September 4, 2025 • 18 mins
Stephanie and Zac take a closer look three top education stories from the last week.
1. High-dosage tutoring doesn't pay off for districts after the pandemic. But it's a case of apples and oranges.
2. EdWeek talks to a teacher who has students put their computers away, and we've got questions about the rest of the story.
3. Fordham says teachers don't like equitable grading practices, and we wonder if they might be bringing bias to a pedagogy fight.
Plus, we look at a review of big ideas from learning sciences important for pre-service teachers.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
UNKNOWN (00:00):
um
SPEAKER_01 (00:07):
I'm Zach Chase.
(00:37):
and give you some sources thatyou might add to your reading
list in an educationallybeneficial way.
Stephanie, you got two storiesthis week.
I got one in a journal article.
What do you got for us?
SPEAKER_00 (00:50):
Yeah, our first article today is called, or
sorry, is headlined Tutoring WasSupposed to Save American Kids
After the Pandemic.
The results?
SPEAKER_01 (00:59):
Sobering.
I love a silver bullet claim in
SPEAKER_00 (01:03):
the headline.
Yes, yes.
This source or this articlecomes to us from a non-profit
education news site called theheckinger report and it examines
the recent findings on theimpact of high dosage tutoring
as a means of addressing theso-called learning loss from the
pandemic the tldr is thattutoring had promise you know
(01:24):
yes studies pre-pandemic showedstudents could gain up to a full
year of learning with properimplementation and funding which
meant in some cases about fourthousand dollars per student
that's a lot of money forstudents yeah and Not a small
chunk of change at all.
And, you know, the cool thingwas, was that those gains were
larger than small class sizes orsummer school usually achieve.
(01:45):
So
SPEAKER_01 (01:47):
we got a year for every kid.
SPEAKER_00 (01:50):
Right.
Wouldn't that be lovely?
Yeah.
But, you know, despite federalencouragement and funding, large
scale efforts after COVID haddisappointing results showing
closer to one to two months oflearning gains in math or
reading.
SPEAKER_01 (02:04):
Okay.
That's a bummer.
Why did you bring this?
SPEAKER_00 (02:07):
My main issue, I guess, with this article is I
would point to the differencesin implementation between
pre-pandemic and post-pandemicstudies, right?
This is a classic case of applesand oranges for like a billion
different reasons.
Originally, there was this metaanalysis that was done in 2020
that had nearly 100 studies thatall pointed to these impressive
math or reading gains forstudents who were paired with a
(02:28):
tutor at least three times aweek in school and used a proven
curriculum or set of lessonsplans.
SPEAKER_01 (02:35):
Your emphasis there makes me think that what
happened after the pandemic wasdifferent?
SPEAKER_00 (02:40):
Yes.
So a report from the Universityof Chicago Education Lab on
post-pandemic efforts found mosttutoring programs ranged between
$1,200 to$2,000 per student, andeach tutor would usually have
between four and eight students.
But the pre-pandemic programsthat were heralded as high
(03:00):
dosage were either one-to-one ortwo-to-one.
The dosage gets diluted whenthere are more students in the
mix.
You know, one-on-one isn't notgoing to be as concentrated as
one on eight.
It's apples to oranges.
SPEAKER_01 (03:12):
If I'm taking an antibiotic, and I take all of
the prescription for myself, I'mprobably going to get over
whatever my illness was.
But if I have to share that onedosage with eight other people,
I'm probably not going to getbetter.
SPEAKER_00 (03:25):
Yeah,
SPEAKER_01 (03:25):
maybe just a little better.
SPEAKER_00 (03:26):
Right, right, right.
You know, we can't be surprisedwhen we're doing things
differently gets us differentresults.
SPEAKER_01 (03:32):
I hear it.
What else?
SPEAKER_00 (03:34):
The pre pandemic study had better control than we
have right now.
There were two groups, thosethat got tutoring and those who
got no extra help.
That was how things happenedbefore.
And after the pandemic, everyonegot some kind of help.
We went to having one-to-onedevices.
Everybody had some technology.
Everybody got small groupinstruction.
(03:55):
Everybody got new curricularresources.
So all of those things wereadded into the mix.
And so they got all that extrahelp, but then also some
students additionally gottutoring Instead of help, no
help, we have lots of varietiesof help and tutoring, and it's
delivered differently than itwas pre-pandemic.
