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.

Tying Teacher Evaluation to Student Test Scores: The Ongoing Debate

Posted on by Dr JR Entsminger

Interestingly, fewer states are including student test scores in their teacher evaluation calculations. As of October 2019, 34 states will use student test scores while calculating teacher effectiveness, compared to 43 states in 2015 (read more here).

In addition to reading the aforementioned article, I recently engaged in a conversation with an advocate of using student test scores to calculate teacher effectiveness. I’m always amused when people say that educators need to be held accountable in similar ways to other professions (ie. The business world). These advocates want some means of measuring teacher effectiveness (as do we all), and equate students to “products” that are churned out at the end of the year. Obviously, we know that human beings are not “products” churned out on a factory belt. But, I’m always perplexed by these proponents. What I find most perplexing is that, the grand majority of the time, people touting/proposing/enacting these kinds of proposals:

    Are not teachers
    Have never been teachers
    Have no experience in PUBLIC education
    Have NO certification in education
    Run some kind of educational “philanthropy”
    See improving education as their “crusade”

I’m no statistician, but neither are many advocates for these types of reforms. I don’t understand how any teacher evaluation system could accurately account for all the variables that vastly impact student achievement (over which educators have MINIMAL TO ZERO control), including but not limited to (just to name a few of the big ones):

  • Poverty
  • Hunger
  • Homelessness
  • Family Mobility
  • Single-Parent Households
  • Parents’ Academic History/Ability
  • Diet
  • Physical Activity/Physical Health
  • Mental Health

I’ve heard that professors at prestigious universities have been trying to quantify and control for these almost uncontrollable variables since the release of “A Nation At Risk” in 1983 (with minimal to no success). I’ve read about researchers developing ridiculous formulas to try and control for outside-of-school factors and then incorporating these formulas into teacher evaluation along with student performance. In terms of actually improving student achievement by tying student achievement to teacher evaluation, the data are inconclusive. Of course, I contend that the reason for this is that these types of evaluation systems do nothing to address the underlying symptoms of student academic performance, or lack there of. “Efforts to improve educational outcomes in schools, attempting to drive change through test-based accountability, are unlikely to succeed unless accompanied by policies to address the out-of-school factors that negatively affect large numbers of our nations’ students” (Berliner, 2015).

Don’t misunderstand me….

• Students should ALWAYS be showing growth

• Teacher evaluation should encompass some type of measurable/quantified measure

I’m NOT saying that because of the issues mentioned above, we should not hold educators accountable. I’m NOT saying that we as educators can’t do things in order to ameliorate some of these underlying issues. THAT’S NOT WHAT I’M SAYING AT ALL. In fact, much research exists that posits, yes, these out-of-school factors exist, but here are things we can do in our classrooms to help. I am saying that teacher evaluation systems that include student performance as a measure of teacher effectiveness will always be seriously flawed.

I’m interested to see how this trend continues. Clearly, the government plays a major role in these types of educational reform initiatives. Thus, I would say that, unfortunately, future evaluation changes will be the result of a continuously changing and volatile political climate.

Like/comment/share!

How Do You Refuel?

Posted on by Dr JR Entsminger

We’re in it, now… It’s “that time of year.” I like to call this time of year, particularly, the month of October, “Shocktober.” Shocktober is followed by “Blovember.” I’m sure you can figure out why that is.

At this point in the school year, we’re all coming to the realization that the school year has indeed started, and we’re working our way into the second quarter. For many, that beginning-of-the-year excitement, the buzz that circulates the school as we get our classrooms/offices ready is starting to wane. Also, not sure if you’ve noticed, but the days are getting shorter. It’s PITCH BLACK out in the mornings. Soon enough, we’ll be driving to work in the dark, and driving home from work in the dark. All of which is pretty depressing. Welcome to Shocktober!

Then, after Halloween passes, we enter Blovember. Maybe you’ve noticed this phenomenon as well. November flies by. With all the school events, parent/teacher conference preparations, and fall break/Thanksgiving Break, November just BLOWS by!

