AI in Schools: Tools to Support, Not Substitute, Great Teaching

Posted on by Dr JR Entsminger

While scrolling insta the other night, I came across the story of Derek Li, a Chinese entrepreneur who removed his sons from traditional schools and is experimenting with AI-led education (says a lot about my social media algorithm). These kinds of posts and inquiries make me angry (and fearful of Skynet). I immediately started thinking, “Can algorithms truly replace the human teacher? Can education become more efficient, or even more effective, by replacing teachers with algorithms?”

To be clear, there are many areas where AI can help make education more efficient (and maybe more effective): creating learning progressions based on the standards, lesson planning, scheduling, brainstorming ideas, communications, possibly even tracking student progress (without using student names or other identifying information). But the idea of replacing teachers with AI, indeed anxiety inducing, is misguided and oversimplified. Because, as most educators know, at the foundational level of all effective learning are relationships, connections, emotional and social development, and human judgment… all the things no algorithm can reliably replicate.

What AI Can Improve

When it comes to education, AI can play a strong supporting role in the following areas:

  • Lesson planning & content generation: AI can assist in structuring units, generating ideas, adapting content to different levels.
  • Administrative and scheduling tasks: Freeing teachers from logistical burdens so they can focus more on teaching.
  • Feedback loops and assessment data: AI tools can help identify gaps, track progress, offer drill-practice or adaptive learning. 
  • Curriculum Writing, Alignment, and Improvement: In recent workshops, I’ve seen presenters use AI to identify essential standards, generate learning progressions based on those standards, and then eventually develop guaranteed and viable curricula. 

These are valuable efficiencies. But, more than anything, they are support functions. In no way are they a substitute for what good teachers do or bring to the classroom on a daily basis. 

Why Teachers Matter

Replacing teachers and the human element of school with AI overlooks very important dimensions of good education:

  1. Social-emotional development & relationships
    • Before students can engage deeply with academic material, many other needs must be met (safety, connection, belonging, emotional regulation, etc.). Some call this “Maslow before Bloom,” or “relationships before rigor.”
    • Teachers see more than content delivery. They often recognize when a child is dealing with stress, trauma, anxiety, or other outside-school pressures. These sociocultural factors (family situation, socio-economic status, identity, culture) massively influence brain development and subsequent learning.
  2. Mentorship, modeling, moral/character development
    • Teachers are mentors, role models, means by which students learn not just facts, but how to think, to work with others, to manage failure, to persist.
    • Human presence allows for empathy, adapting to nonverbal signals, trust (features that algorithms will always struggle to replicate).
    • I’ve seen a similar model where the ed tech entrepreneur uses “guides” to help facilitate some of the “connection” within a normal classroom. I have lots of questions about this and would be interested in seeing the data on its effectiveness. 
  3. Collaborative learning, peer interaction, group dynamics
    • Lots of human learning happens in social, group settings. Students learn from one another; discussion, debate, and working in teams foster deeper understanding. If students are spending most of their time interacting with machines/screens, those peer and human interactions may be limited, reducing the benefit of collaborative learning.
    • John Hattie’s meta-analyses show that collaborative and cooperative learning have moderate effect sizes (collaborative learning = .40/cooperative learning = .55). VISIBLE LEARNING+2VISIBLE LEARNING+2
  4. Long-term, holistic outcomes
    • Many qualities we deem necessary for functioning as a citizen in society, including social responsibility, creativity, resilience, and kindness, are nurtured through human relationships, interactions, and shared experiences. Algorithms can’t do that. 
    • Also, there’s still limited evidence on long-term effects of full AI-led schooling: what about emotional well-being, social skills, creativity, ethics, fairness, bias, etc. — all areas where human teachers are crucial both for guidance and oversight.

