edtech – ��

Finale: Takeaways from a Season of AI in Education

Michael B. Horn — Thu, 09 Jul 2026 16:30:00 +0000

Class Disrupted is an education podcast featuring author Michael Horn and Futre’s Diane Tavenner in conversation with educators, school leaders, students and other members of school communities as they investigate the challenges facing the education system in the aftermath of the pandemic — and where we should go from here. Find every episode by bookmarking our Class Disrupted page or subscribing on , or .

In the finale of Class Disrupted’s seventh season, Michael Horn and Diane Tavenner reflect on the season’s conversations about artificial intelligence — from how the tech is shaping school models to new tools. In a “no-holds-barred” conversation — they talked about how much of the education sector is still operating under the traditional model, the challenges of creating learning experiences outside of that model, and the tensions they see between innovation and entrenched systems. Throughout the conversation, they touch on issues like policy backlash against technology in schools, the value of outcome-based contracts, and whether microschools or low-cost private schools can actually drive large-scale change.

Listen to the episode below. A full transcript follows.

Diane Tavenner: Hey, Michael.

Michael Horn: Hey, Diane.

Michael Horn: We’re in person.

Diane Tavenner: I know.

Michael Horn: Two episodes in a row.

Diane Tavenner: It’s amazing. For those who are only listening, we actually are sitting together here in Boston, which is super fun. It’s good to be on this coast with you. And for me, the best part of this is, I got to have family dinner last night at your home. And I woke up this morning thinking about it. I just felt really happy. It was joyful. I think you know that my favorite night of the week is family dinner night at my house.

Michael Horn: Yeah.

Diane Tavenner: And I hustle home, so I don’t miss it. And it was so fun to be with your girls and with Tracy. And I was thinking a lot about those few hours and, like, the learning that was happening at that table. I mean, we got to play this board game that your girls had, like, invented, and the dialogue and the conversation and the curiosity and that, you know, they were making their own lunches, which called back to, like, Rhett cooking.

Michael Horn: Yeah. But he was doing that from a young age. I remember…

Diane Tavenner: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Michael Horn: Preparing meals and shopping and everything.

Diane Tavenner: Totally. And so that was really fun. And to be back in that sort of younger age, because mine are older. I should say, the thing I kept thinking is, like, this is what learning is, and what if this is what it felt like? I wish everyone could have this experience.

And yeah. So that was good.

Michael Horn: No, it’s really cool. I will say. We also then had a conversation this morning about … She was like, so what night is family dinner night in the Tavenner household? And should we think about creating a similar structure for our girls? So you being there also caused us … because I think it’s intentionality, also.

Diane Tavenner: It is.

Michael Horn: Right. And that intentionality we both brought to raising our kids and now thinking about reinventing schools. And I think it was interesting because in our previous episode, we were live as well.

Diane Tavenner: Right.

Michael Horn: We were at the ASU-GSV Summit with Reed Hastings. And it was interesting to hear Reed, I think, for the first time in my memory, and I think that’s what he talked about. We actually need to reinvent the classroom model, the school model itself. We can’t just be tinkering, if you will, toward utopia or layering over here and whatever else. That’s obviously the tune we’ve been singing for most of our professional careers.

Diane Tavenner: Right. But it was fun. It was exciting to hear him talk about that and reflect on the work that he’s done in different, you know, elements of education. And to really start to zero in. We have to work beyond just the classroom if we really want to transform the experience for young people. And so, I mean, I guess it always feels good to be confirmed and validated.

Michael Horn: Sure. We feel like geniuses now.

Reflecting on mid-season insights

Diane Tavenner: Yeah. So I think our plan for this today is a callback to mid season, where we did this in person also kind of mid season. Oh my gosh, we’re learning so much. Let’s get together and just reflect and process and talk about what we’re learning after that first half of the season where we were really talking to sort of thought leaders and people who are thinking big picture and who understand AI and in AI, and so we thought we’d do that again, where the back half of our big AI exploration season has really been with practitioners, I would say. And so what are they? What are we making? We had all these really fascinating conversations. This is our first time to really sit down and, like, sort through them and process them and understand what we heard. And then we’ve also been thinking about next season, and so we’ll share a little bit of that

Michael Horn: Tease a little bit. It’s been interesting, and I’m glad. Process is the word that I’ve been thinking about because I think when people appear on our podcast, this sounds silly, but it’s not an endorsement of their model or their tool or whatever it is by us. It’s a genuine learning opportunity for us. And obviously we were both interested in new school models.

Diane Tavenner: Right.

Michael Horn: Which was three episodes that we had. And then we were interested in the ed tech tools that are coming up and using AI in different ways. And we were trying to process. We had this framework that you introduced in the last time we were in person in Cambridge or in Boston about the sort of horizon one, horizon two, horizon three, schooling models, and the way I think we’ve sort of categorized it, there was H1 is sort of the industrial model that we know, and you had H3 as sort of this post industrial model. And H2 is sort of this hybrid that is elements of both, maybe, and so forth.

Diane Tavenner: I love that metaphor of the steamship that is outfitted with sails still because it has to be running both because steam is not reliable enough. You can’t really get all the functionality you need and trust it. So you have to still bring the H1, if you will, into it. I’m glad you brought up the framework because that really shaped how I saw the second half of the season and had all those conversations. I’ve actually been thinking a lot about that framework and how my understanding of it is sort of, I don’t know, maybe becoming a little bit more nuanced as we talk with people and think about these different models. And so that might be a place to start.

Michael Horn: Yeah, I think let’s dig into that because. And you can take it wherever you want. I think it’s a framework that I have found both useful, and I’ve been struggling with, like, what is this H3 really gonna look like? Where does it really depart from the grammar of schooling as we’ve known it? And do we really think we’re gonna actually get there? Or are there gonna always be this sort of H2 pulling us some of the elements. And then I guess I’ll say the last thing, which will probably come up as we talk about the school models that we had on the podcast. Where, you know, where are parents in all this? Like, where is their headspace? ‘Cause, like, what we want, where parents are, where schools are. And I, for those that can’t see my hand gestures, I actually think that’s the continuum at the moment. Like historically, I think parents were more conservative than the schools, I think that may have flipped.

Diane Tavenner: Well, and I think there’s some evidence of that with the growth in microschools and sort of alternatives like, people really sort of self bundling, if you will, you know the homeschooling.

Michael Horn: I was shocked by the way from the homeschooling I read this morning in ��. 10 million, I know. 10 million families. They reported from this RAND survey that Johns Hopkins had done. I think it was Angela had done there. And that’s a big number.

Diane Tavenner: It’s a big number. And I think it speaks to this idea of where are parents and I agree with you, they’ve historically been more conservative. I mean, I wrote prepared to try to, you know, I call it a love letter to parents, like to introduce them to some of the ideas of what’s possible. Because my, my feeling was like they want one thing for their kids, but they don’t know how to get it. And so they kind of double down on, you know, the existing model, if you will. I actually think we’re starting to see, at least for some, a break from that. And not just a small amount, but, you know, a growing.

Michael Horn: In some cases quite big. Yeah, in some cases there’s, there’s steps and I actually think that comes up. I don’t know if you want to stay on the H1, H3 or go into the model.

Diane Tavenner: I think what I would say is just a couple of reflections and observations, how I’ve been using that framework in real life. So, one, I find that it is helping me be engaged in conversations with educators and developers. All the people who are in, who care about this work and who are working in it, who are thinking about AI in that if I can just set the framework out up front and say, look, like my passion is developing the post industrial model and H3, and honestly I don’t think I’ve seen it yet, and I don’t think it exists yet, and that’s not a bad thing. That’s fine. But let’s not pretend that certain things are H3 or that they are a real new model. We might have that conversation in the models conversation when I don’t think they are. And you brought this up the last time we talked, like, we also need tons of kids are in H1, they’re going to be in H1 for a while.

How do we use AI to make those experiences better? So I think when I’m able to say to people which conversation are we having? Where are we working right now? And the key for me has been how do we not constrain or compromise work in developing the post industrial model or the H3 place by working on H1? And that is a real risk, I think, because, I mean, there’s so many, like, elements of H1 policy and norms and practices and tools that just codify and solidify that model and then therefore prevent unintentionally the invention of new models.

Michael Horn: And we talked about that some in the midseason in terms of you named assessment and special education in particular in those. I think there’s a lot more and frankly —

Diane Tavenner: I’m going to add a new one.

Michael Horn: Since we recorded, I think we have seen the growth, the fastest growth in my memory of a series of policies around screen time. Cell phones were already emerging but now into screen time in general that I don’t love but well intentioned in H1 that are like diametrically opposed to — I won’t call them H3, but I will say, like, these new models of schooling that are appearing by education entrepreneurs in sort of this H2, H3 nebulous area.

College and career readiness concerns

Diane Tavenner: Right. I couldn’t agree more. The other one that I would add is the place that I’m working every day right now. So let’s call it the sort of college and career counseling and readiness world, if you will. And it’s just so clear to me that, you know, the goals in that area by the vast majority of people are to improve college and career counseling and readiness in the H1 model. And I keep saying, like, if we’re successful at that, don’t we just codify this entire system? Don’t we reinforce it and bolster it and prevent ourselves from moving to what I believe is and certainly what we’re trying to do at Futre, which is life navigation, whole human development, like enabling young people to emerge into a life of flourishing, to launch into a fulfilling life, not just get accepted to college or you know, take that next sort of educational step if you will, which is what is happening right now, I think, in H1. And so just the, the — I don’t think I’ve convinced a lot of people of that.

Michael Horn: Yeah, so. So it’s interesting. I think it is a risk, one, but — so I agree with you, no surprise. But two, I’m going to take a theory that we use in my class and from the Clay Christensen playbook, if you will, value networks, and Tom Arnett has been writing a lot about this at the Christensen Institute. And basically the way I’ll say it is this.

Let’s use an analogy. When RCA and these large vacuum tube consumer electronics products, they got disrupted by Sony and these transistor LED products, it wasn’t just Sony replacing RCA, it was also all of the component suppliers of RCA got disrupted by a whole new batch of component suppliers because they were completely plug-in compatible with the old and vice versa. And then it wasn’t just that, it was also retail got completely disrupted. So RCA sold through appliance stores that made their money not by selling RCA products but by repairing.

Diane Tavenner: Of course.

Michael Horn: Right. Because these vacuum pipes would blow out. Sony got sold in discount retail. Target, Walmart, Kmart, all birthed in 1962. And so the shorthand that we used to say at Entangled, where I spent some time, was systems disrupt systems. And so in some ways, like, you’re building the new system now. I will tell you, the struggle I have when I teach in the class, which is we use a few school networks as like different, different versions of this. So we have Virtual Learning Academy, Charter School in New Hampshire, Big Picture Learning.

Like a few of these that Tom has written some case studies on, and every single one of them at some point pull back into the existing system and like, Tom’s answer to this is always, like, well yes, we inhabit Earth.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah, it’s the gravitational pull right?

Michael Horn: Like we are like, we are not completely free on Mars yet. Sorry, Elon. But like, so where is the limit of exchange of these systems and where are crosswalks not distorting these new things and where are they, to your point, actually codifying like grooves on a train track that are impossible to escape.

Diane Tavenner: So that’s an interesting segue into talking about the three models that we talked about, I think during the season. Because, you know, we specifically wanted to talk to Alpha School because like, everyone was talking about Alpha School. There was a lot of sort of PR and marketing out there about them. But we kind of wanted to really get under the hood and understand, you know, was this new. A new invention or not? And what was going on. We wanted to talk to John Danner, who’s the co-founder of Rocketship and now starting Flourish, literally, you know, AI Native designed as an AI Native model. So what does that mean?

Michael Horn: By the way, he is the only one that’s actually AI Native.

Diane Tavenner: Correct.

Michael Horn: Think about it. Because Alpha dates back to 2014 or whatever.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: And then Summit, of course.

Diane Tavenner: And then we talked to Summit about, you know, their vision to create the next generation of model, which would be an AI Native. So I’m curious.

Michael Horn: Play, you. Go ahead, go ahead, ask your question. Ask your question.

Diane Tavenner: Well, what’s your impression of those three? I mean, how would, how did you come away from, you know, what were you believing that they were actually inventing Horizon 3, AI Native, you know what is your takeaway?

Discussing H3 framework development

Michael Horn: Yeah, it’s a good question. I think this is where I’m struggling with the framework because I still can’t completely imagine all the features of H3. And so, I think, let’s tease this for next year’s. I think we should like construct a little bit more clarity around what really is H3 and what are the distinguishing characteristics? Because I think, in my world, I sort of, like, I don’t know, Montessori feels like it has a bunch of these. And if I look at the Alpha model, I actually see some tiebacks to Montessori. I see some tiebacks, ironically, to big picture learning and things like that. Let’s put that aside for a moment. In some ways they feel like the closest, sort of like pulling from both sides of it in very clear ways.

Flourish to me felt like the closest to what I might imagine H3 in a middle school.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah, I think it has the potential.

Michael Horn: We don’t know yet, right? And I appreciated John’s honesty with where they are. And then I had this — I’ll tell you my take on Summit, let’s start there. Yeah. Because that’s your baby.

