's a great question.
So for me, as a former educator,I'd really like to know, you
know, where does the data comefrom?
How is the data being used?
Who owns it?
You know, but also, who are webringing to the table to kind of
help make those decisions?
Is this a shared decision makingprocess?
(14:52):
Are we involving the communityfor our students?
And to what end should this behelpful?
What about you?
SPEAKER_03 (15:01):
My questions would be, are we making sure that the
adults who are responsible forchildren's safety and learning
have the capacities that theyneed and have the comfort and
have the sense of assurance thatthey know how to use these tools
before we turn them on and turnthem over to students?
(15:25):
Yeah.
isn't always where I've been ontechnology.
And I think that that like, butI think this is a different
technology.
Right.
Right.
So I have said in the past.
Yeah.
And I've said in the past, like,if you want kids to create
something and tell a story orcreate a presentation, and all
you know, is PowerPoint orGoogle Slides.
(15:49):
So that's all you ask studentsto do.
Then you are limiting what youcan learn about and the ways
that students can learn to tellstories.
And that is still true.
I still stand by that.
But this is a wholly differentpiece, right?
Like if the slides go wrong, itis probably because of something
I did wrong as a user.
And so there's a different levelof like validation of like, is
(16:14):
that yellow?
Is that background yellow?
Like I can verify that and Iknow to verify that.
But I want to know as a teacher,do I have good ways and
practices for verifying theinformation I'm getting from an
AI of any kind of like agenerative AI or an AI that's
telling me sort your kids intothese groups or any of those
pieces?
Like, do I have what is what isnecessary to do these things
(16:36):
rather than just saying like.
Somebody saying, no, no, no.
Trust it.
Trust it.
So that that'd be my first pieceis like, do all the adults who
are responsible for the learningand safety of kids, safety of
kids have what they need?
SPEAKER_02 (16:49):
Yeah.
The risk is greater.
The risk is greater.
It's not just a PowerPoint.
Like it's it's student data.
It's teacher data.
SPEAKER_03 (16:56):
It's also just being wrong, right?
SPEAKER_02 (16:58):
True.
That too.
SPEAKER_03 (17:00):
Like you asked it a question and you got the right,
you get the wrong answer, but ifnobody in the system knows how
to verify that it's the right orthe wrong answer, then we're in,
then we're in deep trouble.
Right.
Um, And, and so there's a,there's a level of comfort that
I think is necessary andcapacity that is necessary and
making sure that all the adultshave that before we open it up
to, to kids.
(17:22):
Right.
Like you make sure the electricfences are turned on in Jurassic
park before you bring Timmy inbecause, well, actually that's
the opposite of how this willwork.
You get the point.
So that
SPEAKER_02 (17:32):
we saw how it turned out.
SPEAKER_03 (17:34):
Not great.
Or Skynet, I guess Terminatorwould have been a better
example.
We really aren't, mining thatone as much as I thought we
would when this whole generativeAI thing started.
So that's my piece.
Do the adults have the supportsthat they need?
And then I would go along withyou.
Are we talking to families andcommunities to help them
(17:55):
understand and build this piece?
And then a thing that I will sayover and over again is Are we
letting the time we talk aboutAI literacy, or as you said,
data literacy, are we lettingthat eat up the time where we
really need to be focusing onthe foundations of just
literacy?
(18:15):
Right?
So good digital literacy, goodAI literacy, good data literacy
come from the skills of criticalthinking and evaluating sources
and making arguments and thosekinds of things.
And so oftentimes...
that can crowd out thatinstruction, which is fine if
you are a student who has acertain kind of background that
means that you've got thecultural knowledge and
(18:37):
competency and capital.
But if you're a kid whosecognitive load is taken up by a
bunch of other stuff, maybe workor home or any of other things,
then you need that that literacyunderstanding.
You need that foundation to besecure, or you're going to miss
the AI data and digitalliteracy.
(18:59):
And we have historically, as allparties will say, messed up the
literacy side of things.
Not just like the science ofreading stuff, but the like, can
you make a good argument?
SPEAKER_01 (19:14):
And
SPEAKER_03 (19:14):
you evaluate sources.
So that'd be the other piece islike at a higher level, at like
a district leadership level is,are we crowding out literacy
skills in favor of thesespecialized literacies?
Because if we are, then noteverybody's going to get an
invitation to the party.
(19:46):
Welcome back.
Before we kick off this nextsegment, we want to welcome our
guest executive director ofInquiry Schools and TED Talker,
racking up over 2.5 millionviews.
She's a celebrity.
Please welcome DianaLeffenberger to the pod.
Hi, Diana.