Risks & Downsides of Too Much Technology and Overreliance on AI

Most parents can probably attest to ways technology has changed their child/children. To that point, new research shows some startling effects technology (and social media) can have on children: 

  • Mental health, attention, screen time, social comparison
    • In The Anxious Generation, Jonathan Haidt argues that the rise of smartphones and social media and a lack of play and human interaction with others correlates with increases in anxiety, depression, self-harm among teens, especially since around 2010. He links these changes to what he calls the “phone-based childhood,” which displaces in-person interactions, free play, and unsupervised activity. Wikipedia+2New York University+2
    • Other risks include sleep loss (and its subsequent effects), attention fragmentation, addiction to the stimulus of screens, social comparison, and loneliness. Unplugged Canada+2New York University+2
  • Reduced opportunity for embodied, real-world learning
    • Learning that involves physical presence will always be hard to replicate with AI, including interacting with other students, hands-on work, field projects, and labs.
    • Play, social games, imaginative play, risky play, and collaborative projects are foundational, especially for younger children. 
    • Also, Hattie’s list considers “technology with high school students” to have a smaller effect size than human relational or instructional strategies. VISIBLE LEARNING+1
  • Bias, equity, fairness, cultural context
    • AI systems are designed by people and trained on data; they can and do embed biases. Currently, they’re not very good at picking up cultural or individual differences, or responding sensitively to them.
    • Also, would this reliance on AI/algorithms widen equity gaps because not all students have equal access to technology or robust internet/devices? 
  • Screen fatigue & disengagement
    • Students may be less motivated if too much is mediated by screens. Authentic human feedback, encouragement, peer interaction often drive motivation more than automated systems.

Conclusion

AI is powerful. It’s smart. And there are things it can do to make many parts of education more efficient. But efficiency alone is not enough. If we lose what makes education human, including relationships, empathy, belonging, and social learning, then we risk undermining learning, not enhancing it.

While we find ways to integrate AI into our daily practices, we must always remember that there’s no substitute for great, human, in-person teaching. Because in the end, good education is not just about what students learn, but also about who they become. Teachers, not algorithms, are the way we get there. 

Kids Don’t Need Facts. They Can Google That Stuff Later…

Posted on by Dr JR Entsminger

 

It was the year 2008. I got my first “smartphone” (a Samsung). I couldn’t believe I (and everyone else with a smartphone for that matter) had the internet (and social media) at my fingertips! What a momentous occasion! Around the same time, I also started substitute teaching. In 2007, I graduated from ISU with a degree in Communication. I didn’t like where I was working or what I was doing (a marketing job in the city). So, I started subbing to make extra money and ended up LOVING it. 

When I got my own classroom, technology and phones were even smarter (and more affordable)! My students started getting their own smartphones (most of the time, their phones were better and smarter than mine!). Educators began contemplating how to incorporate smartphones into the classroom/learning. In addition to the 1-1 initiatives some districts were implementing, educators embraced a more financially friendly trend: Bring Your Own Device (BYOD). If districts/schools allowed it, students used their own devices for learning and research purposes while in class.

This trend was the impetus for a new and popular idea for learning: “Kids don’t need to know facts/dates/names/etc. They can just google that stuff later.” For many educators, this idea just made sense. Some saw this as a way to maximize learning efficiency in their classrooms, “We don’t have to spend time on fluffy facts. We can focus on teaching skills. Then, kids can apply those skills in all content areas across the board.” However, this idea was NOT backed by research. But, like other popular education theories not backed by evidence or research, it felt good. It felt freeing. It felt logical. It felt like educators could leave out fluffy facts and focus on skills.   

Today, during my morning commute, I listened to a podcast on Natalie Wexler’s book, Beyond the Science of Reading. During the episode, Wexler obviously talked about the science of reading. But, she also talked about the science of learning and how writing connects to both the science of reading and the science of learning. She also talked about some common misconceptions regarding learning and what the evidence really says (I’ve added some for emphasis):

  • Kids don’t need facts because they have Google: Actually, kids desperately need facts and knowledge. The more factual information and prior knowledge students have stored in long-term memory, the more efficiently and effectively they can learn new things. 
  • Kids just need skills: Actually, 1.) skills aren’t always as easily transferable from one domain to another  2.) skills like critical thinking depend heavily on a person’s prior knowledge in a subject. Both ED Hirsch and Natalie Wexler talk about how critical thinking cannot be taught effectively without first ensuring that students possess sufficient background knowledge. 
  • Writing in for reading and for learning: When it comes to reading, I always say, “If students are reading about it, they should be writing about it.” When it comes to learning and cognition, when we write, we are actively retrieving information we have stored in long-term memory and then putting it into our own words. Super powerful stuff! 
  • Equity: Most educators know that students from disadvantaged backgrounds come to us with far less experiences and knowledge than their peers in wealthier settings. In fact, research suggests that students from low-income families hear approximately 4 to 30 million fewer words than their peers from higher-income families. Same applies to facts and other knowledge. Leveling the playing field requires that families and schools create environments that promote meaningful conversations and language interactions with young children. 
  • Technology in learning: Technology is a POWERFUL tool (AI is evolving and changing the way we do things every single day. I used AI to generate the image for this blog). Students should use technology in school. But, as educators, we have to help them use it the right way. Students MUST engage in the arduous writing process in order to reap the learning benefits associated with writing. 