And you asked this question before we recorded. So no one knows you asked me this question, but you said, like, I’m wondering how you’re going to respond and react to this. Because in your mental model, Michael, to disrupt yourself, you need to have a completely separate, you know, et cetera, et cetera. And then, like, the old migrates out to the new, and that’s not what they’re doing. So I had this thought though, as I finished. ‘Cause I didn’t know what to expect. I came in with it a little bit, like, hackles up a little bit. And then when we finished it, my reflection was this, which is when there’s another way to survive.

Disruptive innovation that we don’t talk about that often, which is because I think it’s less proven. But the way is you are so clear on the job to be done that you do your mission, what you don’t do, your priorities, what you don’t prioritize, et cetera. That when new technologies come in or new features, you can swap them out very cleanly. Because everyone in the organization understands this is what we do.

Diane Tavenner: Interesting.

Michael Horn: So let me give you an example outside of an industry, and then you can — I’m going to let you fill in the blanks from it. So there’s this retail store that came in at the quote unquote “low end” that has never gone up market and never been disrupted by online retail. And it’s called IKEA. Probably know it.

Diane Tavenner: My gosh, my children love it.

Michael Horn: Right. And IKEA, we have become convinced they do one job to be done really well, which is, I need to furnish this apartment today.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: Like I — yeah. And they’re not selling heirloom furniture. They’re not trying to go high end. Nor are they threatened, though, by discount furniture or Wayfair or any of these folks. Because the job to be done is so distinct and clear. And they lay out the entire store like you’re walking around the apartment, and you fuel up midway through Swedish meatballs, right?

Like. And so a new technology comes along and their simple question always is, does it help us get the job to be done?

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: Accomplish it better, or is it irrelevant to us? And if so — so take China, for example.

Diane Tavenner: Do they ever ask if that job still needs to be done?

Michael Horn: That’s probably a good question, but I think you probably have to.

Diane Tavenner: I think that they probably keep finding that job keeps needing to be done.

Michael Horn: I think it’s still relevant. And they probably say the market’s pretty big.

Diane Tavenner: Right.

Michael Horn: It’s a good question. But so in China, it’s interesting. Like, in the U.S., we drive large cars, so we go. We pick out the furniture with the stickers, and we go down to the bottom thing and we pick off these flat carts, and we put them on that cart and we check out and we drive off in our cars and we assemble them really nicely. In China, they don’t have big cars. And so IKEA will deliver it to your house same day.

Diane Tavenner: Which is key.

Michael Horn: Super integrated around the job, and they can make those sorts of decisions because, like, does it help us get the job to be done or not? Context changes fine.

Diane Tavenner: Right.

Michael Horn: We just know what our true north is.

Diane Tavenner: Such clarity.

Michael Horn: Such clarity, right? And so it prevents them from going up market and specificity. Right? And you can imagine all the ways that trickles down, I think. And so my read when we were listening to Summit was like, now, you could argue your mission changed, right? When you moved away from college. But I don’t say, not really.

I would say it was more. You actually were really clarifying what it meant to educate a prepared human.

Diane Tavenner: I agree. I agree. Sharpening, clarifying.

Michael Horn: Sharpening, clarifying the metrics

Diane Tavenner: And talking about it in a way that was more resident.

Michael Horn: Yeah, to the families you served

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: So I guess my point is, like, when I heard what y’ all are or what Summit is doing.

Diane Tavenner: Not me, the team at Summit, big fan.

Refining educational processes with AI

Michael Horn: Katie and Dan and the whole team at Summit, big fan. They, like, they see, you know, Summit learning got ripped out, and they’re like, okay, we can design this new technology with AI or partner or whatever it is to accomplish what is the school that Dan walked us through very helpfully, I thought, on that episode, and, like, they could reinvent expeditions. But again, it’s not changing the DNA and the mission and clarity of the place. It’s more like, how do we sharpen the processes and better get them done right now with the tools available. I think that’s very possible

Diane Tavenner: Without being disrupted and to be very relevant. And the adoption of that and that technology.

Michael Horn: Job to be done is still, like, the prepared thing has not changed.

Diane Tavenner: No, it has. If any, it’s maybe more so, more relevant. Oh, that’s such an interesting.

Michael Horn: Here’s where we get to say we didn’t tell each other our talking points.

Diane Tavenner: We literally wait to talk about these things. That also brings me probably back to Alpha, because using that lens, I’m trying to think if I feel like Alpha has that level of specificity and clarity in a job to be done. Or if they dont?

Michael Horn: I’m not sure they do.

Diane Tavenner: I don’t think they do? Right?

Michael Horn: I’m not sure.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah. Because their model feels a little bit more like this. Like you said, there’s a little piece from here and a little piece from there and a little piece from there, and they’re kind of stuck together. But it’s not clear what they’re adding up to, necessarily.

Michael Horn: I don’t disagree with that. To me, not just from our episode, but in subsequent conversations and things of that nature, what I’ve taken away from Alpha … Okay, let me say it differently. I think the thing that probably bothers you the most is the disconnection between the morning academics and then the life skills learned in the afternoon, is my guess.

Diane Tavenner: For sure. Just this sort of absence of intentionality. And, like, I just don’t understand how you have.

Michael Horn: How you have been separated.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: And so my takeaway is I don’t disagree. For my kiddos, I would agree as well. And I also think relative to the current system …

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: It’s still significantly better than what most families would be getting on both dimensions, I think.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah. And then you have to talk about ROI. Like, is it $75,000 better?

Michael Horn: Well, so the the price point, let’s actually talk about that. ‘Cause I agree with that.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: And it’s not what I would price it at, but I also cynically understand pricing at that high. This is a higher education thing that I hate. Right. I’d always. You know, Western Governor’s University is not seen as a prestigious university because they charge $6,000 or whatever, but they’re amazing at their job to be done. But the game is, like, if you come in at this high price point, in the absence of metrics that people universally really can understand and agree on, they equate price to quality.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah. It’s a luxury brand. It’s a luxury good. And so they burst onto the scene and sort of signal to people with lots of money they did break.

Michael Horn: I mean, we’ve been frustrated. We haven’t been able to break into the conversation. We said that up front in the two hours. I think that’s been a way for them actually to do it. And so I’ve sort of like, I’m living in this dual world where I’m like, it’s not how I would do it. It’s not. And I get it. Like, I get what it’s accomplished for them.

And there are many parents for whom like they’re really desperate for. They’re running toward it or maybe running away from something. And that’s more I think, the truth.

Parents exploring educational alternatives

Diane Tavenner: Those are the conversations I’ve had with parents, you know, when parents are running away from something to a variety of different choices depending what’s on the table for them. Which again, I always take as feedback as someone who wants to be in the system and serving the majority of young people. I’m like, huh, you gotta pay attention to that when people are running from what you’re offering and you know, where are we? Where are we not meeting their needs? And really, to me, this is what it means to co-design and work with communities to create this public good, if you will. The other thing that came up for me in the models — and this is on Flourish, but it’s come up a lot this year. And I’m curious what your thought is. You just talked about how the conventional wisdom is that, you know, to disrupt yourself you have to sort of, you know, wall off that new innovation, which was certainly the approach I took when I was leading Summit. I’m glad to know there’s another pathway. I think I talk to a lot of people right now who view microschools as that possibility.

I think that’s what they’re thinking. So by people I mean, you know, whether it be school districts who are thinking about starting microschools, where they are going to do their innovation there, charter school networks who are thinking about doing their innovation there. Certainly Dan. Or yeah, John. John Danner is rethinking about, you know, starting as a microschool. And he talked about how he thought that the scaling there would be easier and whatnot. I’m skeptical of the microschool as the place where you can actually design a new model.

And the reason that I’m skeptical and I’m curious what you, I actually don’t think at the micro level you work through so many of the elements and principles and systems of an actual model. Like, I just can’t imagine serving 50 million kids a year in microschools. Like, I just don’t think that adds up to a system of educating the number of young people we need to educate. But I could be totally wrong.

Michael Horn: Yeah.

Diane Tavenner: And if that’s the case, like, how do you make the — ? What do you actually learn and develop in a microschool that is transferable to a larger school or a larger system or a larger model? I feel like there’s a lot of gaps there.

Michael Horn: That’s interesting. A lot of thoughts, so we’ll go through them. So, one, and then push back where you — because I don’t — so on the district and charters using microschools, that I would say is promising, but I’m unconvinced. And the reason I’m not convinced is I still don’t see the mechanism.

Let me say it this way. Districts for years have had alternative schools to serve, people who dropped out of the system. Great area of non-consumption. I’ve written a lot about how I thought it could be a disruptive thing. But the thing that they don’t do is disruption, has to grow, and people have to migrate out to it. And no one migrates out to it.

Diane Tavenner: No.

Michael Horn: Right? And I think there’s a lot of reasons for that. But I think part of it is the business model. The charters are a little different, but the business model district is the district, it’s not the schools.

Diane Tavenner: Correct.

Michael Horn: And so schools take on the thing of pilots.

Diane Tavenner: That’s a bigger system. And I’m like, how does that microschool in any way help us understand and transform the system?

Michael Horn: Yeah — no. And so I’m — I don’t know that the dual — I am convinced that the dual transformation strategy works there, even though I’ve recommended districts do this because I don’t see another avenue for them. Let’s leave aside charters for a second. I guess I would push back on the — well, maybe I would relabel it from microschools.

I’m moving away from that phrase because I think “micro” implies small. And if I look at what I think the most promising disruptive innovations in this new schooling space are, I don’t think the feature is necessarily small.

Diane Tavenner: The size.

Michael Horn: Yeah. I think the feature is that it’s a low-cost private school. And so, like, Flourish may end. It’s small at the moment, but it may end up being several hundred students. I could imagine maybe John would say no.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: Con Lab school was originally a microschool. It’s like 300 kids or something like that.

Diane Tavenner: Right.

Michael Horn: So it’s growing. You wouldn’t call that micro anymore.

Diane Tavenner: I’m not trying to call it low cost either.

Michael Horn: Well, that’s fair. That’s fair also. Right? So — but I guess the point being, that’s a good push, by the way. But the — I guess I am somewhat optimistic still that like we’ll have hundreds and thousands of these different schools, and some of them will be chains, and some of them will be sort of your local coffee shops. Sort of.

Challenges of educational system changes

Michael Horn: If you think about the mix, and I do think families are potentially going to move out of the district system into these new things. Now I have two thoughts on what you’re saying, which is, like, how do you do all these people like the size and complexity? And I guess I have a couple thoughts. One, I think we don’t. I don’t think we can know the answer to that until they start to grow in size and complexity and solve the next problem. And there’s a tendency of people in education to want to design the system top down.

Diane Tavenner: That’s so true.

Michael Horn: And I don’t think we’re going to. I don’t think that’s how it’s going to work. So that’s one. But the second one is, I think I can imagine a lot of families in more bespoke smaller communities like these 10. I mean, if it’s truly 10 million of 50, like that’s already 20% that are DIYing. And is the future system 100%? I doubt it. But it could be 70.

Diane Tavenner: What’s interesting to me about that is the DIYing. And this was the point of that article this morning, is literally people. It felt like summer to me when I was like organizing all these summer camps and these activities. And so these parents are like assembling and essentially duct taping together. The, you know, the microschool part tending to be more of like online digitally driven learning.

Michael Horn: Or it’s like there are two days a week there, real world experience. The set of three things.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah. And so in my mind I’m like, okay, that’s a parent sort of cobbling all those things together. But if you’re a microschool, that the parents are going to you because they’re expecting you as a school to put all those things together. How do you do that? If it really is about small, how do you have all those real world experiences that we’re imagining for a small number of kids? I just don’t understand how it works.

Michael Horn: No. And this is where I think we agree, which is, I personally think, the upmarket trajectory of the sector because disruption comes at the low end. It doesn’t serve most people and has to serve more complicated use cases, which is what I think you’re describing. And so I don’t know what that looks like. But my current thinking is maybe all these microschools plug into what’s a community center and it’s actually kind of permeable between them. I think your argument would be H3 is actually the operating system underlying how these all connect to each other, which we haven’t created yet.

And then the second thought I have, also, is frankly Odyssey and Class Wallet and all these things that are trying to direct education savings accounts. I think they have to reduce the complexity of stitching this together. And it’s almost like you used to say this when you were in COVID, operating Summit. You had, like, the different flavors or — right? You go up to this — the — the sub shop, and, like, the —

Diane Tavenner: The menu item.

Michael Horn: Yeah, exactly.

Diane Tavenner: The ordering, the sandwich.

Michael Horn: But I kind of think that’s what we see start to, like, take the coordination out of it.

Diane Tavenner: Right.

Michael Horn: Because my orders aren’t going to be —

Diane Tavenner: I can order the signature sandwich where there’s no substitutions. But I know that I’m getting like the Santa Cruz that has turkey and avocado.

Michael Horn: Right. And most families are not going to be able to do. And when they do, it’s not going to taste very good, to use your analogy.

Diane Tavenner: To make their own.