SPEAKER_00 (20:05):
Hello, guys.
That was utterly ridiculous.
But I am very glad to join you.
I'm excited to talk about what'sbeen going on in the news
surrounding...
education in the last week orso.
SPEAKER_03 (20:19):
It's been a doozy.
We're going to wrap up the showtoday starting with the
Department of Education's loveletter.
I say that only because it wassent and dated February 14th,
2025.
to SEAs, LEAs, it's a bit of amishmash.
(20:41):
It's a bit of ridiculousness.
Let me give you the high points.
Letter was sent to folks saying,hey, if you want to receive your
federal funds, Title I dollars,then you need to eliminate DEI
programming, curriculum,unclear.
And you need to sign this lettersaying that you're not doing
(21:03):
anything with DEI and then youwill be able to get your money.
This is kind of a bit of ashakedown.
There are oftentimesrequirements to receive federal
funds, certifications that youhave to do, reports that you
have to give, tend not to bethis way.
And so the NEA, the AFT, acouple of other plaintiffs filed
(21:27):
suit across the country andsaid, we think this is wrong.
It turns out that a couple ofdifferent judges around the
country, three so far at the notokay.
And they have stopped and put aninjunction on this whole thing
for two kind of interesting keyreasons.
(21:52):
The first is that the letterdoesn't adequately or even
explicitly define what theadministration means by DEI
initiatives.
It is a bit of a banana pantsletter.
I will read a little bit of itin a second.
The second is that they said,and this is what's really
(22:12):
interesting, given theadministration's kind of motto,
as it were, or catchphrase oflet's give it back to the
states.
The judges said that this was anexample of federal overreach,
that the federal government wasoverreaching what was allowable
in its attempt to controlcurriculum at the state and
(22:34):
district level.
Really kind of fascinating,really given the fact that
they're saying, hey, we need togive this back to the states.
The federal government doesn'thave a role in education, except
for, of course, everything.
So that's what we're going totalk about in this half of the
(22:54):
show.
Diana, anything you want to talkabout with the kind of heart of
SPEAKER_00 (23:01):
this case?
So there's a lot of differentangles you can look at this
particular letter from.
I think it would be useful toknow that the reason they
consider that a federaloverreach is because education
has always been a 10th Amendmentreserved power as it is stated
in the Constitution.
It's not expressly granted ordealt with in the Constitution.
(23:21):
And so it tacitly gets left as areserve power.
And that's where that federaloverreach comes.
And when you hear about that,even the elimination of the
education department, a lot ofthat comes from this idea that
education was a reserve powersupposed to be left with the
states.
So when you get a court sayingthis is federal overreach, it's
(23:43):
interesting to your point,because this is exactly the
opposite of what thisadministration has been telling
us they're about.
And so, yeah, so that is, yeah,that's, pretty fascinating as a
logical leap to be making withthis particular administration.
SPEAKER_03 (24:04):
If you look at the letter, I don't recommend that
you do.
There are a lot of logicalleaps, rhetorical gymnastics
that are required here, and Thelimited injunction is really
interesting as well.
We should also say that Diana isnot a legal scholar.
She's not an attorney, but she'sa real good social studies
(24:25):
teacher, which if you can getone of those, you're set for
life.
So that's where we stand on thisDEI love letter to schools.
It is interesting also to notethat the letter kind of throws
K-12 in with higher education.
It's not really clear what it isthey're against, as the judges
(24:51):
bore out in their rulings.
So really interesting.
So that's it.
We're done, right, Stephanie?
SPEAKER_02 (24:57):
Yeah.
Yeah.
Absolutely.
No.
You know, the issue that I havewith this whole thing and the
definition of DEI, it's like...
Realistically, it's refusing tolook at the larger arguments
about DEI in schools againstthem.
(25:17):
Broadly speaking, there's anargument that everyone should be
able to succeed.
They're making this argumentthat everybody should be able to
succeed if they try hard enough,but that's not what we're
seeing.
The data exists.
P-values exist.
SPEAKER_03 (25:32):
What do?
I'm sorry?
SPEAKER_02 (25:34):
P-values.
SPEAKER_03 (25:35):
That's...
I'm 12 right now.
SPEAKER_02 (25:39):
You should be.
You should be.
So p-values are basically, anddon't hate me stats friends,
p-values show the likelihoodthat something would happen
purely by chance.
And the research indicates thatinequities happen frequently
enough in education that theyaren't probably just a chance,
but more likely by design,whether intentional or
(25:59):
accidental.
So systems do what they weredesigned to do, intentionally or
not.
And sometimes we have to changethem to have better outcomes for
certain groups of people to notstart from a disadvantaged point
from the get-go.