(04:16):
So, for example, thepre-pandemic study found
in-school tutoring was moreeffective than after-school
tutoring, but because it'sreally difficult to put enough
adults in a room, enough tutorsin a classroom during the class
day, you know, that's a lot ofmoney, most of the recovery
dollars were thrown atafter-school tutoring programs
because those are easier to dowith with thousands of students.
(04:38):
Again, apples and oranges.
SPEAKER_01 (04:41):
My point here is also an apples and oranges
point.
Edmonton has a great timeline ofhow folks received and then had
to spend what are called ESSERfunds.
These are funds from the federalgovernment that most schools and
districts use to fund thesetutoring initiatives.
And they had to get the moneyout the door and stand up these
things really quickly.
In the studies that you'retalking about, these were
(05:03):
clinical approaches, right?
There was a study that wasinvolved.
So they were really setting theboard before implementing.
The ESSER funded pieces were alot more like trying to build
the plane while you fly it, avery common educational
metaphor.
And so I'm not surprised thatthings turned out differently
because it's not like a lot ofpeople were just waiting outside
schools saying, I'm a highlyqualified tutor, please hire me
(05:26):
to do these things.
Schools were moving very quicklyto use these funds and didn't
necessarily have the time theyneeded or would have wanted to
plan these efforts out.
The other thing that I think isreally important here is that in
a pre-pandemic world, it wasjust that.
We didn't have students who werereceiving tutoring who had all
had a multi-year sharedtraumatic event where they
(05:47):
thought that going to schoolmight kill them or cause them to
take something home that wouldkill their aunts, uncles, and
grandparents.
So this, again, is thatunresolved attention to student
mental health.
So those tutoring interventionsare probably not going to be as
effective because we know thatif a student is worried about
something else, then theyprobably aren't going to be
(06:08):
ready to learn an academicsubject or content.
SPEAKER_00 (06:11):
All right, Zach, so what do you got?
SPEAKER_01 (06:13):
I'm so glad you asked, Stephanie.
My story this week is one thatwas on the landing page of the
education news site Ed Week,which many people already know
about.
It was also included in twoemail blasts sent to me by Ed
Week.
Two, they really wanted peoplereading the story titled, Why
One Teacher Told Students to PutTheir Chromebooks Away for Good,
(06:33):
which just has, I don't know,like, I don't know if it's my
reading it or Or if it's theintended tone.
But this is by Sarah Schwartz.
And the piece is a Q&A betweenSchwartz and a science teacher
in LAUSD.
And as the headline implies, shetold her students they wouldn't
be using their school providedChromebooks anymore.
This one could have been so muchbetter.
(06:56):
So, so, so much better.
SPEAKER_00 (06:58):
Tell us how.
SPEAKER_01 (06:59):
I wanted better questions, honestly.
The teacher has students in ascience class and she talks
about using paper and pencil forthe students.
to take notes.
And I couldn't help thinkingabout why do we have kids in a
science class to learn aboutscience, to take on and embody
scientists, right?
This isn't its best version.
And you know what scientists useare computers.
(07:23):
Yes, they use paper and pencil,but they don't eschew computers.
They use them as necessary.
And so this like all or nothingattitude and this kind of
recreating the game of schooland instead of helping students
find their way into science,makes me think of David Perkins'
book, Making Learning Whole,where he talks about the
(07:44):
importance of having studentsplay the whole game of whatever
we're learning about as close topossible.
And it makes me think of Laveand Winger's idea of legitimate
peripheral participation, whichis this idea that we learn best
by kind of being peripheral andparticipating and learning a
thing in really real ways.
They're talking about socialpieces.
And I think that by sayingcomputers aren't a part of being
(08:07):
a scientist, you're creating amisunderstanding of these social
interactions that scientistshave on a regular basis.
I also have one other question.
How is that teacher supported?
Mary Beth, has a great articlein Edutopia titled Digital Tools
and Distraction in School.
Hertz argues it is incumbentupon educators to help kids
(08:29):
navigate these spaces.
The distraction is part of theneed of education nowadays.
How do we help them learn whento turn off notifications?
How do we help them to say, Iturn this off now, I turn this
back on?
I'm wondering if this is anedifice of the pandemic where we
didn't have to really do thosethings for students because they
weren't in classrooms.
And they develop their ownhabits.
(08:51):
And now we're fighting againstthat.
What do you think?
SPEAKER_00 (08:54):
I found myself thinking some of the same
things, you know, like shuttingdown the tech is certainly one
way to deal with thefrustration.