Michael Horn: Right. Like that’s the other part of the innovation we don’t, haven’t seen yet. And so sort of my evolution in thinking has been it’s the coordinating infrastructure. It’s like the different reassembled parts that coordinate. Like maybe it’s hop, skip, drive as part of this ecosystem. For those that don’t know, that’s a sort of disruptive to the bus or car driving

Diane Tavenner: Uber of busing, essentially.

Michael Horn: Exactly. Right. And — and like all these things, maybe this new system and future I would think would be part of it.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: And anyway. But I almost think the way that happens is like, we’re gonna just have to solve each next problem.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: To try to take more like more students and more families.

Rethinking microschool education

Diane Tavenner: And I think that comes back to this idea that I guess maybe you’re helping me realize that I’ve been sort of experiencing the microschool as like people who are like, oh, we’re gonna reinvent education in the classroom. Like, like individual classroom teachers are going to reinvent education. And so microschools were starting to feel like that to me. I’m like, no, we’re not going to reinvent this system. So what you’re helping me see is like, yeah, we have to like effectively scale though, if we want them to be micro, if it is about small, or we need to understand the principles and then figure out how they all kind of coordinate and work together to scale up the system. Because the system is the actual. And if you think about it, the industrial model, most people don’t go to their school and think this is like a factory because the factory is the underlying infrastructure of how everything runs.

Michael Horn: That is the operating system.

Diane Tavenner: That is the operating system. And I think what I want and what you want is a post-industrial operating system that enables and allows the experience we had at family dinner last night, like that type of learning. And it counts and it has all. And so, will some of the features of those schools look like the ones we see today? Of course. Of course they will, because there’s amazing things that happen today, and those of course get pulled into that. But it’s that underlying infrastructure that really transforms, I think, everything.

Michael Horn: I think that’s right. I sort of want to jump into the tools. We probably have a couple things we want to pull back onto the schools on. But we can go back for a long time. We can iterate. But the — so it’s interesting, I think Timely, interestingly enough. Right?

Diane Tavenner: So this was our conversation with Paymon.

Michael Horn: Paymon. Yeah. We should say this to remind people

Diane Tavenner: Who was working on how do you make a better master schedule? And I think what I agree with him completely as someone who was fanatical about the master schedule that embodies all of your values and your resources, your master schedule does. And yeah, so he’s really trying to make that better.

Michael Horn: Yeah. And he is clearly designing in the H1. But I think the takeaway I had from it is one thing AI can be really good at is simplifying a lot of these logistics and time and getting the right experience at the right time for the kids who maybe can’t. Their family or guardians or whatever it is can’t line that up for you. And like so when you think about this operating system of, of industrial model, we move from class to class. It’s all there in the building. It’s not outside of the building to something that is much more porous and flexible and so forth. My thought from the takeaway from that conversation was wow, AI could be incredibly helpful at this coordination logistics, pulling in resources truly from the community and each kid probably having different mixes of that.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: Right. And I’ll stay with my community center model just idea for a second, like multiple microschools, if you will, or whatever we want to call them, plugging in is you can almost imagine a parent saying like, I want to opt out of parts of this totally because I will manage this. And another parent being like — or, you know, having a conversation where like, please help.

Diane Tavenner: Right.

Michael Horn: And you being like okay, we’re going to line up three amazing outside of school experiences for you and then you’re going to jump into this learning experience here. But then like, you’re going to do this project at this other one here because like we’re hearing what your goals are and where your struggles are and, like, the questions, and we’re by the way seeing you could use some exposure to this, Steve, and understand is this something you hate or like or et cetera.

Diane Tavenner: And I think what you’re doing right now is sort of starting to illustrate the difference between Industrial model Horizon one. So Paymon and Timely are working on a master schedule that’s still within the confines of a building. You know, a five day week schedule that’s kind of eight to three, that’s classrooms, you know, I call it the egg crates. It’s like 1 to 25, like all these, you know, so that’s what he’s doing. But now you’re talking about in my mind a new operating system that would greatly sort of expand beyond those boxes, those little egg crate boxes to all the possibilities that could be practically now assembled and personalized for families and kids. And so that kind of would be the H3 version, I think of what Timely would do, don’t you think?

Michael Horn: I’m learning here already. No, I think I’m 100% and I’m getting clarity now. Okay.

Diane Tavenner: And so I think this is a perfect example of like, yes, Paymon, go please. Like there’s, like another school year is coming and please can we get off the magnetic whiteboards where people are still like by hand trying to create master schedules which we know is not going to deliver and do use AI to do that significantly better, significantly faster in a significantly more personalized way. So I thought that was an exciting tool for that reason and it provides that clarity, we just said. I think that. Yeah, I’m curious.

Michael Horn: OK, where are you gonna go?

Diane Tavenner: I can’t decide where to go.

Michael Horn: That’s OK.

Diane Tavenner: I can’t decide because — well, let’s just remind people of the other folks we talk to. So we talked to Dicia Toll, who is working on CourseMojo, which is the ELA sort of in classroom experience. And I think I would kind of bucket her, that conversation with the one we had with Matt Pasternak who is, is at Once there. He’s working on reading younger kids and how they read, starting very sort of human based and then bringing in AI to support. And if we remember, he’s doing really interesting things of how you’re using all the people resources.

Michael Horn: Giving really cool experiential opportunities potentially for high school.

Defining a school’s basic elements

Diane Tavenner: Right, right. Which takes me back as you were talking a minute ago and I’m thinking back to Dan Efflin’s description of at the most stripped down basic level, what is a school? And I love this framing and I think about it all the time now, which is like, it’s literally a set of, it’s a group of students, it’s a group of young people. It is a set of objectives or outcomes that those young people are trying to reach. And it’s a bundle of resources we have to help them do that. At the end of the day, that’s the most stripped down version. And I think Once is super interesting in how they’re thinking about the potential resources, high school kids, you know, instructed to teach young kids in the virtuous cycle that’s sort of created there.

Michael Horn: I just had this thought I hadn’t had it before, but there’s like a. Both a very cool career potential. Right. Of teaching for those kids also, frankly though, if they don’t do that, because I can imagine some people being like, oh, this is like very self determinative or whatever. And I don’t know how I feel about that. I actually think it’s also a very cool, like, parenting 101 opportunity, if you will, for kids to get experience with younger kids and learn about the science of reading and, like, some of the motivation stuff that I’m sure Matt is baking in, things not to do and so forth.

Diane Tavenner: And I would add a third is the entrepreneurial nature of this. So I talked to him about how could high school kids create summer businesses where they’re using once to tutor kids in their neighborhood and set up like little entrepreneurial ventures which he’s super excited about and open to. And so that type of creative thinking about, you know, recognizing and seeing high school kids as resources to help anyone learn but other especially younger kids to learn such a, I just, I love that kind of thinking. I wish it were just across the system in so many different ways.

Michael Horn: Totally agree.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah. One thing that we have talked about that I think is worth bringing up here is we both noted with both of those conversations how these are not, these have required significant human expertise to create these products sort of in collaboration with AI, if you will.

Michael Horn: That’s a good way to put it.

Diane Tavenner: You know, and I think Dacia did a good job of really walking us through like the level of intentionality and intervention and human expertise that has gone into creating those really cool, important, rigorous experiences in the classroom. So I’m curious like what you think about that and how you process that.

Michael Horn: So I agree. I will tell, I’m just gonna be honest. I left the Dacia conversation glowing for like 10 hours afterwards. I was so excited. And I think a large part of it was because of what you just described, with the intentionality of what is great, not just like good, great practice looks like.

Diane Tavenner: Yes.

Michael Horn: And let’s recognize that like, like 80 plus percent of teachers don’t have the training or background or can’t time or whatever.

Diane Tavenner: Like, what she described happening in that classroom is humanly impossible to do. I don’t care how good you are.

Michael Horn: Totally agree, right? But like, even if you were one on one or one on two, that’s fair. Like, a lot of teachers still don’t have that background.

Diane Tavenner: True.

Michael Horn: Right. And she’s looking at the best practitioners to think about the next best question with the text. Like really deep in the text. And that’s something I think that often comes up also right is you can’t just do this in a generalized way. Like actually really digging in is important to create this instructional tool. So impressive.

I also really appreciated how she was like, look in your framework of H1 through, like she engaged in that framework and was like, I’m on the H1, maybe H2 part of this. I found that really helpful because, like, it immediately, it’s like, this is where I’m sitting. But by the way, I can easily imagine what she’s built being part of an H3 set of offerings as well.

Rethinking traditional classroom model

Diane Tavenner: I think that’s right. And so let’s go there. Because my current favorite provocation, I’m probably driving a lot of people crazy with this is what if? And what I asked them to do is pretend for a minute that we can never ever, ever again have classrooms with one teacher, 25 kids, five days a week, 50 minute periods. I don’t even care if you have a block schedule every other day for, you know, 90 minutes. We can never do that again. Imagine we can never ever do that again. How are kids going to learn? Can we like expand our imagination how they can learn? And the reason I’m provoking this is I loved everything Dacia said and agreed with you. I left sad because of the comment where she was like, yeah, they’re doing it a couple days a week.

Michael Horn: Oh, interesting.

Diane Tavenner: And I’m like, why? Just we’re going back to the 1 in 25 egg crate to do all these other things and we’re just doing that. Why? Why aren’t we doing that more? Why aren’t we doing that really strategically or what? Like, I don’t understand, you know, this. Yeah. How we’re thinking about that. And so that felt depressing to me.

Michael Horn: Yeah, yeah, I hear that. I think it speaks to something different that we were going to hold on, but I’m going to go there now because you’ve been forwarding me pieces around the adoption of AI in the workplace.

Diane Tavenner: Yes.

Michael Horn: And Reed used the analogy that we’ve both loved for some time that Ethan Mollick at Penn uses, which is like thinking about AI like electricity. And this sort of, there was the paradox. Right. Electricity got introduced. It didn’t actually increase productivity until you redesigned the business models and factory models, models around it so you could distribute, as opposed to have the central drive shaft. And I think the same thing is playing out right now in industry, which is like AI, more of a cost ad, maybe marginally product, you know, productivity, particularly for coders, but maybe not elsewhere. And large parts of enterprises are frankly not using it to its theoretical capacity.

Diane Tavenner: Right.

Michael Horn: And I think the same thing may be true in schools right now as well, with. Well, maybe this will get us into Magic School. Unless the tool fits the workflow exactly as you’ve currently designed. And like Dacia’s thing, it does. Like, you do need to rethink use of time and space. Right. And like, what. And activities and instructional plans and coherence.

And like, it raises all these questions that are problems in the current model.

Diane Tavenner: Correct. Correct. You’re right. I have been forwarding you lots of things because, you know, I love to do this. I love to go and look out into other industries because it helps me sort of understand the principles and kind of what’s going on. And then I feel like sometimes I’m too close to it in education. And so I need that sort of distance to then come back and look at what we’re doing through that lens.

Michael Horn: Yeah.

Diane Tavenner: And so one of the things that happened to me this season is I just engaged in a whole bunch of conversations with people who are in different industries, and I’ve been really trying to deep dive into how are you using AI and how are you bringing it into your company or your work or what you’re doing? How. How is it getting integrated and whatnot. And these articles I’ve been sending you this last week was profound to me. This line of inquiry has led me to believe one. And I’ll just say this again, AI is not changing education full stop. Like, the only thing that will change education is humans.

We can use AI as the tool to do it, but AI is not changing education. There’s zero evidence that it’s changing education. One in my view. And then two, it doesn’t appear to be changing business as fast as everyone’s at. And so like, we started this season with me feeling like this is like coming. It’s coming like a tidal wave and it’s gonna hit us and we have to get ready. And it’s going fast and I’m ending this season like, oh, no, this is electricity. This is a 70-year project.

Like, calm down, we actually have time because it’s just not coming that way. And the specific thing that came this week that crystallized it for me is learning that all of the hyperscalers, so OpenAI, Anthropic and Gemini in some form or fashion, different but similar, literally are paying a lot of money to, let’s call them an intermediary or third party to force companies to adopt AI and integrate it into their workflows because it’s not happening naturally. What appears to be happening naturally is like all these companies jumped on, okay, let’s do a pilot, let’s figure this out. They’ve been running those, they’re not working. And so they’re tossing AI. They’re like, no, we’re not going to do that.

Michael Horn: Because it’s expensive. The computer power, the tokens, right? It’s expensive and people aren’t using it.

Diane Tavenner: Like, it’s not happening the way they thought. And so, you know, in OpenAI apparently is going to give their private equity companies a huge amount of money to force their companies to integrate AI, OpenAI, you know.

Michael Horn: See if any of that money materializes the business model of — I mean, that’s another shaky thing in all this is like, which companies will still even be here at the end of this? Google probably will, but like, we don’t know.

Diane Tavenner: Right. And I think it was Anthropic who’s going more of the consulting route. So MacKenzie and those folks, and they’re going to use them to try to deploy it. And Google had a — what was their strategy? Like a combo of the two or something like that. Anyway, I’m like, if it’s not happening in business, where they actually put resources to these things and efficiency is their, you know, the way they’re competing, it is not happening in education. We don’t have the resources to do what they’re doing. We don’t have the incentives they have.

And so, it just gave me sort of like in some ways a good breath of like, oh, we have more time. And then two, oh, unless we actively do this, this is not gonna be the tool that helps us.