SPEAKER_03 (26:14):
So, Diana, is this EO saying that's not what's
happening?
SPEAKER_00 (26:22):
Yes.
It is using the word race veryfrequently throughout this
particular EO to invoke the ideathat if any...
kid of color, person of color isafforded something that a white
person is not, it is inherentlydiscrimination and therefore not
allowed under Title VI of theCivil Rights Act.
SPEAKER_03 (26:43):
Even though the thing that they are affording
them is something that is meantto make up for where the system
has limited them in the past.
SPEAKER_00 (26:51):
Absolutely.
You would have to erase anenormous part of your
understanding of Americanhistory to believe that our
country has not historicallyused race as a proxy to hold
people back, to knock peopledown, to remove opportunity, to
remove access.
(27:12):
I mean, you've got to do a lotof forgetting and be quite blind
not to see that in ourhistorical record.
SPEAKER_03 (27:18):
would you, would you say we have any evidence of
that?
SPEAKER_02 (27:22):
There's a huge pool of data that showed disparate
outcomes from inherentlyinequitable and damaging
practices.
They're still deeply entrenched.
You know, we're not that farremoved from the historical
practices like Diana was talkingabout, you know, how like Jenny
from Jenny from the block, ifyou will, who maybe did not
(27:42):
handle her, her, her, her,Mental health very well and got
locked away in an institutionfor the rest of her life.
You know, like there's there's awhole lot of examples
historically and and massivefunds of data that show that
we're not really out of the messthat we were in.
SPEAKER_00 (28:05):
I was going to say, we've made strides and we have
been moving in a direction.
It is very incremental.
It is no big swings, I wouldsay, have been made, but it was
incremental in our improvementfor some of these outcomes.
However, we're not there yet.
And we're not going to get therethrough an EO that basically
(28:26):
says, we're all good now.
There is nothing holding anyoneback from being their full
potential and regardless ofrace, national origin.
Everything is equal.
Everybody's fine.
Game on.
SPEAKER_03 (28:41):
We have this outside of education.
And you mentioned the Title VIof the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
But let's start at theConstitution, right?
The Constitution has racismbaked into it.
SPEAKER_01 (28:52):
What?
Written in.
SPEAKER_03 (28:54):
Yep.
SPEAKER_01 (28:54):
No.
SPEAKER_03 (28:56):
Enslaved people count as three-fifths of a
person, right?
To kind of...
SPEAKER_00 (29:01):
For electoral population count.
Yep.
SPEAKER_03 (29:04):
Right, exactly.
And voting rights forlandowners, they were for white
men.
These things are baked into notjust the Constitution, but laws
outside of the Constitution,local laws, state laws, these
things were baked in.
But similarly, we have as acountry worked to...
(29:27):
remediate some of those pieces,right?
So we have the 14th Amendment,the 15th Amendment, the 19th
Amendment, the Civil Rights Actof 1964, the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, IDEA,like all of these pieces were
built in.
But the premise here is I think,and again, it is muddled and
confusing.
I would read it, but it wouldmake this podcast very
(29:48):
confusing.
The premise here is that becausewe have those laws, I think this
is the premise, because we havethose laws, we've done it.
That legislation...
This is on the face of theargument that legislation has
taken care of things, and sothey are fixed, as though we
hadn't created ripples throughtime, generational systems and
(30:12):
inequities that affect folks inpoverty, that affect folks with
special needs, that affectpeople of color, that affect
women, any of these folks thathave historically been kept out
of of these things.
The premise there is that itisn't there and it's not true.
But we do know how to make itbetter.
It just takes time.
(30:32):
And I think there's an argumentthat's attempting to be made,
although I do not think in goodfaith, that we're done.
That we have the laws and sothat is done.
So the other piece of this, sothat's the DEI piece, right?
That's the argument that's beingmade for why DEI needs to go
away.
(30:54):
The other piece that's in there,and I think it's incredibly
important that we talk a littlebit about it, is the weaponizing
or threatening to remove fundingfrom schools by suggesting that
the problems are solved, like wejust said.
We're a long way.
And then we also have, andStephanie, you worked for NCES,
Institute for EducationalSciences, right?
You worked.
(31:14):
We are seeing a ton of databeing dumped, erased, scraped,
defunded, because those are thedata that we use.
to tell the stories of theinequities between these groups.
And no matter where you stand onstandardized tests, no matter
what, that is a common measurethat we have that shows that
(31:38):
these gaps still exist, right?
It doesn't matter if you thinkthey are good for academic, but
this is a common measure.
It's one of our very few commonmeasures that shows this.