It's also the easiest.
We know from Gandalf, what iseasy is not always what's right.
Right.
What if we viewed this as anopportunity to investigate
practices?
SPEAKER_01 (09:12):
How so?
SPEAKER_00 (09:13):
Well, every behavior is communication.
Like these kids were clearlysaying they were not interested
in what she was selling.
Yeah.
And that's great feedback.
It's not always the feedback welove to get, but it's feedback
that is, can really point to anopportunity to shift practice or
to seek additional support inutilizing tech in the classroom
as a means of adding to pedagogythat relies on direct
(09:35):
instruction.
Okay.
It makes me really think aboutan article that, um, that we
found in science that talks tohow lectures aren't just boring.
They're ineffective.
Like, I want to be clear.
I'm not knocking directinstruction, right?
It's a great tool when it's usedalong with other methods like
inquiry-driven instruction.
I'm just not getting the vibefrom the reporter that the
(09:57):
teacher did anything of valuewith the computers beyond
digital note-taking.
SPEAKER_01 (10:01):
This connects to my kind of professional learning
question as well.
SPEAKER_00 (10:05):
Exactly.
So what I wondered as I readthis was how much this teacher
had considered shifting herpractice to better leverage the
tools available to her.
I want to point to this piecealso from Edutopia on the
powerful case for PBL orproject-based learning.
It's about support andprofessional learning.
Without those key pieces,educators are going to revert to
(10:25):
old practices, just like howwe're seeing here.
She was given a classroom set ofcomputers, and instead of
knowing how best to use them,she's gone back to pencil and
paper.
Not great.
Not my favorite.
SPEAKER_01 (10:37):
What do you got for me?
Throw me something happy.
SPEAKER_00 (10:41):
Yeah, my last article is here's what teachers
really think about equitablegrading practices by Elizabeth
Hubek from Ed Week as well fromtheir teaching and learning
homepage.
For folks following along athome, just in case you don't
know what equitable gradingpolicies are, that is the idea
that you are taking out some ofthe more fringe parts of grading
(11:02):
in your gradebook.
So instead of reducing a gradeof a student because they are
showing up to class tardy, thatmight be a thing that you I've
always heard of
SPEAKER_01 (11:22):
this as helping grades better reflect student
learning.
SPEAKER_00 (11:26):
Yes, exactly.
Thank you.
My first issue is that thisreport talks about five
different equitable gradingpractices.
And then it says this is howeducators feel about it.
The thing is, is that there are11 equitable grading practices.
grading practices in JoeFeldman's book, Grading for
Equity.
SPEAKER_01 (11:43):
I just want to throw out here, I know you are the
math person, but that is sixless than 11.
SPEAKER_00 (11:48):
But this is something that we do in
education.
We find a thing, we love theresults, we try to replicate it
using only some of it, right?
And then we get mad that itdoesn't work out the same.
Like what would have happened ifthey had implemented the missing
pieces, just involving rubrics,let's say, to score assessments,
right?
Not just taking out zeros, buttaking out zeros and backing it
(12:09):
up with a rubric or somethingelse.
It's just it's all aboutpackaging.
And the study in this articlehas things poorly packaged.
SPEAKER_01 (12:17):
My point on the story is, is real quick.
This is, as the article notes,an unscientific poll, meaning
not a necessarily representativesample.
And it is put into a studyconducted by a conservative
think tank that is on the recordagainst these policies and whose
president has consistentlymisrepresented this approach in
the same way that you were justtalking about leaving out some
(12:39):
of the facets so that we're nottaking a whole picture view of
Feldman's approach.
The other thing here is that Iwish we had shown the full
spectrum, right?
So there's the traditionalgrading practice.
There's what Feldman is talkingabout.
And then there's, I think, whatI would say on the other end of
the spectrum, Alfie Kohn's workabout getting rid of grades
altogether.
He's got a great essay calledThe Case Against Grading.
(13:01):
I'm going to quote from it verybriefly here.
If we begin with desire toassess more often or to produce
more data or to improve theconsistency of our grading, then
certain prescriptions willfollow.
So if we're trying to just dothings with the numbers, we're
going to think one way.
If, however, our point ofdeparture isn't mostly about the
grading, but about our desirefor students to understand ideas
(13:21):
from the inside out or to get akick out of playing with words
and numbers or to be in chargeof their own learning, then we
will likely end up elsewhere.