Michael Horn: Yeah. So stay on this. This is really interesting on a few fronts. You’re crystallizing something I had been thinking about but hadn’t fully dawned on me, which is I do think what’s true in the business world, and I think it’s very true in the education world, is individuals are using it in bespoke ways.

Diane Tavenner: Yes.

Michael Horn: And like, I’ve been thinking about some danger of recording and then this won’t be out for a few weeks. But I’ve been thinking about writing something around how, like, for years, education was like the last place to adopt technology. Right now it’s actually adopting technology very quickly. And that’s the problem. And the reason I say that is, I think teachers are pulling it into workflows that exist. This is the Magic School thing that we learned what they’re already doing, but more efficiently, perhaps with less thought, et cetera, et cetera.

But to your point, from an enterprise like reworking workflows. No.

Diane Tavenner: Right. Which goes back to that idea of the operating system, right?

Michael Horn: But I think — so the other thing I want to just say on this is the other reason I’ve been skeptical. All my friends that live out where you live in Silicon Valley tell me that, like, you don’t get — it’s exponential improvement, and therefore it’s going to like, flip a switch and the world’s going to change and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And Reed has this view a bit as well, right? That he said.

But I think what they discount is, like, they think through a very narrow lens of how work is done, and they discount all of the human friction that you just started to allude to and organizational friction and legacy systems and stuff like that. Not just in education, but, like, I think you’re right. It’s actually in almost every part of the economy.

Diane Tavenner: Right. And I’ll just say two funny things about that, because that’s where I live, as you know, that’s like the water that I swim in. And I do think a lot of that sentiment comes from. It is moving most quickly and most effectively in software development.

Michael Horn: I mean, that’s why you see the product development. I mean, that’s why I think you see and it’s important. Amazing, right, Claude code is amazing.

Diane Tavenner: Amazing.

Michael Horn: And it’s like zeroing in on an application in a part of the economy that they understand. And it’s a narrow set of — I’ll misuse the Howard Gardner multiple intelligences. It’s a narrow set of intelligences, like, you know, what my point is, though. Yes. I don’t mean to lift that up as a valid framework, but I more mean it as an analogy.

Diane Tavenner: Yes.

Michael Horn: Let me say it this way more specifically. Right. Which is an interesting thing about these large language models is they’re largely trained on language and images, and like we have as humans, have lots of other senses that are not going into these things.

Diane Tavenner: Right, right, right, right. And it turns out we have a lot of power and control over our systems and our lives and whatnot. At the end of the day. Well, that kind of leads us into the last two tools that we explored, OK?

Michael Horn: Kira and Magic School.

Diane Tavenner: Kira and Magic School. And I mean, just a funny aside, I don’t know if people could detect this, but I think we have to come clean and be honest. Like, both of us left one episode this season pretty, like, frustrated, angry. I mean, I had a very hard, long weekend after one episode because it really, like, shook me. They were different episodes.

Michael Horn: OK, yeah.

Diane Tavenner: And I don’t think either of us predict that we would have our own emotional reaction or that the other person would. So I will come clean and say, yeah, I mean, I had a really rough weekend after we recorded the Magic School episode on a Friday, and it shook me.

Michael Horn: Yeah.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah. And I don’t know how you would describe your feelings after the Kira —

Michael Horn: After the Kira — ? Yeah. I mean, could people hear the frustration? I don’t know.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah. You were frustrated.

Michael Horn: I was frustrated. I think before that, I will say on the Magic School, one little surprised me about the conversation. And so maybe that’s why I didn’t have quite the emotional reaction. I was not surprised by the direction it went. But we can break that down. The Kira, I’ll just say, rather than hide it. I was trying to understand in more detail, like, what are you, like, what does this actually look like when you say you have a Central American country, that it’s all moving over to a new. Like, that’s a big claim.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: What is it? Like, what does that actually mean? Look, like, how are you changing workflows, what people are doing? And when you say, like, contrast with Dacia.

Diane Tavenner: Right.

Reflecting on content personalization

Michael Horn: Because Dacia’s episode we recorded, I think, afterwards, and that’s when I had this big breath of fresh air to me was like — she’s like — we went deep in the content as humans to really understand what it’s saying. And I felt like, so maybe Kira’s able to ingest anything of content and, like, magically make it awesome and personalized and — But it took me back to a lot of stuff in like the mid 2010s that talked about personalization and data without, like a clear view of like, how are we assessing mastery? How do we understand this thing? And like, if you don’t have a viewpoint on that, I’m not sure how you’re driving these behaviors. And so I’m — I’m not castigating the tool because I just, it was more like I wanted to understand more.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah. And that was what I mean. We hung up and you were like, I don’t — I’m so frustrated. I don’t understand what it does.

Michael Horn: Yeah. It was more limitations.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah. And to be fair, as you know, I’ve spent multiple hours now sort of getting under the hood.

Michael Horn: Yeah.

Diane Tavenner: I think that’s a really interesting response though. That, and what it made me reflect on is Kira is currently in the complexity. So I always love this, you know, quote that gets, you know, you start with simplicity, you move into complexity and the goal is to get to the other side of complexity, back to simplicity, so people can understand it. And I was, I realized that I have been sucked into Kira because it is in that complex, messy place.

Michael Horn: Yeah. So it’s hard to describe.

Diane Tavenner: So much potential there though, that I can see when I’m really geeking out and nerding out. And so I see the possibility there. But I’m doing like all that mental translation, I think, having dug in. So. But I don’t think it’s a simple story yet by any stretch of the imagination.

Michael Horn: Which is fine, right? Like a startup. It doesn’t have to be until product market fit is so clear.

Diane Tavenner: Right. And there’s a lot to be figured out there and understood. But I do think it’s the closest thing I’ve seen to the potential of being kind of this operating system. Post industrial operating system. And I will just say quickly that like, part of your skepticism probably comes from like, we get a lot of people calling, emailing us, stopping us, you know, at the ASU + GSV, telling us we’re doing exactly what those people said we’re doing. And then we try to dig in and we’re like, are you really. You know, and so. And you get more of it than I do.

Diane Tavenner: And so I bet.

Michael Horn: I think that’s certainly true. And I think I’m also part of my skepticism is I kind of think you have to build for this H2, H3.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: And purposely say we’re not building for H1 to do, if you’re really going to be the operating system for this new model. I think anything you build in H1 that’s optimizing around that is going to do two things. I think it’s going to suck you out. Like I think there will be values that are in contradiction with each other and you can’t do both. And two, I think because the most of the kids are still in H1 and most of the money is still in H1, we’re going to see what every venture backed ed tech company has done which is like start out with this value proposition that sounds great. And then move back into the traditional system. Because that’s where the money is.

Diane Tavenner: And that is huge tension. It’s a huge tension and it’s a limitation in our sector quite frankly.

Michael Horn: Yeah. And I think venture does not help it because they have very rapid expectations of growth that are incompatible..

Diane Tavenner: Incompatible with that. And so how do we get someone to build for H3? It’s a huge question.

Michael Horn: Let’s go into it next year more because I think what you did at Summit, actually doing it interdependently with the school model is. And with the AI tools available now, maybe actually easier to do parts of that. I think that’s gonna have to be the answer, but let’s hold on.

Diane Tavenner: Let’s hold, let’s hold.

Michael Horn: So let’s talk about Magic School because you had a reaction but like this is a place where I’m gonna say it. They do have product market fit. It’s taken off like gangbusters.

Diane Tavenner: Like crazy. Which is — well, let me just say the parts that I really spent that weekend grappling with and struggling with. So the first is, I mean the clarity with, of the purpose of Magic School being to make teachers’ lives easier. And so first of all I just have sort of, that is not my goal or objective ever.

Michael Horn: Period.

Diane Tavenner: And it’s not because I don’t love teachers. It’s not because I don’t think educators are amazing. Look, I am one. I do that role, whatnot. But my goal is not to make a teacher’s life easier. My goal is all about the young person. And I view all of us, me included, who are not those young people as resources to that young person’s learning journey to get them to their outcome. And so I just think when you orient around making a teacher’s life easier, you by definition are no longer focused on the student.

Critique of current education standards

Diane Tavenner: And so I just think that fundamental premise is problematic to me. Second, it just as a teacher who is really committed to the craft of teaching and learning and education. I just feel like it sets this incredibly low bar. And you know, we had a dialogue about, you know, IEP creation. And as you know, I spent a lot of time in Magic School and I was really disturbed by this, like popped out generated IEP for a variety of reasons that was terrible. And you know, the idea that that was somehow better than what is existing in school that had the kids wrong kid’s name on it is like good enough or we should be celebrating or like that’s our bar.

I just can’t. That’s just not who I am as an educator. You know, my — every morning I wake up and say like, is this a school I would want to go to as a student, teach in, send my child to. And I don’t want, that does not meet my bar in any way, shape or form. So I’d rather not be doing education than doing it at that kind of standard. And then the third thing was I’ve just seen this movie before. So first it was, you know, teachers, paid teachers where we just throw these random activities up and, and you know, you’re just doing this activity driven thing.

And then it was Pinterest where teachers are just grabbing stuff off of Pinterest. And now it is Magic School, and it just really diminishes. It makes me so sad. It’s like, really, that’s who we are?

Michael Horn: Yeah, I think I wasn’t surprised by any of that, which is why I will say I appreciated, when you talked about learning styles and stuff like that. I was. We were both pretty horrified by that given the research clarity around that learning styles is a myth Yeah, so full stop. I thought his answer on the IEP, I could appreciate it a little bit more because I do think that the baseline is not what we would hope across.

And so I get it. And I think my overriding thing is like, it illustrates to me the problems with H1, which is, and I, you know, I sent this thing to you that I did with Rick Hess. I think because existing school models struggle with, with coherence, rigor, you know, setting clear expectations for students and focusing on the student frankly, any model, any tool you sell into that model that gets immediate uptake without significant process and priority changes, as frictionless as that has, and the other tools that you named have, it’s actually amplifying those things rather than solving them.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah, I completely agree. Completely agree. And then of course the business model of we’re going to get all these teachers to use it. And then we’re going to take the data to the school or the school district and say, did you know all your teachers are using it? You should buy an enterprise license. That was deeply disturbing to me. That’s the seat that I sat in most recently. And I’m like, really? Am I going to be like, that’s how I’m making my decisions about what tools we’re adopting?

Michael Horn: Well, I’m going to say independent, though. Right. Of the. That this is my bigger point right now. I think of like, the individuals in the system are just doing stuff. And that’s where I think education actually is. I again — I think, the moniker. We’re tech backwards. Rip Van Winkle wakes up and recognizes the classroom. I don’t think that’s true anymore in this era because they are using a lot of stuff. In fact, districts are using —

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: Have licenses to 3,000 tools on it.

Diane Tavenner: That stat, you tell me that. You’ve said that like 20 times.

Michael Horn: Mind blowing, right? It’s mind blowing, and it’s a problem.

Diane Tavenner: I know.

Michael Horn: Most of them we know don’t get used.

Diane Tavenner: Correct.

Michael Horn: We know for the effective ones that it’s like a 5% problem of only, you know, students on a certain part of the curve even using them.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: To me, though, these are all model problems at the end of the day. And that’s where I think I can get my head around. Okay, are we working on H1? Are we working on reinventing completely? I can get my head around that there’s importance and value in both. Personally, I really struggle on the first one because I just think the model is so injurious at this point.

Diane Tavenner: Well, and I think that one of the things that happened in the middle of the season was this backlash to this technology, which we haven’t even unpacked yet. Literally. We’re mid season and suddenly almost out of nowhere and overnight, I mean, this massive backlash. And you alluded to it earlier, look, we were already on this trajectory of banning phones in schools. You know, we’ve talked about that over the years. I think we’ve both sort of settled in like, you know? OK.

Michael Horn: Yeah. I mean, I’m willing to live with it. I don’t love it.

Diane Tavenner: I don’t love it either. I will, but I don’t want to live in the space of like, I wish that we could have a culture in the school where kids could learn to use them responsibly

Michael Horn: No, I agree. Yeah, I agree with that. I guess I’m more intrigued with some of these other tools that sharply limit and let the educators have control. But look, yeah, I’m not gonna do.

Diane Tavenner: That’s interesting. So that one fine we had sort of. But then suddenly overnight we are banning Chromebooks. We are putting limits on the amount of minutes that can be technology can be used in the school in a school day. We are saying that, that no one in a school can use AI, including the teacher in any way, shape or form. Which is the most baffling, mind boggling. Like how do you police that? What does that even mean? And these policies are popping up like crazy. My take on this is that there’s such a lack of understanding and such a conflation going on.

So there’s all these cases and the, the heightened sensitivity around social media and the negative impacts on kids that is mostly sitting on their phones but certainly it’s online and some kids are, you know, districts are not using the filters and whatnot. And so they’re maybe getting on their Chromebooks. So that’s getting conflated with actual useful learning tools, useful learning technologies, useful operational system technologies. And we’re just suddenly going to just ban everything.

Michael Horn: Yeah.

Diane Tavenner: Seriously.