Any other common learning misconceptions come to mind? Let me now! 

Developmentally Appropriate: Is This Phrase Hurting American Education?

Posted on by Dr JR Entsminger

Have you ever heard the phrase “developmentally appropriate” or its inverse, “developmentally inappropriate?” In the world of education, there are lots of phrases and acronyms that non-educators don’t understand (even people within the field don’t understand them all). In my experience, “Developmentally Appropriate” and its inverse are most often used to rationalize NOT teaching or exposing a student to certain content or skills. Most of the time, I hear it uttered with such authority that it shuts down an entire conversation. But, every time I hear it, I have some serious questions regarding its credibility/use:

  • Why do you think this skill or content is developmentally inappropriate?
  • How do you know this particular skill or content isn’t developmentally appropriate? Did you study it?
  • What scholarly and peer-reviewed evidence do you have to show it’s not developmentally appropriate?
  • Who told you this particular skill or content isn’t developmentally appropriate?

It goes on and on. As it turns out, I’m not the only one with these questions. I’m currently reading E.D. Hirsch’s 2020 book, How to Educate a Citizen: The Power of Shared Knowledge to Unify a Nation. In it, Hirsch goes beyond simply wondering and posits, “That phrase, developmentally appropriate practice, pronounced authoritatively, has been a dangerous hindrance to American excellence in education.” Hirsch went on to say that many use the phrase “developmentally inappropriate” to refer to anything seemingly difficult or arduous for a child. He linked its use to the science of reading and how explicit phonics instruction was once deemed “developmentally inappropriate” and “boring.” However, as modern reading research shows, regardless of how seemingly arduous something like explicit phonics instruction may be, it’s essential for developing good readers. Reading this affirmed my wonderings. Hirsch later explained the origins of the phrase “developmentally appropriate” and why we ALL should wonder about its use.

Jean Piaget (1896-1980), a Swiss psychologist known for his work in cognitive development, theorized that children’s thinking evolves through four distinct stages, each stage coinciding with a child’s biological maturation: sensorimotor (birth to age 2), preoperational (age 2 to 7), concrete operational (age 7 to 11), and formal operational (11 years and up). According to Piaget, as children interact with their environments, they go through these very specific and age-related stages of development. Piaget’s work influenced major educational movements and reforms, such as “child-centered learning,” “constructivism,” and “developmentally appropriate instruction.”

Fortunately, as cognitive science evolves and technology used to explore and map the brain advances, a plethora of Piaget’s methods and findings have been refuted. For example, Piaget drew many of his conclusions from an extraordinarily limited sample size, which often included his own children. This raises questions about the generalizability of his findings. What’s more, new evidence suggests that Piaget overemphasized distinct, sequential stages of cognitive development. Brain research shows that cognitive development is actually more fluid and continuous, and children exhibit abilities from multiple stages simultaneously. Finally, Piaget’s findings emphasized universal stages of development that were largely independent of social and cultural factors. However, contemporary research (and what most educators probably already know) suggests that cognitive development is significantly influenced by social interactions and cultural practices.

This raises an important question: If much of Piaget’s work has been challenged or refuted, why do some still use the phrase “developmentally appropriate” as a justification for limiting what students are exposed to? I prefer to think that students are far more capable than we assume, especially when given the right supports. When we default to labeling something as “developmentally inappropriate,” we may unintentionally place limits on learning and restrict access to rich, meaningful content that could help students grow beyond our expectations.

This reminds me of a powerful moment from the classic film Field of Dreams, when the mysterious voice whispers, “If you build it, they will come.” Despite uncertainty, Costner’s character takes a leap of faith, believing that if he creates the right conditions, something remarkable will happen. I believe the same applies to education: “If you teach it, they will learn.” When we raise our expectations and provide rigorous, engaging instruction, students will rise to the challenge. But first, we must believe in their potential and reject limiting assumptions about what they can’t do.