We may come to see grading as ahuge, noisy, fuel-guzzling,
smoke-belching machine thatconstantly requires repairs and
new parts when what we should bedoing is pulling the plug.
So he's saying the opposite ofeverybody.
(13:42):
And like, let's just throw itall out.
Grading isn't necessary.
So I wish that had been includedin this as well.
SPEAKER_00 (13:48):
The teachers in Fordham study, they're quoted as
saying, you know, if you takeout homework and participation
from the overall grade, thatrelinquishes teachers few
sources of leverage.
What are we grading then?
But Kubik also quotes JoeFeldman is saying, I think
people who support traditionalgrading are very interested in
motivation as compliance.
(14:09):
Well, Whereas equitable gradingtalks about motivation in terms
of personal responsibility.
The whole point of Feldman'sbook is taking obedience out of
grading policies.
The grade should reflect whatstudents know, not how many
assignments they completed ontime.
It's not lowering expectations,but being able to more
accurately describe whatstudents know and can do.
And Enterprise Institute's RickHess does a really great job of
(14:32):
drawing out the differencesbetween equitable grading and
more traditional grading in his2024 conversation with Feldman
also can be found on Ed Week.
So I really think that when wetake those two things together,
the two things being Feldman'swork and then Cohn's work,
there's got to be a middleground in here somewhere.
SPEAKER_01 (14:50):
I like it.
You know what else I like?
I like this article that was ina 2024 issue of Applied
Developmental Science, you know,a little bedtime reading.
As I said at the top, we will betalking about one journal
article in each episode.
And this week, it was mine tochoose.
It is an article by LindaDarling Hammond and at all,
(15:10):
looking at educating teachers toenact the science of learning
and development.
So how do we take all the thingswe're learning from brain
science and learning sciences,and how do we incorporate those
to prepare pre-service or newteachers?
There are three things that thisarticle says are kind of key.
And one is understanding thebrain's ability to change and
adapt.
(15:30):
See our whole conversationaround growth mindset for more
on that.
Also, the interconnectedness ofsocial, emotional, and cognitive
learning.
This one's really interesting.
I've done a lot of readingaround this too, right?
If we want people to learnthings, academic content, then
their social, emotional safetyand well-being is important too.
The brain isn't going to want tolearn new stuff about science,
(15:50):
math, reading, if it doesn'tfeel like it's safe in its
setting.
The other and third piece hereis the importance of building on
a student's prior experiencesand cultural background.
A lot of what we have seenrecently in the learning
sciences points to this as beingan important fact.
Build on what they already know,rather than saying this is
wholly and completely new, whichrequires you to get to know the
students.
(16:11):
This article was published in2024 and we did a quick scan of
the references.
The most recent reference wasonly two years old from 2022.
The oldest was one from 1975 andthe mean date of publication for
all 88 references was 2009.
So drawing on a prettyreasonably recent body of
knowledge on this one.
I wonder about how we might dothis to not only get these three
(16:35):
key points, but how we mightbuild communities of practice
for pre-service and in-serviceteachers.
teachers so that they have abetter understanding and are
constantly getting updated withwhat we're learning in the
learning sciences.
And the last piece here is whatif principals, district leaders
committed specific amounts oftime to learning new content
based on research in everystanding meeting.
(16:55):
So if you are someplace that hasan MTSS meeting, maybe the first
15 minutes are going to be apresentation of learning and a
discussion led by a team member.
Maybe you got a faculty meeting.
Each time a different departmentis in charge of teaching a
concept from recent research andleading a discussion, maybe 20
minutes at a time, that kind ofcommitment and allocation of
time can move mountains tosignal that everyone is expected
(17:18):
to be learning within a schoolor system or any system, really.
That's it.
Those are our three stories andone article for Academic
Distinctions.
We hope you like this newformat.
It is an attempt to get relevantinformation and more complex
points of view to you, ourlisteners.
If you've got a story this weekthat you would like to share
(17:40):
with us, find us at AcademicDistinctions on Facebook.
Where are we on Blue Sky,Stephanie?
SPEAKER_00 (17:46):
On Blue Sky, we are at Fixing Schools.
On Instagram, we are at AcademicDistinctions Pod.
Of course, we want you to likeshare, subscribe, all that good
stuff.
SPEAKER_01 (17:58):
And if you just want to send us an old-fashioned
email, we're mail atacademicsdistinctions.com.