Michael Horn: Yeah. And this is so this is the thing, right? Let’s like we live in the nuance. We like the third way. That’s our trademark, for better or worse, let’s like spell it out. We are simultaneously not thrilled with large parts of the ed tech market that is going into traditional schools. And so I understand why the backlash is emerging. I would agree that for the most part they have not been useful in some cases counterproductive.

Diane Tavenner: Correct.

Michael Horn: And these policies are limiting. So we’re not going to let someone use CourseMojo for, like what?

Diane Tavenner: That was the first example that we came to. Or we’re going to say like well if you use it and you. We’re going to count the timer, you use that for 20 minutes. So you only have 40 more minutes today for the whole day to use any sort of technology.

Michael Horn: Like what are we doing?

Diane Tavenner: What are we doing?

Michael Horn: Yeah. And so — or like Amira Learning, which Dacia also talked about, which very well studied, lots of RCTs. We’re not going to like let them use that? And then there’s been this whole meme that has gone on about a particular company i-Ready on the internet over the last few weeks about how there’s no studies behind that them. Fine. I’m not going to defend them right here except to say like that’s true of every freaking textbook and material we have ever had in school.

So let’s, like, have an honest conversation.

Diane Tavenner: Well, yes, and, and all the — the — the negatives that you just said about ed tech are 100% true of all of those industries, if you will. The other thing, like, let’s put Once in this. There’s a bunch of places banning technology use with kids under certain age, period, full stop. They can’t use Once to teach their kids to read, even though there’s human component to it. Like, this is crazy.

Michael Horn: This is crazy.

Diane Tavenner: This is literally taking a sledgehammer to —

Discussing educational model challenges

Michael Horn: What is a real problem. And I’ve been thinking a lot about it, like, what’s the role, you know, blended and all these things that we’ve sort of movements that we were part of. And I was looking back and I was like, I actually think we were pretty clear. Like a station rotation, which is all I said in elementary school, from a traditional district should even attempt. I’m partial to the flex model that I, in our typology, but, like, I didn’t think most districts had the cultures or routines or processes to do it. A station rotation model imagines a kid on a computer for like 30, 45 —

But to your point, these blunt acts policies —

Diane Tavenner: They don’t give any discretion or flexibility or professionalism to the people in the school who are having to make these choices and decisions. And the tension there, of course, is like, wow, did we lose that? Did we deservedly lose that trust?

Michael Horn: That trust, yeah.

Diane Tavenner: Because we are making some bad choices about what we’re bringing in. We are wasting money on things we’re not using. We are not thoughtfully integrating, you know

Michael Horn: So, two thoughts here, because I think you’re right. And so we’ve sort of made our. Our point of view known. I hadn’t thought about this, but I loved that Dacia said we’re doing outcomes based on contract.

Diane Tavenner: Yes, I do too.

Michael Horn: I’ve been saying this since 2009. Like districts. And districts would look at me like I was crazy. There’s now, you know, through the Southern Education Group.

Diane Tavenner: There’s a whole group.

Michael Horn: There’s a way, there’s a boilerplate language. I think every ed tech company worth its salt ought to do a contract.

Diane Tavenner: Well, let me just amend that because I’m in that space right now. That’s the exact place I wanted to go because I’ve sat on the other side, and I was like, this is brilliant. I love this, and quite frankly it’s good for me too because it doesn’t help me if someone buys me my product and never uses it. That’s actually bad for all of us.

Michael Horn: Yeah, yeah. Zombie revenue, etc.

Diane Tavenner: But the problem is even the outcomes based contracting people will tell you, oh, we only really are ready to do this with very limited number of products where there are clear measures. I think we’ve got to push on that. I’m hoping to be one of the people who will push on that because the space I’m in, they’re like, oh, we have no idea how to tackle that space.

Michael Horn: But this would be amazing. Amazing. I’m gonna go into one of your other bugaboos. Yeah, this would be amazing. Like RCTs is one way to look at the world.

Diane Tavenner: One way.

Michael Horn: If you have outcome based contracting with assessments and measures that we trust. Yes, it solves itself totally. And so, like, this is a way I think to actually develop incentives.

Diane Tavenner: I agree.

Michael Horn: To get those more grassroots driven. What’s the outcome we’re trying to drive? What’s the right assessment or measure for it? And let’s count it like conversations.

Diane Tavenner: I agree with you. And like in my case there are things I specifically know that our technology is designed to do. And so maybe those aren’t yet, you know, fully industry standard or something. But. But when you’re buying it, don’t you want to know what it’s supposed to do and then figure out if it’s —

Michael Horn: And then hold it to account for that?

Diane Tavenner: Yeah. And I think that’s good for everyone. So I agree with you. I think more there really interesting and —

Michael Horn: I think that would be a good get instead of the bands. That would be a great place for that. I will say I think it also. We may pull back into school models here for a second. I think it’s one of the reasons Alpha is attractive also to families is because they feel like they’re making this big leap, OK? And so actually I heard someone, one of my students said they profiled seven different microschools using AI in different ways. And one of their statements was like families feel like, you know, two hour uninterrupted block of time or whatever feels radical.

Is it really more radical than like seven 45 minute periods? No, but like no one ever thinks that way. But it feels like radical to do, you know, mastery based progression and then like all this time for life skill development and with what you said still true, like it’s decoupled, and that may have problems for Far transfer.

Diane Tavenner: And I’m not sure they’re doing mastery based, but keep going.

Understanding norm-referenced assessments

Michael Horn: Okay, so maybe we’ll come back to that also. But like, I guess my point being like families are opting for it, and I think one reason that they are is not just the price point signaling, but also the old metrics signaling. We might not love the old metrics. NWEA map. I think it’s like a very bizarre usage of it. And I’m just going to spell it out for those that. Because I think people still are confused around what a norm referenced assessment often shows, which is like imagine a Y axis of different score levels or achievement levels and like, okay, I’m at the 90th percentile entering in, relative to the people in my band. There’s a curve and like, you know, am I falling below or above right them.

And so when they say 2x, it’s like 2x the person in the middle at my curve is what that’s showing.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: And in some ways it would be shocking if they weren’t hitting that because the traditional school is capping how fast you can move. We heard Reed talk about this on Dreambox and so if you’re now uncapped it, I would hope that a student would move at least that much faster.

Diane Tavenner: Well, this is why I question if they’re doing mastery based. Because that has nothing to do with mastery.

Michael Horn: Say more on that.

Diane Tavenner: I mean where you’re just comparing against the kid. That is not mastery based. Norm reference is not mastery based.

Michael Horn: Oh, fair enough. Fair enough. OK, so this is where I think they are though is because they also have a bunch of criterion references also going on that they didn’t talk about.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah. Yeah. And you know, I’m skeptical because they’re like jumping between adaptive learning programs.

Michael Horn: I think that’s a big question. Yeah, yeah. I don’t disagree. And I’m wondering where the feedback loop truly is in that some friends of ours in the industry who’ve spent a lot more time with the model tell me that there’s a lot more underneath it. Underneath. And I don’t know. I don’t know. I will say simply raising the bar from 60% to 90% was a nice start.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah. Yeah.

Michael Horn: Because it’s crazy.

Diane Tavenner: Well, and we did that as well at Summit. You know.

Michael Horn: But it’s crazy to me that they didn’t like before. But it reflects also on H1. But I guess my point being more I think that’s why they have these very traditional measures because it gives, like as a parent, it takes away anxiety.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: I’m making this big jump. What do you mean? They’re going to be doing a Tough Mudder and a press conference with athletes.

Diane Tavenner: And like, the familiar measures that give me comfort.

Michael Horn: So I think it’s almost taking the world as it is, not as maybe we would like it to be. And I think that’s part of, like, it’s like, it’s why. I also think you’ll hear the bragging about the SAT score or the acceptance to Stanford or the, you know, and. Yeah, so I guess I’m just explaining it a little bit, but. And I think that crosswalk may be part of this process as more families gain maturity around. Oh, is that possible through this? And so I’m curious.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah. So what I think you’re speaking to is this whole, whole societal shifting sentiments. And so, and we don’t really talk about this, but this would be an interesting thing to explore next year. Like, is there a way to understand. Well, we know people who look at these things, so there is a way to understand this.

Is the public sort of sentiment moving or shifting or changing? And what is moving it and shifting and changing it? And so, you know, are we in this sort of chaotic period where we’re like, people are holding onto things of the past, but they’re like, exploring and looking at the future and they’re kind of like, you know, there just feels —

Michael Horn: Well, and here’s the relationship, right to the tech conversation also, which is like, okay, my kid’s going to be on this two hours of screen time with AI, it sounds creepy. It’s a vision model that’s looking at me, tracking my attention. But there’s a real measure that shows outcomes.

Diane Tavenner: Right.

Michael Horn: And so I think, think like now

Diane Tavenner: And this cool cocktail party thing where I just say that my kids, you know, running a Tough Mudder.

Michael Horn: Yeah, yeah, yeah, Right, right, right. Of running a Tough Mudder. And so like, but here the legislation would ban these movements to like, like this stuff as well. That’s not. I don’t think that’s what we want either.

Diane Tavenner: I mean, we’ve never liked legislation, like the type of legislation we’re seeing popping up overnight. I hope by the time next season starts, it’s kind of calmed down a little bit and people have sort of gathered their wits. I hope that educators are going and making logical cases as to why with real tangible examples like we’ve just given about why these are not useful policies. And can we actually put something more thoughtful in place? I hope the media doesn’t, you know, sort of fan those, you know, fears and instead sort of brings a little bit of a rationality to it. That’s of lot of hope. You gotta have it.

Michael Horn: But yeah, I mean, I think, I think my hope on that front continues to be the families that are opting for these new models and that it’s more grassroots driven because and I think, like, I think that’s my other piece and we’ve had this conversation offline. Your question a little bit is it really going to be a portfolio of models in the future? Is it really one?

Diane Tavenner: I’m so curious about this.

Michael HornL and I guess the reason I think it might be a. I think it depends how you define model.

Diane Tavenner: It does.

Michael Horn: And I think it also depends on like, I think it’s very hard to imagine all families lining up. I’ll say it up front, like a billion people in Alpha school. I would be shocked. Shocked. Because I don’t think that’s where we

Diane Tavenner: Just count me as a complete skeptical. There’s no way.

Michael Horn: But I think that’s the point is like some families are going to say no screen time.

Diane Tavenner: Right.

Michael Horn: Great. Some families are gonna want more than what Alpha provides OK. But like, let’s, let’s take the air out of the balloon and let a little more choice with some measures that give feedback loops to the families so that they know they’re making progress for their kids.

Diane Tavenner: We can’t help ourselves. We’re starting to foreshadow all the things we’re thinking about and what we’re starting to plan for next season. So I guess maybe it’s obvious at this point but, people might not realize that literally at the end of every season we get together and we’d reflect and we make an active choice of whether or not we’re gonna do another season and this season. I don’t even think there was a question.

Michael Horn: No. This was the most clear cut we’ve ever been I think.

Diane Tavenner: Clear cut.

Michael Horn: Clear time.

Exploring AI’s impact on education

Diane Tavenner: I feel like we are so clear. So much more to explore the impacts of AI. So I think we’re going right back in on that front. Two, I think we have more questions than we had even at the beginning of this season. More people that we want to talk to than we had at the start of this season. So like more, more, of, you know, how what is happening with AI in education? What are the tools? What are the models, you know, what’s happening on that front? So I guess this is a good time to say, like, if you guys have ideas, people you want to hear from, you know, things you think we’re not exploring.

We would love to hear from you over the, you know, this will be effectively the summer, if you will. Yeah, I know. It’s like the one sort of traditional thing we do is, like, have summer break but —

Michael Horn: We’re a little traditional.

Diane Tavenner: We’re a little bit traditional on that front. So we want to hear from people on that front. And then we’ve got these other two kind of funny passion project ideas.

Michael Horn: Are you going to talk about it? Yeah, go for it. No? OK, all right. We got a couple other ideas, which are going to be our curiosity driving it and our desire to explore. But it won’t be with guests or at least maybe. Yeah, but not.

Diane Tavenner: I don’t know what form they’re going to take. I would. Yeah, they’re interesting. They’re like things that keep coming up for us, and so I think they deserve a little bit of exploration in maybe not the exact way that we do the rest of the podcast. So we’ll see how they —

Michael Horn: We’ll see how those take shape. Probably not like season one, where we script every.

Diane Tavenner: No, no, no, no. So. So we hope folks will be excited to join us again for another season.

Michael Horn: I think that’s right. And send us your curiosity questions and, like, things that we’ve said that don’t make sense to you. And we’ve both had a lot of hot takes today and left a few dangling.

Diane Tavenner: Kind of a rambling conversation

Michael Horn: I was about to say. Did I give you room for everything you wanted to say?

Diane Tavenner: No, definitely. I mean, this is just like an ongoing dialogue for us.

Michael Horn: So people pick in where the things that we maybe had incomplete sentences or thoughts or you want to hear more.

Diane Tavenner: Definitely.

Michael Horn: We’re going to scratch those itches next season.

Diane Tavenner: Definitely. I’m very excited for it. But before we do that, should we

Michael Horn: Do what we’ve been reading or watching or what we’re going to do?

Diane Tavenner: We should. And I — I think I have to —

Michael Horn: Pull out my phone so I know what I’m reading.