One instructional approach that embraces this philosophy is called “teaching up”, a strategy championed by Carol Ann Tomlinson. Teaching up challenges the idea of differentiating instruction down to meet perceived limitations. Instead, it advocates for designing rich, high-level learning experiences and then scaffolding appropriately so that all students—regardless of background, ability, or previous knowledge—have access to complex, meaningful content. By maintaining high expectations and adjusting supports as needed, teaching up ensures that students are stretched intellectually, rather than being held back by arbitrary notions of readiness.

Obviously, we’re not teaching AP statistics or multivariable calculus to Kindergarteners. Clearly, there’s good reason we don’t teach advanced level math to 6 year olds. But, we do need to be cautious about how we use the phrase “developmentally appropriate” (and its inverse). Rather than using it as a barrier to justify why students can’t engage with certain content or skills, we should approach it as a framework for how we support students in accessing rigorous learning opportunities. If we build high-quality instruction with the right scaffolds, students will not only come—they will thrive.

October House Day Success!

Posted on by Dr JR Entsminger

If you don’t know, we’re in the process of implementing a House System at my elementary school (read for more info). We plan to host a House Activity Day once a month. Last Wednesday, we hosted our October House Day.

During the time allotted for our House Activity Day, students and staff in each House created a banner that displayed their House animal and House color. Students and staff personalized the banners by putting their painted hand prints on them. The banners look incredible! Even our superintendent came by and made his mark on each House Banner!

Yet, the thing I noticed most about this exciting day = how palpable the energy was in the gym as I began to introduce the day and lay out our expectations for the activity. It was incredible! Seeing all students sitting together with their Houses, wearing their House colors, doing their House chants… it was riveting! As soon as I walked into the gym, I got goosebumps! They were pumped to be with their Houses, and excited about creating their House Banners! The pride and excitement on their faces was contagious. I loved it!

Since Wednesday, I’ve been reflecting on this experience, and can only imagine how it’s been for our students. I’ve had parents calling me about how they and their children love this new initiative! During arrival/dismissal, I’ve had parents and/or guardians running up to me gushing about the Houses, the animals, and the colors! Teachers and staff have talked to me about how they’re so excited to come to work on House Days because of the reaction they see in their students! At the end of the year, I plan to interview and film students regarding their experiences with the House System, and collect any suggestions they may have for improvements.

So far, it’s been an incredible experience, especially for our kids! I can’t wait to continue with this endeavor!

“My/Your Students” vs. “Our Students.” Harm Caused by a Competition Mindset

Posted on by Dr JR Entsminger

Competition… Good or bad in schools? I’m not talking about school athletics, band, or other extracurricular activities. I’m talking about schools competing against each other for better test scores or other standardized measures of success. The verdict may still be out. Some researchers have found positive gains from competition in schools (though the validity of said research is now being questioned). Other researchers suggest that any gains from those studies are so small, they may as well be insignificant. Many conservative education reformers declare that schools and educators operating in a free-market system encourage innovation. Let’s look at the charter school movement. Some charter schools are doing amazing things. Some charter schools do sound very innovative. However, the research is fairly clear… charter schools perform no better than public schools when educating the same students (comparing apples to apples, not apples to oranges). Whatever you believe, in the end, one thing is usually certain… when gauged through the lens of standardized measures such as test scores, attendance percentages, or drop-out ratings, competition usually leads to problems in education.

Don’t get me wrong… I like competition. I’m not very competitive myself. But, I love watching (certain) competitive sports such as baseball, basketball, golf, and the UFC. What is more, I’m obsessed with the Olympics. The Olympics are pretty much the gold standard when it comes to competitive athletics. So, I don’t take issue with all competition. I’m not saying “all” competition is bad.

However, in my experience, when I’ve seen schools compete against each other for better test scores or better levels of student achievement, students and teachers suffer. Some immediately ask, “Why?” or “How can that be?” Because, as research has shown, competition leads to the privatization of professional practice. Competition, in this sense, hinders collaboration and the sharing of ideas among schools. Yes, Albert Shanker’s initial conception of charter schools and the sharing of ideas among all schools sounded promising. Under more ideal circumstances, that model may work. However, realistically speaking, competition has perverted his work.

When I hear about educators who embrace a competitive mindset so much so that it hinders collaboration, that always makes me wonder, “Aren’t we in this together?” “Aren’t these students ‘our’ students?” Rhetorically speaking, if the students in my building or classroom can benefit from something the students are doing in your building or classroom, but you erect barriers to the sharing of that knowledge, you’re hurting the children. What’s even more unfortunate, I see this as a disservice to children all in the name of professional, adult pride.