Academic Distinctions, asalways, is financially
underwritten by the Federationof American Scientists.
You can find out more abouttheir great work at FAS.org.
Stephanie, it's been a pleasure.
SPEAKER_00 (18:13):
Likewise, friend.
um
SPEAKER_01 (00:07):
I'm Zach Chase.
(00:37):
and give you some sources thatyou might add to your reading
list in an educationallybeneficial way.
Stephanie, you got two storiesthis week.
I got one in a journal article.
What do you got for us?
SPEAKER_00 (00:50):
Yeah, our first article today is called, or
sorry, is headlined Tutoring WasSupposed to Save American Kids
After the Pandemic.
The results?
SPEAKER_01 (00:59):
Sobering.
I love a silver bullet claim in
SPEAKER_00 (01:03):
the headline.
Yes, yes.
This source or this articlecomes to us from a non-profit
education news site called theheckinger report and it examines
the recent findings on theimpact of high dosage tutoring
as a means of addressing theso-called learning loss from the
pandemic the tldr is thattutoring had promise you know
(01:24):
yes studies pre-pandemic showedstudents could gain up to a full
year of learning with properimplementation and funding which
meant in some cases about fourthousand dollars per student
that's a lot of money forstudents yeah and Not a small
chunk of change at all.
And, you know, the cool thingwas, was that those gains were
larger than small class sizes orsummer school usually achieve.
(01:45):
So
SPEAKER_01 (01:47):
we got a year for every kid.
SPEAKER_00 (01:50):
Right.
Wouldn't that be lovely?
Yeah.
But, you know, despite federalencouragement and funding, large
scale efforts after COVID haddisappointing results showing
closer to one to two months oflearning gains in math or
reading.
SPEAKER_01 (02:04):
Okay.
That's a bummer.
Why did you bring this?
SPEAKER_00 (02:07):
My main issue, I guess, with this article is I
would point to the differencesin implementation between
pre-pandemic and post-pandemicstudies, right?
This is a classic case of applesand oranges for like a billion
different reasons.
Originally, there was this metaanalysis that was done in 2020
that had nearly 100 studies thatall pointed to these impressive
math or reading gains forstudents who were paired with a
(02:28):
tutor at least three times aweek in school and used a proven
curriculum or set of lessonsplans.
SPEAKER_01 (02:35):
Your emphasis there makes me think that what
happened after the pandemic wasdifferent?
SPEAKER_00 (02:40):
Yes.
So a report from the Universityof Chicago Education Lab on
post-pandemic efforts found mosttutoring programs ranged between
$1,200 to$2,000 per student, andeach tutor would usually have
between four and eight students.
But the pre-pandemic programsthat were heralded as high
(03:00):
dosage were either one-to-one ortwo-to-one.
The dosage gets diluted whenthere are more students in the
mix.
You know, one-on-one isn't notgoing to be as concentrated as
one on eight.
It's apples to oranges.
SPEAKER_01 (03:12):
If I'm taking an antibiotic, and I take all of
the prescription for myself, I'mprobably going to get over
whatever my illness was.
But if I have to share that onedosage with eight other people,
I'm probably not going to getbetter.
SPEAKER_00 (03:25):
Yeah,
SPEAKER_01 (03:25):
maybe just a little better.
SPEAKER_00 (03:26):
Right, right, right.
You know, we can't be surprisedwhen we're doing things
differently gets us differentresults.
SPEAKER_01 (03:32):
I hear it.
What else?
SPEAKER_00 (03:34):
The pre pandemic study had better control than we
have right now.
There were two groups, thosethat got tutoring and those who
got no extra help.
That was how things happenedbefore.
And after the pandemic, everyonegot some kind of help.
We went to having one-to-onedevices.
Everybody had some technology.
Everybody got small groupinstruction.
(03:55):
Everybody got new curricularresources.
So all of those things wereadded into the mix.
And so they got all that extrahelp, but then also some
students additionally gottutoring Instead of help, no
help, we have lots of varietiesof help and tutoring, and it's
delivered differently than itwas pre-pandemic.
(04:16):
So, for example, thepre-pandemic study found
in-school tutoring was moreeffective than after-school
tutoring, but because it'sreally difficult to put enough
adults in a room, enough tutorsin a classroom during the class
day, you know, that's a lot ofmoney, most of the recovery
dollars were thrown atafter-school tutoring programs
because those are easier to dowith with thousands of students.