Diane Tavenner: You have to know what you’ve been reading. AndI’ve got. I decided since this is the last episode of the season, I have three things, so I’m gonna go crazy and share more than one.

Michael Horn: All right, Go for it. Go for it.

Diane Tavenner: You want me to start?

Michael Horn: Yeah, you. You start.

Diane Tavenner: So this one probably won’t surprise people, I have just recently finished reading “How Countries Go Broke, the Big Cycle” by Ray Dalio. And people have heard me who’ve listened to the podcast before talk about his previous book, “The Principles for Dealing with a Changing World Order,” which was really profound for me in terms of these deep analytical approach to identifying these historical cycles that help me make sense of the world we’re living in and what sort of feels chaotic. This new one, newer one, about how countries go broke, is a companion to the first one. Obviously it’s speaking to something that I think about and don’t know a lot about, which is our debt and what it means if we’re no longer the reserve currency, et cetera. What I will say about it is it’s sort of classic Ray Dalio, if you like that kind of thing. It’s actually comforting to me in a way. So I really —

Michael Horn: It’s a critical topic.

Diane Tavenner: It is critical as like a citizen, I think, and a person in the world. So I highly recommend it. I find it fascinating. So that’s one. The second one is a podcast, you know, that’s become one of my favorite podcasts. It’s fascinating. Interesting times with Ross. I never say his last name

Michael Horn: Ross Douthat.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: Yeah. He was my year from college, so, you know.

Diane Tavenner: Oh, I didn’t realize that.

Michael Horn: Different college, but it’s —

Diane Tavenner: Yeah, OK. And I listened to this one at the same time. I was reading the Countries Going Broke book and they go together in a really interesting way. It’s titled “A Bitcoin Evangelist Tries to Convert Me.”

Michael Horn: Oh, interesting.

Diane Tavenner: And it is like Bitcoin 101, which again, important topic. Highly related to the “Countries Going Broke.”

Michael Horn: Well, I was going to say highly related to the notion of a reserve currency.

Diane Tavenner: Exactly, exactly. So I found those two things a really interesting pair. And then the last one is, you know how much I love the “Last Invention” podcast series. I thought it’s, it’s just incredibly well done. They do continue to add these fascinating, you know, episodes here and there, but that comes out of a group called the “Reflector” podcast who actually does all of these other topics. And I just listened to a three-part series titled “Strange Bedfellows When LGB Meet T.”

Michael Horn: Oh, interesting.

Diane Tavenner: And so good. It’s this historical look at the movement. It’s incredibly well done. The style design that I love and for me, very personal. Lots of people I love are LGBTQ and living it and it just gave me a lot of incredible insights and history and understanding and provocations and yeah, really fun.

Michael Horn: Super interesting.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: I’ll add that then to summer walk, dog walks, I guess.

What do I have? So I’m finishing up “Jump,” which is by Larry Miller. It’s the same. The story of — so he was on the Jordan Brand and Nike, and it’s his memoirs, effectively.

Diane Tavenner: OK.

Michael Horn: But he was someone who was incarcerated. He did some, you know, pretty awful things as a young man growing up in Philadelphia. Spent a couple times in jail, got his education while he was in jail, got a degree, and then ultimately an accounting degree from Temple, and then went on to have this incredible career. And it’s these reflections and frankly, also how he was dealing with this, like, ghosts in his past that no one knew about and he couldn’t talk about. And sort of. It’s a really interesting, like, reflection on human potential and how do we think about, you know, this in people.

Diane Tavenner: You were telling me about it last night, and I’m very curious.

Michael Horn: Yeah. And it’s a great — it’s a great audiobook.

Diane Tavenner: OK.

Michael Horn: So it’s very — it’s very lively.

Diane Tavenner: On my list.

Michael Horn: On your list. I’m doing a weird — so I was trying to read books out loud to my kids, because why not?

Diane Tavenner: Because they’re adorable, and it’s so fun.

Michael Horn: Yeah, well. But you don’t get the — I mean, because they’re just so racing ahead all the time, right? I don’t have a lot of opportunities. I was trying to do a couple Mark Twain books with them because I remember loving “A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court.” Here’s the takeaway: Really hard to read it out loud.

It’s really sort of funky.

Diane Tavenner: I was like, oh, interesting choice.

Michael Horn: But as a result, I’m reading all the Mark Twain books now, so to myself. And so, like, I know you’re gonna laugh. I don’t love fiction generally.

Diane Tavenner: No, you don’t.

Michael Horn: Nope. But I’m enjoying it. So we’ll see where it goes if I keep going through it. But I had this idea that I would culminate with the Ron Chernow biography of Mark Twain.

Diane Tavenner: Oh, my gosh. You be careful before you do that, Scott read it. Do you read how long that book? It’s long.

Michael Horn: Yeah.

Diane Tavenner: He was in that book forever. Yeah.

Michael Horn: The Ulysses S. Grant book was a long one that I read it by him as well.

Diane Tavenner: I mean, the level of detail about one person’s life, it’s extraordinary.

Michael Horn: OK, well, we’ll see if I do it or not, but maybe it’ll slow down my pace in books and I’ll have to watch more TV.

Diane Tavenner: You’ll come back next season and be like, I read one book.

Michael Horn: I read one book this summer. Yeah, no, it’s entirely possible, but those are the things at the moment on my list.

Diane Tavenner: That’s awesome. Yeah, I’m not adding that one to my list.

Michael Horn: Fair enough. Fair enough. I’ll commiserate with Scott afterwards. Huge gratitude, Diane. This has been a lot of fun this season. In some ways we’ve had a lot of fun throughout, but in some ways the most fun that I think I’ve had.

Diane Tavenner: So I agree. This is. We both do kind of a lot of sort of side gigs, volunteer, you know, middle of the night, passion project. But this definitely is very special.

Michael Horn: Huge thanks for all and huge thanks to our audience again because it does really fuel our curiosity and our desire to do this. And feedback keeps us going. Reminder. Subscribe Rate us.

Diane Tavenner: Yes.

Michael Horn: We forgot to say that up front.

Diane Tavenner: I know. Because we always forget to say it. We’ve never said it, but it turns out it does matter a little. And so if you can even take just 60 seconds to put five stars there and give us some of the feedback that you give us verbally or in writing, it helps a lot.

Michael Horn: And let’s also say thank yous to �� for continuing to distribute. Let’s say thank you to LearnerStudio for sponsoring the team Danny and Lindsay, who make this come to life at the moment. Really appreciate both of them. Both last names Curtis, but not related. And just huge thanks to everyone that makes this work.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah. Awesome. And with that …

Michael Horn: … and with that, we’ll see you next time on Class Disrupted.

This episode is sponsored by LearnerStudio.

Reed Hastings on What It Will Take for AI to Be Different From Other Ed Tech

Michael B. Horn and Diane Tavenner — Thu, 25 Jun 2026 17:30:00 +0000

In this episode of Class Disrupted, Netflix founder Reed Hastings joins Michael Horn and Diane Tavenner to discuss his decades-long journey through various chapters of education reform and how it’s shaped his view around artificial intelligence shaping the space. Reflecting on the slow progress and setbacks of past education initiatives, the episode dives into the potential of and urgency for harnessing AI for accelerated, mastery-based learning and global impact. Reed shared what he believes reinventing traditional classrooms means for edtech entrepreneurs.

Listen to the episode below. A full transcript follows.

Michael Horn: Remember how much fun it was to have Reed Hastings join us on Class Disrupted in the beginning of the season to dish on AI and education? So much fun that the ASU + GSV Summit said, why don’t you invite him back and let’s do it again. So that’s what we did. Six months later, Diane Tavenner and I welcomed Reed Hastings live on stage at the ASU + GSV Summit to talk AI, his different chapters in education, lessons he’s learned, and where he thinks the puck is going. Enjoy all of that on this episode of Class Disrupted live from the ASU + GSV Summit and sponsored by the Learner Studio.

Michael Horn: Welcome everyone to the Class Disrupted podcast. This is our seventh season doing it. Normally we are disembodied voices on a screen talking with each other and a guest, but tonight we’ve got a live audience and we want to thank the ASU + GSV Summit and all of the amazing staff that has put this on. Huge thanks for all of them. Please. And you are all here to make a lot of noise and make this fun, right? Diane?

Diane Tavenner: Indeed. That’s what we want, is a spirited conversation.

Michael Horn: So who do we’ve got on tap?

Diane Tavenner: Well, tonight, Michael, we have an incredible guest, someone we’ve talked to before, but it is time to do it again. We have Reed Hastings with us. And most people know Reed from Netflix. A lot of people know that he spent time in education. What you might not know is that for the last year, Reed’s been on the board of Anthropic. He’s done a deep, deep dive in AI, the recent version, and 40 years ago earned a master’s in AI.

Michael Horn: So Reed, you’ve also had a long set of experiences with education over the years. You were a Peace Corps member, teaching maths 40 some-odd years ago, I think. And 20 some-odd years ago, you were the chair of the California State Board of Education. A testing period, No Child Left Behind. You had this guy named Roy Romer in Los Angeles as the superintendent for some seven years. What did you learn from that period of time working in education?

Leadership changes in education systems

Reed Hastings: Well, that was a time of great hope. We had No Child Left Behind, Reading First, high school exit exams. We had an accountability system and I was really an administrator of that on the State Board of Education. And we worked hard on all the technical details and there was some real progress. And as you mentioned, Roy Romer was very successful as superintendent. He made it seven years in LA Unified as superintendent, set a record for that and put in a lot of great programs that really raised scores and achievement, learning. And the tragic thing was the next five years after that, I watched it all get dismantled, independent of its results. It sort of, you know, politically wasn’t in favor.

New administrations elected, they are like, get rid of the old guy stuff and let’s put in different stuff. And so that was true at the school district level and that was true at the state level. And it really woke me up to the hero syndrome we have. And whether it’s Tom Pazant’s great work in Boston now getting dismantled or Houston, Mike Miles is the hero today. And you know, watch what will happen in five or 10 years from now, because that’s where Rod Page was so great 40 years ago. Of course there was Joel Klein in New York that so many people worked hard on. So we see this cycle of rise and fall. And I have to say, for all the work that I did and all that state board, there’s very little to show for it.

Diane Tavenner: So in another chapter where we met, was in the charter world, and you’ve been on the board of KIPP national for 20 years now. You have supported countless of us who have been in the work throughout that time, you know, the City Fund. And this is a long-term strategy for you. What are you learning from charters?

Reed Hastings: Well, I would say charters haven’t failed, but they haven’t succeeded at driving up NAEP scores in the high charter states, say like Arizona, Texas, Florida. And of course unions have fought us to a draw in deep blue states and then in red states we’re able to grow and we’re investing in, again, Florida, Texas, Arizona, Georgia, so lots of states. But even, you know, after 20 years, we have a good success at the city level. So at the city level, it’s actually the only thing that’s driven citywide improvement for all kids is high charter share. So if you look, PPI did the graph, the scatter plot showing that cities with low charter share, Portland, Seattle, have had no improvement in closing the gap of achievement between poor kids and all kids over the last 25 years. And then you start walking up the cities that have 10% charter share, more improvement, 20, 30, 40, 50, like Newark, Camden. And then you get to New Orleans, which has the highest gap closure in the nation over the last 25 years. And of course that’s 100% charter.

So charter is still promising, but like grindingly hard and slow. Think trench warfare, but it hasn’t been reversed. OK, so a lot of positivity and I continue to be a huge donor in that space and continue to believe in it on maybe a half dozen boards of charter networks.

Michael Horn: So the third chapter that you then went in on an education is when I met you, 2010, the very first ASU GSV summit, you were there and you were getting involved in education technology, EdTech and DreamBox Learning, of course. And there’s been a whole wave, sort of cresting, if you will, with EdTech. What’s your take on that chapter?

Reed Hastings: Yeah, well, Rocketship was using DreamBox Learning, and I knew it through there, and I thought, OK, here’s a great opportunity to take this amazing software. And obviously computers transform everything. And so if we could just get some investment in DreamBox and get it bigger, it would surely transform both district schools and charters. And again, grindingly slow. Turns out that selling to school districts is really hard. The only thing harder is selling to charters because they’re small, so the money’s on the district side, but grindingly so. And then, you know, DreamBox was one of the early adaptive learning, you know, let kids go at their own pay systems.

But school districts kept telling us to turn that off, please, because they wanted to catch kids up to grade level, but they definitely didn’t want to get kids ahead because if the kid gets ahead, then they’re disruptive and bored in the class. So catching kids up to make the machine work better, very much valued. Letting kids get ahead, which sort of threw sand in the machine, not valued. And so it was an early lesson in sort of the depth and strength of the grammar of schooling that we have.

Diane Tavenner: So if I sum up these three chapters, state policy, district work, pop of success gets wiped away. Charters making progress haven’t failed, grindingly slow ed tech, no real discernible change yet. I know you’re not trying to depress us. I know you’re trying to help us know that you’re learning and still in the game, which we know you are. So let’s get back to AI. When’s it going to cure cancer? When is it going to figure out fusion so energy is free? When is it going to autonomously drive us all over the place so we don’t have to deal with parking lots anymore? When is it going to make our lives better?