All that being said, I’m trying to think about all the ways I stay motivated during these particularly difficult/trying/crazy months of the school year. For me, in order to maintain balance and motivation, I MUST spend time with family and friends (and my dog!), exercise, eat healthy, make/play music, read (for fun and for work), see movies, and make/enjoy art. All these strategies help me stay fueled up and keep going for my students, teachers, and parents.

I just I realized another strategy that helps me stay fueled up, and it may be one of the most beneficial strategies: connecting with the people who inspire me. While at an educational conference today, I got to see so many familiar faces and meet so many new ones. Yet, the biggest impact came when I ran into my high school Spanish teacher, Mr. Rockaitis! At first, I couldn’t believe it was him! He teaches way up north. What would he be doing at this conference “down south?” But, he reminded me that he lives in the city, which wasn’t too far away. We chatted for a bit. He introduced me to some of his colleagues. I found myself giving him advice on a doctoral program. DEFINITELY never thought I’d be giving Mr. Rockaitis advice! Overall, running into Mr. Rockaitis reminded me of my “why.” I mean, this educator hit me at my core. Besides my Mom, he was the biggest influence on me deciding to become a teacher. His passion for learning and for teaching was contagious. He spread that passion to many, including myself. Though our reconnection was brief, it reminded me of my purpose. It reenergized me. It brought clarity.

As we get to this point in the school year, I think it’s important to remember, this is not a sprint, it’s a marathon. Stay fueled up. We still got a ways to go.

How do you refuel? Like/comment/share!

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!

Feeling the Teacher Shortage

Posted on by Dr JR Entsminger

As we’re gearing up for another school year, I can’t help but notice the copious amount of open teaching positions. I’m currently trying to fill a special education position. I had  3 people apply for the position (only two actually held the required certification). I’ve recently spoken with other principal/superintendent friends of mine who serve economically disadvantaged areas. All I can say is… wow. They are being hit hard by this shortage (that’s usually how it is. The disadvantaged areas get hit hardest). One principal friend of mine still has 5 or 6 openings and has received minimal interest. An assistant superintendent friend of mine in a disadvantaged area stated that this shortage has plagued her entire district. It’s widespread. School starts in a week or two! This is getting real!

Teacher shortages aren’t new. However, what’s most startling about this issue is that the number of shortages keeps increasing. States that weren’t experiencing shortages are now experiencing shortages and the majority of states/districts that were already experiencing shortages are now experiencing even worse shortages. Essentially, it comes down to this: it’s getting worse and it will continue to get worse before it gets better. Why? Well, let’s take a brief look.

It appears that years of ragging on the teaching profession, rising dissatisfaction and disillusionment with the profession, fear over unjust pension reform, the constant pummel of school initiatives and uninformed reforms, the punitive accountability movement (mostly related to constant standardized testing and questionable teacher evaluation methods such as Value-Added Measures), and increased work loads are really starting to leave their mark. There are entire books and dissertations written on almost every single one of the aforementioned issues (see almost anything written by Diane Ravitch between the years 2000 and 2018 for more information on these issues that have spurred an increasing teacher shortage).

If you were to analyze education history, you’d see an interesting trend. For instance, take project-based learning (PBL). PBL has been around since the 1600s in Italy when architecture students wanted more meaning and relevance in their learning. In the late 1800s/early 1900s, John Dewey brought PBL and experiential learning into focus. And now, in the 21st century, PBL is a major focus for many “innovative” schools. Though a seemingly unrelated topic, I mention PBL to demonstrate the cyclical nature of things in education. To combat the teacher shortage, I see politicians enacting some type of band-aid legislation that will help in the short term. For a time, we’ll see fluctuations in the nationwide teacher shortage. For a time, we’ll see more students entering college to become teachers. For a time, we’ll have copious amounts of candidates applying for our open positions. But, in the long run, band-aid legislation won’t help.

On both a micro and macro scale, how do we effectively combat the teacher shortage?

Comment/Like/Share! I’d love to hear your input on the matter!