(04:38):
Again, apples and oranges.
SPEAKER_01 (04:41):
My point here is also an apples and oranges
point.
Edmonton has a great timeline ofhow folks received and then had
to spend what are called ESSERfunds.
These are funds from the federalgovernment that most schools and
districts use to fund thesetutoring initiatives.
And they had to get the moneyout the door and stand up these
things really quickly.
In the studies that you'retalking about, these were
(05:03):
clinical approaches, right?
There was a study that wasinvolved.
So they were really setting theboard before implementing.
The ESSER funded pieces were alot more like trying to build
the plane while you fly it, avery common educational
metaphor.
And so I'm not surprised thatthings turned out differently
because it's not like a lot ofpeople were just waiting outside
schools saying, I'm a highlyqualified tutor, please hire me
(05:26):
to do these things.
Schools were moving very quicklyto use these funds and didn't
necessarily have the time theyneeded or would have wanted to
plan these efforts out.
The other thing that I think isreally important here is that in
a pre-pandemic world, it wasjust that.
We didn't have students who werereceiving tutoring who had all
had a multi-year sharedtraumatic event where they
(05:47):
thought that going to schoolmight kill them or cause them to
take something home that wouldkill their aunts, uncles, and
grandparents.
So this, again, is thatunresolved attention to student
mental health.
So those tutoring interventionsare probably not going to be as
effective because we know thatif a student is worried about
something else, then theyprobably aren't going to be
(06:08):
ready to learn an academicsubject or content.
SPEAKER_00 (06:11):
All right, Zach, so what do you got?
SPEAKER_01 (06:13):
I'm so glad you asked, Stephanie.
My story this week is one thatwas on the landing page of the
education news site Ed Week,which many people already know
about.
It was also included in twoemail blasts sent to me by Ed
Week.
Two, they really wanted peoplereading the story titled, Why
One Teacher Told Students to PutTheir Chromebooks Away for Good,
(06:33):
which just has, I don't know,like, I don't know if it's my
reading it or Or if it's theintended tone.
But this is by Sarah Schwartz.
And the piece is a Q&A betweenSchwartz and a science teacher
in LAUSD.
And as the headline implies, shetold her students they wouldn't
be using their school providedChromebooks anymore.
This one could have been so muchbetter.
(06:56):
So, so, so much better.
SPEAKER_00 (06:58):
Tell us how.
SPEAKER_01 (06:59):
I wanted better questions, honestly.
The teacher has students in ascience class and she talks
about using paper and pencil forthe students.
to take notes.
And I couldn't help thinkingabout why do we have kids in a
science class to learn aboutscience, to take on and embody
scientists, right?
This isn't its best version.
And you know what scientists useare computers.
(07:23):
Yes, they use paper and pencil,but they don't eschew computers.
They use them as necessary.
And so this like all or nothingattitude and this kind of
recreating the game of schooland instead of helping students
find their way into science,makes me think of David Perkins'
book, Making Learning Whole,where he talks about the
(07:44):
importance of having studentsplay the whole game of whatever
we're learning about as close topossible.
And it makes me think of Laveand Winger's idea of legitimate
peripheral participation, whichis this idea that we learn best
by kind of being peripheral andparticipating and learning a
thing in really real ways.
They're talking about socialpieces.
And I think that by sayingcomputers aren't a part of being
(08:07):
a scientist, you're creating amisunderstanding of these social
interactions that scientistshave on a regular basis.
I also have one other question.
How is that teacher supported?
Mary Beth, has a great articlein Edutopia titled Digital Tools
and Distraction in School.
Hertz argues it is incumbentupon educators to help kids
(08:29):
navigate these spaces.
The distraction is part of theneed of education nowadays.
How do we help them learn whento turn off notifications?
How do we help them to say, Iturn this off now, I turn this
back on?
I'm wondering if this is anedifice of the pandemic where we
didn't have to really do thosethings for students because they
weren't in classrooms.
And they develop their ownhabits.
(08:51):
And now we're fighting againstthat.
What do you think?
SPEAKER_00 (08:54):
I found myself thinking some of the same
things, you know, like shuttingdown the tech is certainly one
way to deal with thefrustration.
It's also the easiest.
We know from Gandalf, what iseasy is not always what's right.
Right.
What if we viewed this as anopportunity to investigate
practices?
SPEAKER_01 (09:12):
How so?