I read something from George Cuoros the other day. Along with some educators and cognitive neuroscientists, I question his work regarding the “innovator’s mindset” and his obsession with innovation. However, in this case, I thought he was right on the money. In one of his posts, he posed an interesting duality: Classroom Teacher vs. School Teacher. Cuoros states that, the “classroom teachers know their content amazingly well and are great with their current group of students. But, once they step outside of their classroom, the students they do not teach are ‘not their problem.’ ‘School teachers’ on the other hand, can do all of those things that classroom teachers do within their own classrooms and subject matter, but when they walk out of their room, every child in the school is their child.” In education, it would behoove us all to understand that these children are “our” children… The students at this school are not “their” children. The students at my school are not “my” children. They are all “our” children. We must constantly be thinking about what we can do to best serve all of “our” children. I’m going to take Cuoros’ duality a step further by arguing that competition enforces the classroom teacher mindset, rather than the school teacher mindset. Let’s remove competitive barriers and see ourselves as “school teachers.”

Like/Comment/Share!

Grading: Learning What Not To Do From My Own Experiences

Posted on by Dr JR Entsminger

I learned a lot about grading during the 2016-2017 school year. I read a few books. I attended a few workshops/presentations. I got to meet and speak with (at length) prominent grading gurus in the field. However, now that I think about it, I’m not sure I needed to read the books/papers/journal articles/blog posts, attend the presentations, or engage in dialogue with the gurus to see a fundamental flaw in many of our grading practices (though, all of this most certainly helped raise my awareness concerning the issue). All I truly had to do was reflect on my personal experiences with grading, both as a student and as a teacher.

As a young student, I received extra credit points for bringing in school supplies. I received deductions for late work (which, if we think about it logically, these point deductions don’t reflect a lack of academic ability, but a failure to observe the punctuality standards set by the teacher). My grades were penalized for my excessive talking (probably not hard to believe, but I LOVE talking). Clearly, these grading practices focused more on behavioral assimilation rather than actual learning. Just as unfortunate (I hate to admit it), I also engaged in some of these practices as a teacher. Not a shining moment in my career as an educator. However, I have to give myself some credit. I’m happy that at least I can admit these faults. At least I’m willing to reflect on my mistakes and strive for improvement. That’s not the case with some educators, especially in the realm of post secondary education (at least from my experience).

My worst experience with grading came in graduate school in my School Finance class. The monetary incentive (paying my own school tuition) probably contributed to my disdain for this class, the professor (let’s call him “Professor John”), his grading practices, and the outcome. Professor John mentioned many times (verbally) that if we (his students) positively completed his evaluation at the culmination of the class, he would “help us out with our final grade.” Alfie Kohn would probably refer to this behavior as “bribing.” Often times, teachers/professors engage in bribes in order to achieve compliance (some researchers go as far as saying that all grades are bribes). As luck would have it, I was on vacation while the course evaluation opened, and did not submit my evaluation for the class. As I received no less than an A+ on every assignment throughout the eight-week class, I wasn’t worried and was fairly certain that I would receive no less than an A for my final grade. When I received my grade for the class, I was shocked. I “earned” a B+ in the class (my obsession with grades is probably a good indicator that I experienced flawed grading practices). I couldn’t believe it.

I tried to communicate my concern with Professor John. Conveniently, he was also on vacation. I don’t like jumping the chain of command, but I brought my concern to the department chair’s attention. He was rigid and contemptuous. The department chair stated these types of cases were always resolved in favor of their professors and that their professors were beyond reproach. I was disgusted. I kept thinking, while upholding Professor John’s decision about my grade, it was quite obvious that the university was not only invalidating my concern, but also perpetuating bad grading practices (considering they knew that it was going on and did nothing about it). I doubt they’ve done anything to improve.

Though this was five years ago now, this experience was an extremely valuable lesson for me. We all must be willing to reflect on our mistakes and take steps towards improvement. While reflecting on my grading experiences as a student and as an educator, I have a better contextual standing on which to pivot. I will not perpetuate poor grading practices (or other flawed educational practices). None of us are beyond reproach.

Just an update… What’s equally frightening is that Professor John is a high-ranking elementary school administrator in the south suburbs, and is still actively employed as a professor by the university. Truly unfortunate…

Like/Comment/Share