Does Over-Assessing Students Perpetuate the “Is This for a Grade?” Mentality?

Posted on by Dr JR Entsminger

DISCLAIMER: I am in NO WAY saying assessment is bad. I don’t mean to place value judgment on any type of assessment with this blog post.

I don’t think it’s any secret. We assess students a lot in schools these days. In addition to the daily formative assessments that teachers utilize in their classrooms, students still take summative assessments/exams, interim assessments (MAP, Discovery Ed., etc.), and state-standardized tests (I may even be missing some).

Of course, I don’t think anyone would argue that certain types of assessments are very important. I posit that the majority of teacher-created assessments designed to assess a student’s level/progress with the intention of providing feedback immediately (or closely) following the assessment are far better than state standardized tests (of course) and a good portion of the interim assessments currently available. Obviously, this brings up the debate about the quality of teacher-designed assessments and how teachers actually use the data generated from the assessments they administer. I don’t really want to debate that. For the sake of this blog post, let’s just assume that teachers administer quality formative assessments and know how to truly utilize the assessment data to provide relevant and timely feedback.

While researching the validity and effectiveness of grades and homework, many researchers state that grades themselves turn students into “number/letter/grade monsters” or condition them to severely over-embrace the “is this for a grade?” mentality. Students often simply pursue a grade, rather than pursue learning for learning’s sake. In fact, researchers have found that grades diminish intrinsic motivation to learn anything. Obviously, this type of mentality, perpetuated by grading habits and traditions, is counterintuitive to actual learning. In addition to grades, I wonder if over-assessing students also contributes to that “is this for a grade?” mentality?

I’ve been cogitating about how all the assessments may add to the perpetuation of “is this for a grade?” mindset. I’d venture to say that the teacher-created assessments that informally gauge a student’s progress (or lack thereof) and that are often seamlessly embedded into classroom instruction do less to perpetuate the “is this for a grade?” mentality than interim assessments or yearly state-standardized tests. If the teacher-created formative assessments are seamlessly embedded into classroom instruction, I bet students don’t even think about a grade (some students may not even know they’re being assessed). However, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard students ask “is this for a grade?” when taking interim assessments or state-standardized tests.

So, when formative assessment becomes such a part of the classroom environment that students don’t even know it’s occurring, grades become less of a focus. Suppose we were to do away with interim assessments and state-standardized tests. Suppose we only focus on teacher-created formative assessments and the resulting feedback. Suppose we got rid of grades and replaced them with a standards-based grading system (many districts are moving in that direction as we speak). It’s strange to think about an education system that would look like that. But, I’d venture to say that this type of system would probably eliminate the “is this for a grade?” mentality and possibly increase intrinsic motivation to learn for learning’s sake.

I’m sure there’s research on this. If you know of a study, please share it! I’d love to read it!

Like/Comment/Share!

Dear Representative Jeanne Ives: We Need to Talk

Posted on by Dr JR Entsminger

I apologize for the delay in blog posts. It’s been a while since I’ve written. I’ve been busy this summer! However, I could not ignore an opportunity to write a post focused on Jeanne Ives and her deleterious comments regarding teachers, unions, and the teacher pension system in Illinois.

Her comments have circulated social media for few weeks now (Facebook Link; Youtube Link). I find the following quote most troubling: “I’ll get out my checkbook and I’ll send a property tax bill to my county to pay for bloated administrative salaries in public schools… in public schools where on average, in the state of Illinois, less than half of the students are ready for college… Just over 1/3 are even reading or doing math at grade level… Maybe I should send them more money…”