SPEAKER_00 (09:13):
Well, every behavior is communication.
Like these kids were clearlysaying they were not interested
in what she was selling.
Yeah.
And that's great feedback.
It's not always the feedback welove to get, but it's feedback
that is, can really point to anopportunity to shift practice or
to seek additional support inutilizing tech in the classroom
as a means of adding to pedagogythat relies on direct
(09:35):
instruction.
Okay.
It makes me really think aboutan article that, um, that we
found in science that talks tohow lectures aren't just boring.
They're ineffective.
Like, I want to be clear.
I'm not knocking directinstruction, right?
It's a great tool when it's usedalong with other methods like
inquiry-driven instruction.
I'm just not getting the vibefrom the reporter that the
(09:57):
teacher did anything of valuewith the computers beyond
digital note-taking.
SPEAKER_01 (10:01):
This connects to my kind of professional learning
question as well.
SPEAKER_00 (10:05):
Exactly.
So what I wondered as I readthis was how much this teacher
had considered shifting herpractice to better leverage the
tools available to her.
I want to point to this piecealso from Edutopia on the
powerful case for PBL orproject-based learning.
It's about support andprofessional learning.
Without those key pieces,educators are going to revert to
(10:25):
old practices, just like howwe're seeing here.
She was given a classroom set ofcomputers, and instead of
knowing how best to use them,she's gone back to pencil and
paper.
Not great.
Not my favorite.
SPEAKER_01 (10:37):
What do you got for me?
Throw me something happy.
SPEAKER_00 (10:41):
Yeah, my last article is here's what teachers
really think about equitablegrading practices by Elizabeth
Hubek from Ed Week as well fromtheir teaching and learning
homepage.
For folks following along athome, just in case you don't
know what equitable gradingpolicies are, that is the idea
that you are taking out some ofthe more fringe parts of grading
(11:02):
in your gradebook.
So instead of reducing a gradeof a student because they are
showing up to class tardy, thatmight be a thing that you I've
always heard of
SPEAKER_01 (11:22):
this as helping grades better reflect student
learning.
SPEAKER_00 (11:26):
Yes, exactly.
Thank you.
My first issue is that thisreport talks about five
different equitable gradingpractices.
And then it says this is howeducators feel about it.
The thing is, is that there are11 equitable grading practices.
grading practices in JoeFeldman's book, Grading for
Equity.
SPEAKER_01 (11:43):
I just want to throw out here, I know you are the
math person, but that is sixless than 11.
SPEAKER_00 (11:48):
But this is something that we do in
education.
We find a thing, we love theresults, we try to replicate it
using only some of it, right?
And then we get mad that itdoesn't work out the same.
Like what would have happened ifthey had implemented the missing
pieces, just involving rubrics,let's say, to score assessments,
right?
Not just taking out zeros, buttaking out zeros and backing it
(12:09):
up with a rubric or somethingelse.
It's just it's all aboutpackaging.
And the study in this articlehas things poorly packaged.
SPEAKER_01 (12:17):
My point on the story is, is real quick.
This is, as the article notes,an unscientific poll, meaning
not a necessarily representativesample.
And it is put into a studyconducted by a conservative
think tank that is on the recordagainst these policies and whose
president has consistentlymisrepresented this approach in
the same way that you were justtalking about leaving out some
(12:39):
of the facets so that we're nottaking a whole picture view of
Feldman's approach.
The other thing here is that Iwish we had shown the full
spectrum, right?
So there's the traditionalgrading practice.
There's what Feldman is talkingabout.
And then there's, I think, whatI would say on the other end of
the spectrum, Alfie Kohn's workabout getting rid of grades
altogether.
He's got a great essay calledThe Case Against Grading.
(13:01):
I'm going to quote from it verybriefly here.
If we begin with desire toassess more often or to produce
more data or to improve theconsistency of our grading, then
certain prescriptions willfollow.
So if we're trying to just dothings with the numbers, we're
going to think one way.
If, however, our point ofdeparture isn't mostly about the
grading, but about our desirefor students to understand ideas
(13:21):
from the inside out or to get akick out of playing with words
and numbers or to be in chargeof their own learning, then we
will likely end up elsewhere.
We may come to see grading as ahuge, noisy, fuel-guzzling,
smoke-belching machine thatconstantly requires repairs and
new parts when what we should bedoing is pulling the plug.
So he's saying the opposite ofeverybody.
(13:42):
And like, let's just throw itall out.