And now we're destroying thedata that show that.
SPEAKER_02 (31:55):
And that's not metaphorical.
They are literally taking itdown from the websites.
They are not renewing contracts.
If
SPEAKER_03 (32:06):
you follow it on LinkedIn, you see scientists
saying, hey, this is going to godark.
I can't access the data that Ineed to do my work.
The researchers, it's gone.
So that is going away becauseit's harder to say, things are
unequal when you don't have thedata that you need to show that
they are unequal.
SPEAKER_00 (32:23):
And even if they collect the data going forward,
I think it's fair to assume thatthey will not be disaggregating
that data based on race.
So while the data may existgoing forward, it will not be
able to be analyzed at thatlevel to be looking for
disparate outcomes and theinequality that exists.
SPEAKER_03 (32:44):
So then my question becomes, As they say, well, the
states have it.
So let's say we turn this all,like, Diana, you're in
Wisconsin.
Let's say we turn this, we'llreturn equity back over to the
states.
Is Wisconsin ready?
Is Wisconsin prepared?
SPEAKER_00 (33:01):
So we're getting all of the responsibility for
federal programming, butpotentially not the money or the
infrastructure to do it.
Is that our assumption?
Yeah.
I mean, no.
No, we're not ready for that.
I would say that most stateshave ceded their responsibility
(33:27):
and control over to the federalgovernment as the laws have
required for the past severaldecades around most of this data
and most of theseresponsibilities.
Therefore, not cultivating thatlevel of experience or capacity
within their own systems.
To do that, again, I've saidthis with many of these things,
like if this is the outcome thatthey want and I don't think it's
(33:51):
a great idea and I think it'sflawed and what have you, okay,
there is a manner in which youcould do this where you do least
harm.
And that is a phased approach.
That is slow.
That is deliberate.
that is building people up asyou take something down at the
federal government.
And as we are learning with thisadministration, that is not
(34:13):
their motto.
I mean, they're of theengineering, move fast and break
things.
And what's particularly- People,people.
Yeah.
But what's particularlyhorrendous is that many of these
things that they're breakinghave wildly negative outcomes
for children, specifically inour systems.
(34:36):
And it goes past education intomore general impacts on the
child.
This is going to be messy atbest, catastrophic at worst.
And the people most vulnerablein the system are the children.
And that's who's going to beimpacted most greatly.
SPEAKER_03 (34:52):
It's kind of like if you went to your local grocery
store and they were like, youknow what, we're not doing that
anymore.
We know you've got a yardproblem.
Um, so why don't you go aheadand, and grow your own food?
Um, and you'd be like, Oh, couldI just, I don't have, I'm not
prepared for my garden.
No, actually we're just shutdown.
Um, we're done.
(35:14):
And then the expectation is thatyou can survive.
Yeah.
Right.
Um, yeah, you should haveplanned better.
SPEAKER_00 (35:20):
Yeah, no, that's exactly, that's exactly what it
is, Zach.
It's, it's wanting you to allthis doesn't have capacity to do
something you have never, youhave not been asked to do for
potentially 25 years.
SPEAKER_03 (35:30):
The other piece that's here, I think, in kind of
setting aside the lack ofcapacity, money, people,
experience, all of those kindsof things.
The other piece here that is atplay that I think is really
important to pay attention to isthat you're requiring states to
adhere to the ideologicalnon-statutory whims of the
(35:52):
leaders rather than the law ofthe land, right?
That this is like...
There is law.
Elementary and SecondaryEducation Act says this money
goes here for this based on thisformula.
That law has not been changed,has not been amended, has not
been thrown out.
None of that has happened.
Right.
So that letter came and Congresshas passed a law and it was
(36:17):
signed into the ratification wasright in 2015.
Right.
That law is the law of the land.
And so asking people to say, youhave to, you have to do this and
agree to this.
If you want to get this moneythat we are legally required to
send to you is a, is a whole newway of playing.
Like we've said, do this so youcan get your money before as a
(36:37):
federal government, but this isa different way of playing the
game that is incrediblydangerous and disrupts systems
that take care of our mostvulnerable populations.
SPEAKER_02 (36:48):
And we're back full circle, you know, like we're
just right back at to the top.
of where we started.
Executive orders, baby.
Yeah, executive orders.
SPEAKER_03 (36:59):
Find the cracks.
All right, last question here.
What are we wondering?
As we watch this, as we gothrough the podcast, what are
the questions, what are wewondering watching how all of
these things unfold?
SPEAKER_00 (37:14):
I think one of my top questions is how will the
courts continue to respond tothis level of Norm smashing that
the administration seems to bedoing with regard to legislated
in place laws and statutes andtrying to executively order them
(37:37):
away.