Undoubtedly, she’s passionate. You can hear it in her voice. I appreciate that. Yet, imagine if she were more passionate about clarity. Before I begin to poke holes in the validity of her claim, I’ll first share the following troubling statistic/fact (allowing me to situate my response): Schools with less than 10% of students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds score as well as or better than the highest achieving nations (Finland, Shanghai, etc.) in the world. In fact, if one were to analyze a data set showing level of achievement and percentage of students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds, one would see an inverse correlation between the two. Therefore, as the percentage of students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds increases, the level of achievement decreases. In no way am I saying that poor students cannot achieve. Quite the opposite, in fact, considering I dedicate my life to showing that they can. I’m simply sharing this information to highlight the importance of not conflating separate issues in education. Are there overpaid administrators in education? Possibly. Yet, it’s important to understand that one issue does not exist as a result of the other. Put plainly, student academic underachievement is not a result of (possible) bloated administrative salaries. When considering student academic achievement (or lack thereof), there are far too many concurrent variables at play (poverty, student/family mobility, etc.) to make a claim that one of those variables is significantly more profound than all the others. One may see her conflation (as I do) as a complete misinterpretation of issues facing educators today. Thus, it would behoove her (and the many politicians like her) to leave education to those who have the knowledge and ability to bring about the necessary changes.

Recently, Jeanne also blasted a teacher on twitter, claiming that “support of unions = chaos in schools.” As you can see in the picture accompanying this post, I responded with a comment to get her thinking and to encourage her to explain to me how unions contribute to chaos in schools, considering that chaos is prevalent in a considerable amount of non-unionized, failing charter schools (I’m still waiting for her to get back to me…). In addition, I always think it’s wise to consider how successful districts or world nations deal with prevalent education issues. For example, Finland works closely with its teacher union in order to best serve its students. Granted, as an administrator, I’ve had many difficult conversations with teachers’ unions and union representatives. However, like Finland, I believe that in order to raise achievement for all students, it’s considerably more propitious to work with unions as opposed to lumping them all together into one picture/broad stroke and developing evil machinations to bring about union demise. Jeanne’s comments really brought me back. Teacher/union blasting was so 2014. I think Diane Ravtich should send her signed copies of her most recent work.

She also made comments about the “state’s pension problem.” This will be short and sweet. If I’m not mistaken, politicians have voted to borrow against teacher pensions for decades. These politicians have never paid back the loan. I’m no financial expert. However, it’s rare in life to get a loan and never have to pay it back (sarcasm). The pension system was never designed to serve as an interest free loan for politicians to use as they see fit.

Of course, it’s truly unfortunate when people who have widespread access to such a large array of people don’t think before they spread misinformation. At the same time, her comments truly demonstrate her lack of understanding. Not that politicians need to be experts in all fields. However, a working knowledge regarding some of the basics would certainly help.

Like/Comment/Share!

Teacher Appreciation: Embedding Regular Teacher Appreciation into Your School Culture

Posted on by Dr JR Entsminger

It’s that time of the year!  Teacher Appreciation Day/Week!  Yes!!!!!!!!

Teachers do amazing things.  It’s always surprising to me when people are shocked to hear about the many hats/roles teachers wear/perform.  It probably shouldn’t be surprising.  Most of my friends and family are not educators.  Why would I expect them to know any different?  However, I think it’s important to raise awareness regarding this issue.  Teachers don’t just teach anymore (I doubt “just teaching” was ever their sole responsibility).  In addition to teaching, teachers I know often act as a nurse, a social worker, a role model, a mentor, an advice giver, a guidance counselor, a therapist, an actor/actress maintaining high levels of classroom engagement, a volunteer, a fundraiser, a community liaison, a shoulder to cry on, a family man/woman, etc.  I’m not saying that educators have backgrounds in all these areas.  Nevertheless, situations within our schools (or society at large) often require us to take on these responsibilities.

I am striving to build a culture where it’s always an appropriate time to appreciate a teacher.  Appreciating teachers doesn’t have to be scheduled or relegated to a certain time in the year (in fact, it probably shouldn’t be).  As an administrator, I make an effort to show my appreciation for my teachers and teachers in general on a regular basis.  Moving forward, I’d definitely like to get better at this.  Sometimes, my days are so busy that I don’t always get to show my appreciation.  I plan to reprioritize my days in order to better accomplish this endeavor.  Teachers deserve it.

Like/Comment/Share!