Grading isn't necessary.
So I wish that had been includedin this as well.
SPEAKER_00 (13:48):
The teachers in Fordham study, they're quoted as
saying, you know, if you takeout homework and participation
from the overall grade, thatrelinquishes teachers few
sources of leverage.
What are we grading then?
But Kubik also quotes JoeFeldman is saying, I think
people who support traditionalgrading are very interested in
motivation as compliance.
(14:09):
Well, Whereas equitable gradingtalks about motivation in terms
of personal responsibility.
The whole point of Feldman'sbook is taking obedience out of
grading policies.
The grade should reflect whatstudents know, not how many
assignments they completed ontime.
It's not lowering expectations,but being able to more
accurately describe whatstudents know and can do.
And Enterprise Institute's RickHess does a really great job of
(14:32):
drawing out the differencesbetween equitable grading and
more traditional grading in his2024 conversation with Feldman
also can be found on Ed Week.
So I really think that when wetake those two things together,
the two things being Feldman'swork and then Cohn's work,
there's got to be a middleground in here somewhere.
SPEAKER_01 (14:50):
I like it.
You know what else I like?
I like this article that was ina 2024 issue of Applied
Developmental Science, you know,a little bedtime reading.
As I said at the top, we will betalking about one journal
article in each episode.
And this week, it was mine tochoose.
It is an article by LindaDarling Hammond and at all,
(15:10):
looking at educating teachers toenact the science of learning
and development.
So how do we take all the thingswe're learning from brain
science and learning sciences,and how do we incorporate those
to prepare pre-service or newteachers?
There are three things that thisarticle says are kind of key.
And one is understanding thebrain's ability to change and
adapt.
(15:30):
See our whole conversationaround growth mindset for more
on that.
Also, the interconnectedness ofsocial, emotional, and cognitive
learning.
This one's really interesting.
I've done a lot of readingaround this too, right?
If we want people to learnthings, academic content, then
their social, emotional safetyand well-being is important too.
The brain isn't going to want tolearn new stuff about science,
(15:50):
math, reading, if it doesn'tfeel like it's safe in its
setting.
The other and third piece hereis the importance of building on
a student's prior experiencesand cultural background.
A lot of what we have seenrecently in the learning
sciences points to this as beingan important fact.
Build on what they already know,rather than saying this is
wholly and completely new, whichrequires you to get to know the
students.
(16:11):
This article was published in2024 and we did a quick scan of
the references.
The most recent reference wasonly two years old from 2022.
The oldest was one from 1975 andthe mean date of publication for
all 88 references was 2009.
So drawing on a prettyreasonably recent body of
knowledge on this one.
I wonder about how we might dothis to not only get these three
(16:35):
key points, but how we mightbuild communities of practice
for pre-service and in-serviceteachers.
teachers so that they have abetter understanding and are
constantly getting updated withwhat we're learning in the
learning sciences.
And the last piece here is whatif principals, district leaders
committed specific amounts oftime to learning new content
based on research in everystanding meeting.
(16:55):
So if you are someplace that hasan MTSS meeting, maybe the first
15 minutes are going to be apresentation of learning and a
discussion led by a team member.
Maybe you got a faculty meeting.
Each time a different departmentis in charge of teaching a
concept from recent research andleading a discussion, maybe 20
minutes at a time, that kind ofcommitment and allocation of
time can move mountains tosignal that everyone is expected
(17:18):
to be learning within a schoolor system or any system, really.
That's it.
Those are our three stories andone article for Academic
Distinctions.
We hope you like this newformat.
It is an attempt to get relevantinformation and more complex
points of view to you, ourlisteners.
If you've got a story this weekthat you would like to share
(17:40):
with us, find us at AcademicDistinctions on Facebook.
Where are we on Blue Sky,Stephanie?
SPEAKER_00 (17:46):
On Blue Sky, we are at Fixing Schools.
On Instagram, we are at AcademicDistinctions Pod.
Of course, we want you to likeshare, subscribe, all that good
stuff.
SPEAKER_01 (17:58):
And if you just want to send us an old-fashioned
email, we're mail atacademicsdistinctions.com.
Academic Distinctions, asalways, is financially
underwritten by the Federationof American Scientists.
You can find out more abouttheir great work at FAS.org.
Stephanie, it's been a pleasure.
SPEAKER_00 (18:13):
Likewise, friend.
Popular Podcasts
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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