Rapid AI advancements predictions

Reed Hastings: By the end of the summer? Predicting AI is tricky because it’s growing so fast in quality. You know, it was three years ago when ChatGPT came out and it could barely do third grade math. And now all of the major AI systems are very impressive and they’ll continue to improve. And what’s happening is we’re on one of these curves where it’s, let’s call it doubling every year in quality. So it will be twice as good as it is today a year from now, and then twice as good, and then twice as good and then twice as good. So whatever challenge you think AI is not up to, just wait a year. OK? And so that’s the amazing thing. And there’s no guarantee that the exponential will continue forever, but it has been the last several years and you know, it’s getting very, very impressive at many scenarios like the ones you talked about and many others.

So the amount of change that we’re going to see in our society, mostly positive, but there’ll be some negative, from AI getting better and better is hard to grasp because of this doubling, doubling, doubling. You know, just when you think we’ve got it like situated like how’s it going to work with society? Then it gets even better again. And so we’re in for the ride of our lives, both on the positive side. So curing cancer, energy, you know, abundance, these kinds of things and on the stress side of everything is different than it was when we grew up.

Michael Horn: Well, that’s the question I want to ask you because not only is there this anxiety and stress, as you know, people are also worried, will people get hurt as it gets better? And you know, you can imagine a myriad of ways that could play out. What’s your take on how do we prevent people from getting hurt?

Reed Hastings: Yeah, and I mean, again, that’s happened with some tragic cases of, you know, teens and suicide already. And look at the societal level, we make certain choices, sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly. And we tend to accept the choices that are already made for us and be scared, scared about new ones. But for example, you know, we lose 40,000 people a year to car accidents in the U.S. and about half a million globally. And if we just ban cars, you know, we wouldn’t have those deaths. OK, but we’re not willing to pay the price. So implicitly we’re making a trade off of 40,000 U.S. deaths a year. So I look at it and say, you know, is it as powerful as a car? And if it is, then I’m like, I know where society is in making those trade offs.

So I don’t want to pay that price. I don’t want to see 400,000 or 40,000 a year deaths. But I think when we get all excited about four deaths, we’re sort of losing perspective about the size of the prize and the other trade offs that we have and continue to make in society. So, you know, AI, I think will reduce deaths, and in particular with self-driving cars, that should be able to eliminate 90% of those 40,000 US deaths through self driving if we can get that adopted. OK, but then you see the story of the one Tesla death that happens. And again, that death’s tragic. I’m not trying to take away from it, of course, but in comparison to all the lives that self driving is already saving, it’s quite small.

Diane Tavenner: So let’s take that into education now, because one of the things that I love about you is that you keep learning and you stay in the work when a lot of people leave, and I know that there is a fourth chapter that is going to be written in your work and it’s going to involve AI. And so what does education look like in the age of AI? What does school look like in the age of AI? What does learning look like in the age of AI?

Improving education over the years

Reed Hastings: Yeah, but in my first 25 years, I’ve spent the time trying to do the better classroom, whether that’s from the state board level and testing and assessment, how do we make schools and classrooms better, whether that’s using ed tech like DreamBox Learning to make the classroom better. Charter schools, which have had some progress in making the classroom better. But it reminds me of the story about steam powered factories in the 1800s. So in the 1800s, all of our factories had a big steam plant that burned coal and rotated an engine. And then throughout the factory we had a rotating rod which carried power through the plant. And then we had belts and pulleys and wheels that then spun the individual looms or other machines. And these were highly developed, mechanized, and lots of belts and pulleys throughout the factory. You know, lot of productivity.

Then electricity comes and we replace the big steam engine with a big electric engine. And that saves some money. But real productivity of the factories didn’t change. And this puzzled economists for a long time. And then people started saying, hey, the power distribution system, all those pulleys and rods spinning, that’s the problem. And if we get rid of that and then go to individualized electric motors, so each loom has its own motor, then it can be designed sideways because the power is not all in one direction. Then it’s variable speed. You can turn off some motors and turn on other ones and all of these subtle effects.

Then we had a huge increase in factory productivity from basically using electricity the way it should be used in lots of small, relevant motors, rather than replace the one big motor. And I remember hearing that story and thinking, oh my gosh, that’s what’s happening in education. We’re putting tech into the classroom and the classroom, the sage on a stage, is the power distribution system. The sage on a stage is holding back technology from its natural effects and its ability to teach children directly. And we have to be brave enough to try to do school without sage on a stage at all. OK? To have all of school be learning individually, your daily lesson plan from the system executing.

Experimenting with individualized tutoring

Reed Hastings: We want to maintain the social development so the person in the classroom really becomes a social worker. They’re specializing in learning and emotional maturity and doing valor-type circles and these kinds of things. But the quote “education learning” stuff all becomes individualized where it’s mastery based learning. And the question is, how much more would kids learn? So one experimental way to get at this is to think about Bloom 40 years ago, and Bloom said two sigma improvement from individual tutoring, but it hasn’t been revalidated in a large scale way in a while. And, and so one of the projects we’re doing is funding that and you know, take 50 random kids, median kids in a median school, and give them a full year of the whole school day individual tutoring and try to figure out, OK, how much more do they learn? And so Ben Rosen, who’s here at the conference, runs Recess.gg, he’s running this project and recruiting tutors. And so let’s see, for second graders in the ideal condition, how much can they learn? What is the rate of learning of typical human 7 year olds? And I think we’re going to see it’s a whole lot faster than one grade level in one year, when again, completely individualized tutor, they can do everything moral and legal. They want to help the kid learn more in that year. All kinds of motivational things, all kinds of different teaching techniques.

But again, it’s one on one, dedicated. And you might say, well look, you know, that’s so expensive, $100,000 per kid per year. It’s ridiculous. And I would say that’s what it is now. But with AI, it gives all the AI developers a target of what they’re trying to do and how much more learning. And what we want the world to understand is, no, there really is twice as much learning that could be happening per day, per hour than today, because I suspect that we’ll find that it is twice as much, which roughly means by the time you get to eighth grade, you know as much as a typical high schooler today or by the time you get to 11th grade, you know, as much as the typical college student today. OK? Because of the time compression and the learning and the stimulation.

And that would lead to, you know, not just lifting the bottom, which of course it does, but just a tremendous revolution in the possibilities of the human brain. And there’s a positive example of this. So about 25 years ago, Deep Blue beat Garry Kasparov in chess. And from then on, AI chess has been better than human chess. And so you might think, well, everyone stopped playing chess and it’s kind of gotten irrelevant. But in fact, chess has grown. And now the typical 10 year old on Chess.com is scoring way higher than the 10 year olds of 20 years ago on a stable, vertically scored system. And what’s happening is the 10 year olds are getting tutored by AI and the 12 year olds and 14 year olds.

And so we’re seeing this rise in chess talent because they’re individually tutored by AI. And so that’s true for chess today and could be true for biology and history tomorrow.

Diane Tavenner: I know Michael has a lot of questions, but before we just move, hold, hold. Because I don’t want this to get lost. And I think people often get confused when we talk about the power of individual tutoring. And they think kids are going to be learning by themselves. And that is not what you’re saying here. I know that’s not what you’re saying.

Reed Hastings: A dark room, nothing there, locked in. We can reuse containers. No, you want all the social development that we have today. So it’s real.

Diane Tavenner: Because those chess kids are playing chess with other kids.

Reed Hastings: That’s right. And if you just take the chess, if you just take the school day and say the time that’s direct instruction, sage on the stage now becomes individualized tutoring. And all the play time and all the time that’s do a project together stays as that. And in fact you can be. The teachers can then focus on that aspect of the day. And again, social, emotional learning, we all know is important. But imagine if the teacher’s an expert in it and focuses on that because understanding and doing well on the stuff that’s tested is done by the software.

Diane Tavenner: And by the way, sage on the stage is a very lonely experience anyway, so let’s not pretend.

Michael Horn: Speaking from experience. Well, I was gonna say you’re gonna finally disrupt class, which I’m thrilled by, but yes. But I’m curious because I talk to a lot of ed tech entrepreneurs at this conference and elsewhere. What’s your advice to them? Because they do a lot of times what DreamBox did, right, which is sell to the existing system, the districts, the schools, the sage on the stage. What’s your advice to them?

Reed Hastings: Yeah, it’s a great point. The short term is if you want to make money selling to school districts, make teachers’ lives easier. OK, don’t worry about learning too much. But if you make teachers’ lives easier, you’ll sell well. If you want to change the world, focus on the homeschoolers. Focus on people who are able to go at their own pace and build systems that are individualized. And as the benefits of that are more and more clear, not meaning 5%, but meaning twice as much learning, school districts will move towards that.

Self-learning education technology

Reed Hastings: And so if you build that now, you’re skating to where the puck is going, which is this individualized education. And so think of it as trying to do the pure play where you don’t need a teacher. OK? It is the self driving car where most of the market is like the map in the car to help the human. OK? That’s where most of our ed tech is. And instead we need to build the self-driving car in terms of innovation, which is the self learning, self teaching. And again, the AI is getting better and better at the emotional motivation.

So when you, you know, the vast majority of people seeking therapy today are getting therapy from chat, not from waiting a week and going and seeing someone at 80 bucks an hour. It vastly expanded the market. And you can say, well, it’s uncertified and that’s all true, but it is satisfying to people and it’s not perfect in any way. It is getting better and better rapidly back to that doubling. OK? And so the understanding, the emotional nuance of humans is something that actually the software is, is quite good at and getting better.

Diane Tavenner: And we could talk for days and days about how this leads to agency and self direction and entrepreneurial spirit and when they’re getting what they need.

Reed Hastings: Yeah, once you learn how to learn from software and from the interaction, the world’s your oyster because then you go off and you want to do physics or you want to do history again, a lot of it is there.

Diane Tavenner: So before. Yeah, let’s take it to the world. So what does this mean to the world you are working globally? CJ is here in the audience with us. Tell us about your work in Africa.

Sharing AI education globally

Reed Hastings: Yeah, it’s one of the most exciting secondary effects of this AI revolution is it’s very shareable when we figure out good teaching practices like Success Academy or KIPP, it’s very hard to export that to a Brazilian or African context. But when you figure out tech, it’s very easy to share. So, you know, if you think of Kibera outside Nairobi, people live in, you know, hundred or thousand dollar homes, you know, a piece of corrugated tin compared to our, you know, half-million, million dollar homes. So it’s wildly different, right? But if you think of their phones, it runs basically the same operating system that we run, it’s the same apps. It’s like barely any different. And so if we can figure out software based AI teaching that really does all the work, we can share that with the entire world. And so the project that CJ’s leading is trying to figure out one tablet per child in Rwanda, which is a great test lab. If that works as we hope, we’ll do the hardware and operating system level, and various application developers in the U.S. will do amazing work there.

We’ll put those together, and we’ll see Rwanda rise to be the most successful education state, first in Africa, maybe in the world. And that will then prove at that point, which is the formula is really one tablet per child around the world.

Diane Tavenner: No pressure, CJ, no pressure. Number one in the world.

Michael Horn: We’re going to get all these people you’re working with, lots of attention out of this and so that we can multiply these efforts. Live from the ASU GSV Summit. Thank you, Reed, for joining us on Class Disrupted.

Disclosure: Reed Hastings was a founding board member of The City Fund, which provides financial support to ��.

This episode is sponsored by LearnerStudio.

The AI App Seeking to Scale ‘Magic’ in the Classroom

Michael B. Horn and Diane Tavenner — Fri, 22 May 2026 14:30:00 +0000

MagicSchool has emerged as a breakout artificial intelligence tool in education, with millions of teachers rapidly adopting it. But what’s behind that growth? How exactly does it use AI? And what does its adoption mean for teaching and learning? Its founder, Adeel Khan, joined Class Disrupted hosts Michael Horn and Diane Tavenner to go beyond the hype. Tavenner and Horn pushed for answers on the MagicSchool’s quality, privacy, and whether tools like this actually improve outcomes for students.

Listen to the episode below. A full transcript follows.

Diane Tavenner: Hey, Michael.

Michael Horn: Hey, Diane. It is good to see you. As always, it’s been fun because we’ve had this arc of really digging deep on AI with school models. And then we’ve been moving into the edtech tools that are starting to define a lot of current models, the new models we might see and so forth. And we’ve got another big one. Dare I say, for today, this is going to be a good conversation.

Diane Tavenner: I am very much looking forward to it and looking forward to digging in. But before we do that, we have a quick ask for all of our listeners. Will you all rate or review Class Disrupted, wherever you’re listening to it? And of course, please subscribe. We’ve never asked anyone to do this in seven seasons. And you know, this is — it turns out, this matters. So we’d really appreciate it if you would do that.

Michael Horn: Yes, we would appreciate it. And we know we get a lot of feedback from listeners. We certainly get a lot of emails, and texts and things of that nature. So we know y’all are listening, but we need to see it in the ratings, reviews and subscriptions as well. It helps other people find the information, too. As folks know, this is a passion project for us, and we want it to actually be influencing the conversation more broadly. So, look, we know we got a lot of folks tuning in from our great partners with ��, Substack, Apple, Spotify, YouTube, you name it, we know you’re out there.