How the courts continue torespond and try to protect the
rule of law, I think, issomething it's really
interesting to watch.
SPEAKER_03 (37:45):
Stephanie,
SPEAKER_02 (37:47):
I'm wondering how states are going to react.
You know who who's going to bendthe knee.
Right.
Will they demand access tofederal funds if they're being,
I'm sorry, if they're takingover that federal work?
What's the voter response goingto be in all of this?
SPEAKER_03 (38:03):
So yeah, we'll take over your work.
Now give us all the money thatwe sent back or the money that
we would have been promised.
SPEAKER_02 (38:10):
Yeah, come on.
What am I paying you for ifyou're not going to do it?
SPEAKER_03 (38:12):
I have a pretty big concern around and question
around recruitment and retentionefforts for new teachers.
Teaching wasn't the sexiest job,wasn't the sexiest profession
yet.
And we are not making it lookstable or better at this
particular point.
And Diana, I think you weresaying something about the fact
that all of those EOs came outat the same time.
SPEAKER_00 (38:35):
Yeah.
That was a lot of...
That was a lot going on in sevenEOs all at once.
And I really...
I haven't seen it yet.
It may exist.
By all means, somebody throw usa comment if it does.
But I...
I'm starting to, you know, Imean, there's some definite
(38:56):
through lines that you're goingto see in all of this.
And I keep wanting to thinkabout what are the threads that
they're pulling through all ofthese EOs that we can start to
surface as the more complex butnot complicated pieces of this
for folks to understand whatthey're doing versus every
single time he does one of theseEOs, we have to sit down and
(39:18):
take it apart and parse it andwhat's the fact sheet say, but
rather, Oh, this is anotherexample of, you know, they're,
desire to take away civil rightsprotections.
Oh, that's just another onethat's going against civil
rights.
Oh, that's just another onethat's going against states'
rights and ignoring reservepowers.
(39:39):
Oh, that's another one.
I think we need to start askingourselves, what's the through
line in these?
What's the bigger theme so thatwhen we talk about them, we can
group them together?
SPEAKER_03 (39:49):
I would also say I am very curious about what the
administration's If these areall connected, if there's a
through line, what is theadministration's end game with
AI and education?
Is this connected?
This one, again, seems like itwas written in a different way
with a different language andtone than the other EOs.
(40:11):
But how is this all connected?
What's the end game there?
Yeah.
I want to finish off before weclose with what we promise in
the core values, if you listento the trailer.
What can folks do?
Because there's a lot of, ifwe're listening to this, and as
we say these things, I thinkdesperation and worry in those
(40:33):
pieces.
And we know that the good workin classrooms and schools is
happening across the country.
But there's a question of whatcan we do if our funds are being
weaponized against us if wedon't take care of the kids who
need it, which is all kids.
And I think the answer and theadvice that makes the most sense
to me is if you are running adistrict or you are running a
(40:53):
school, work to make as simpleand transparent as possible how
these federal funds impact thechildren in your care.
Point two is These are thenumber of teachers we have
because of Title I.
These are the staff developmentcoaches that we are helping our
teachers improve their practicebecause of Title II.
This is why our school is saferbecause of Title IV.
(41:15):
Making very transparent andclear how those funds work is
incredibly important.
We'll put in the show notes alsothe folks over at InnovateEDU
put together a Google folderthat lists each state in the
country and what they would loseif there was an elimination of
EdR&D research funding, as wellas contact information for your
(41:38):
senators to let them know whatyou think.
We'll drop that link to thefolder in the show notes.
SPEAKER_00 (41:42):
And then the last little bit I'd put on there and
is at the teacher level, justnever stop sharing the wonderful
stories of what's happening inyour classrooms with your
students and what's going rightwith the kids that you get to
work with every day.
You can never have too much ofthat to help communicate the
reason why all of this is soimportant is because of that
good work that's happening inyour classroom.
SPEAKER_02 (42:04):
Thank you so much, Diana, for joining us today.
It's been a real pleasure.
I especially love that brightspot.
Find the bright spot at the endIt's so easy to get down in the
dark places.
Remembering to find the brightspot is a good one.
SPEAKER_00 (42:20):
It was great to be here.
Thanks for inviting me.
SPEAKER_03 (42:23):
And thanks to everybody who listened.
Join us next week when Stephanieand I try to tackle the pyramid
of Bloom's taxonomy questionmark.
It should be pretty interesting.
SPEAKER_02 (42:35):
Yes, it's going to be great.
So until next time, like,follow, subscribe.
We are Academic Distinctions.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.