But subscribe, rate us, leave us a comment, and we’ll just be appreciative for that.

Diane Tavenner: We will. And we will continue to be grateful for the direct feedback as well, because we use that. We take that in. And in fact, this conversation today is something folks have asked for. So we will not waste any more time.

Michael Horn: Yeah, no, it’s true. Well, I’m thrilled because we get to welcome Adeel Khan to the show, known obviously for MagicSchool. But before that — we’ll talk about MagicSchool in a moment — but Adeel worked as a teacher, assistant principal, founding principal for DSST, the Conservatory Green High School in Denver in 2017, and then left a few years — I think it was like three or four years in or something like that — to coach school heads. And my sense of — Adeel can correct me if I’m wrong on this — but my sense is, this wasn’t the calling.

A year later, I think it was, ChatGPT burst on the scene into people’s consciousness in November of 2022. And Adeel says, there’s something here. This can revolutionize the teaching experience and you know, quickly sees like, hey, teachers aren’t going to figure out how to use this productively. Let’s help them do that. Builds MagicSchool and it takes off like a rock rocket. No exaggeration. I think over 7 million teachers now use it. That number’s probably out of date.

As I say. It partnered with more than 10,000 schools and districts, I believe over 160 countries. So we’ve got a lot to dig in here. The use cases are broad. But Adeel first, welcome. It is great to see you again.

Adeel Khan: Thanks Michael. It’s great to see you too. And Diane, pumped to be on the podcast today, and thanks for the kind introduction. Mostly accurate.

Michael Horn: What did I miss? Yeah, what did I miss?

Adeel Khan: You got, you got it mostly there. I think certainly when I got to coach principals, I didn’t, it wasn’t my favorite thing in the world. Not because it wasn’t a great opportunity. I worked on a great team, and principals need support. But rather, I think, when I was founding my school and building it, I thought, you know, if you’d have asked me if I had the most important job in the world, I would have answered yes. And I just missed that feeling. I didn’t have that kind of builder-chasing, really ambitious feeling when I was in that new role. And it’s sometimes good to know that about yourself, right.

I think that like sometimes trying something and knowing that you know where you are because, you know, in some sense at the end of my principal career and seeing the graduates in the first class of seniors, as I kind of built the full school out, I was exhausted. Right. And sometimes you think about, you know, what’s the other side like, you know, and you know, being an advisor sounds less intense than being in a school building every day and you know, chase this big dream and, and then, you know, knowing what the other side was like, I was like, oh no, some people are wired for this. Right? Being in the builder seat and being… I learned that about myself. And even when things get hard today, and they do, we have a lot of challenges. I know that this is what I want to be doing and, and I would be, you know, I wouldn’t be as… there’s no grasses greener thoughts anymore. Even when those seep in, I’m like, nope. I know this is the thing.

Even when it is, I’m in my most trustful habit.

Michael Horn: So I’m really, I love it because you’re willing to make the trade offs for the thing you really want. And obviously we hope all our young people start to grow that same muscle, right, in their lives.

Diane Tavenner: That’s the work I’m doing right now. So it’s an inspiring story.

Michael Horn: Well, I was going to say. Right, so like we have two, you know, Diane, Adeel, you know, founding school heads become founding ed tech company CEOs. I think the story of the founding story of MagicSchool is somewhat well known, but maybe what’s less known, Adeel, is how you think about the problem that you’re actually solving both originally and today because you all have expanded your scope quite a bit. But let’s start at the outset itself because I think your framing tells us a lot about why you grew so quickly. So, you know, how do you describe what MagicSchool first solved for teachers and why that approach was so important at the time it came out?

Challenges using general AI tools in education

Adeel Khan: Yeah, so I think that there’s a part where there’s maybe a little revision on the way you describe the problem that I found, which was not that I didn’t think teachers would be capable of figuring out how to use this and use it productively, it was that the tool itself was a general purpose tool. It wasn’t built specifically for the domain and therefore it was clunky to use. And you know, at that time even really good prompting didn’t yield a really good result for teachers. It feels like, you know, ancient history that you had to have massive prompts for like an LLM to understand what you really meant in the prompt. But at that time it really was, so if you were prompting ChatGPT, it was like you could get something quality, but your prompt had to be a page long for it to really understand your context, really understand the format of your output, just all those different things. And if teachers were going to use it right away, we had to do some of that work to get them to a magic moment with the technology. A lot of teachers would report to me when I was training them on ChatGPT, which is kind of the way the product idea started was, you know, I was prompting it so much, it wasn’t saving me time, it was costing me time.

So there was like kind of a really acute prompt of, you know, promise that this has an opportunity to assist you, save you time and also make you more efficient, augment your abilities. But it’s not working for you right now or the vast majority of teachers in that moment. But I think of it as, you know, when I started thinking about building the product, it started with I actually thought I might be training teachers on ChatGPT, and that just didn’t work. I like, experimented with it. I went to my school and teachers didn’t really adhere to the product. So I was like, there’s got to be a better answer to this. I was savvy enough to kind of be looking around to see, like, you know, products that were coming out that were generative AI products. And they were like this first set of products that were hitting the market.

There was like Harvey, which was like AI for lawyers. I remember that really vividly. And I don’t think they even had a live product, but it was like announced as a product, and they’d gotten some funding, and there were news stories about it. And I was like, oh yeah, there’s going to be an AI that is made for each kind of profession. And that makes sense because each profession has its own quirks. It has its own domain knowledge, it has its own workflows, it has all these things that are specific to that industry. And a generalized alternative language model isn’t going to be the answer for every single one. So that was kind of the clear vision from the start, is we make a really domain-specific, intimate product for teachers.

And the products evolved a ton since then, but that core of it was like, it’s going to be really domain specific. Even in those early days, I thought to myself, we’re going to make some tools in this platform that if you’ve never worked in a K12 school, you would have no idea what that even means. Like, that was kind of my bar for myself is like, I want it to be so intimate, so clearly made for teachers that they scroll through that initial dashboard of tools and they see a couple things and they say, you know what? Somebody who’s worked in schools like, built this. I still hear that today. And it’s one of the things that brings me the most pride. Teachers don’t necessarily get built products that are so clearly intimate for them and know their work. And that’s what we hope to do and continue to do with the platform.

Exploring MagicSchool’s AI features

Diane Tavenner: This is such a good place to jump in because one of the things Michael and I are doing this season is trying to help people see how AI is truly being used in schools like today. And so building off that origin story and where you started and where it is today, I mean, let’s get into like how MagicSchool actually works and what, where the AI is in it. And, you know, this is the moment we get to kind of nerd out, which is fun. It sounds like you’re, you’re in that space too. Like, just to give people some context: When you enter as a teacher, it seems like there’s basically three big categories of support, teacher tools, writing feedback, and Raina the chat bot. And so, and then when I look at the list of teacher tools, you’re right, I open that up, I’m like, oh my gosh, there’s like 75ish tools. And we’re getting everything from like a worksheet generator to report card comments, unit plan generator, standards unpacker, IEP generator, quote of the day, classroom management plans and even tongue twister, you know, so like help us unpack.

Like literally what’s going on here in this tools section? How’s AI? What is the role of AI and what, how are teachers using this?

Adeel Khan: So one thing that I think MagicSchool does exceptionally well as a product is, while there’s a breadth of tools and sometimes we get the feedback that it’s overwhelming, it’s like this tension we feel between it being overwhelming and also really familiar for teachers. Like, I’ve gotten that feedback since the very start and I always hesitate to like change the UI or make some meaningful shifts there because it has kind of become our calling card that we’re this like list of teacher terms almost. Right. The UI itself has been replicated by 20 other products at this point because of work. Right. It’s like, you know when you say AI to maybe a skeptical teacher or a teacher who’s like, technology’s not actually been a meaningful part of their story in the classroom, or a teacher who’s maybe been sold on technology being a really big opportunity for them, and they’ve been burned. And there’s all kinds of reasons why teachers and technology have not gotten along particularly well.

I will be clear. I was not somebody who like, as a principal, saw incredible value in technology. My school didn’t subscribe to any boxed curriculum-type technology tools or platforms. We built all of our own, internal. We built all of our own curriculum. We didn’t subscribe to a single ed tech product outside of the LMS that we used. And that was a kind of a requirement. And the reason was mostly because I just didn’t know that they were going to drive outcomes for our kids. And it was an outcomes-oriented principle.

I wanted to make sure our kids’ literacy and MAD scores and their SAT scores were like, that was, kind of our focus was preparing them for college. And I wasn’t sure that any of the tools out there would make a difference. And I might have been just wrong. Like, you know, maybe they just weren’t in my world. And there’s some great tools out there, I’ve learned since joining the ed tech world. But nonetheless, I think there is that skepticism amongst folks, and there are tools that have come to schools and have done just about nothing. I mean, everyone who’s worked in a school district or building will tell you, like, remember two years ago, that initiative we had? What happened?

That is just like a common story, like a new curriculum that’s going to revolutionize the way that you teach and can completely, all those kids that are behind your class, they’re going to catch up in a year. Or here’s a new tech tool that is promising to do this. So there’s all this baggage around, like products that come into schools. And the baggage often is, I invested so much time and energy in implementing this thing, and I don’t know how much value I actually got out of it, and then the district gave it up in two years. Like, you know, like, there’s like frustration here. So if you think about MagicSchool coming in, like really novice, you know, founder — me, I was just like, let’s get people to value really quickly, right? Like, let’s just get them into what this thing can do so it’s believable.

Using generative AI in education

Adeel Khan: So you jump into MagicSchool, you see the rubric generator, you click on it, it asks you some pretty simple like form fill up type questions like, you know, what we’re going to do attach the document maybe of the assignment you’re going to be assessing with this rubric. All very simple, super easy to use. And then you click the generate button, and you get a rubric that looks like a rubric. It’s what you expect it to be. It works the way you want it to work. It meets your expectations. Whereas like at the, at the, you know, in early days, ChatGPT and even still today, like it’s even the simple friction of if you went into a regular chatbot and you tried to build a rubric, of course you could, but like, you’d have to type in like four sentences.

I want a rubric. It’s gotta be six columns. It’s gotta be, you know, like making sure a boxed format. And then like, you know, you do it and then it, then the LLM will respond something like, oh, did you, you forgot this detail? Can you give me this detail? Wait, wait, what? Like I just gave you, like, it’s a frustrating experience for somebody who was told this is gonna save them time. And I have to know funky things about prompting nonetheless, like, that’s delight. A rubric generator that gives you a rubric is like a zero time-to-value, incredible experience for the actual. I see how this is going to be really helpful to me in my daily work. And the flywheel it creates is also a secondary value because if generative AI can do this for me, then what else can it do for me? And we have a chatbot on the platform Raina that is just like a ChatGPT but built for education with a couple, you know, bells and whistles and education-focused context. And if you use that, like, if you know that, you know, MagicSchool could create a rubric for you.

No, we’re not hiding the ball here. Like, you know, what’s happening is there’s a prompt, there’s inputs, it’s coming out with something. You know, you can probably prompt Reina and do something completely original or new, but you need to be able to see the value first for you to be really sucked into it. And like, I think an amazing job of getting people in the door with something really low stakes that should like, turns out to be really high quality, saves you a bunch of time and makes you want to use the platform more. It makes you want to think about, okay, what are the other tools? If it did this thing for me, what else can it do for me? And I think that’s the way that we see the flywheel start. We think about the user.

They start with these really simple tools. They might graduate into their own free form prompts and Raina and trying things. And then they might decide to use an agentic workflow like our class writing feedback tool, connect their Google Drive and have writing feedback dropped on each of their documents. Then they might want to think about, well, if I’m using this in my work and it’s really valuable, it’s helping be a thought partner to me. I wonder if it would be helpful for my students typically. So then we —

Diane Tavenner: Yeah, super helpful to understand your thinking and your flow, and it seems like that is working. Let’s go back and nerd out a little bit on the rubric generator. So where…? What happens when they type that simple thing in? Like, how are you using AI literally? What’s going on behind the scenes there? And as a person who’s written a lot of rubrics in my life, used a lot of rubrics in my life, like, how do I know that’s a good rubric and, like, what’s going on behind the scenes and under the hood?

Adeel Khan: Yeah. So great question. When MagicSchool started, it was just a prompt. It was like me with a prompt in the background. I had created rubrics as an English teacher in my life, and the best instructions I could give, and the judge was me. Like I was whether or not the quality was high enough or, you know, would meet my standards. And then it was a group of users who were doing the same things upon using it.

Diane Tavenner: And you’re prompting one of the big LLMs, essentially.

Improving model quality and selection

Adeel Khan: That’s two and a half years ago. So just know that’s like, it’s radically, radically different. So today we have a trust, safety and quality team, running our own evaluations on the platform. We have pedagogical experts on the team who are reviewing poor quality. So there’s a human part of it. Then there’s a thing called LLMs as a judge. Some of our evaluations are using models like Claude to judge the quality of the rubric. I was actually on a panel yesterday with one of the, a teammate, one of the teammates at Anthropic, his name is Nirob, and he was, he was naming that, you know, Claude itself at this point is probably the level of like a PhD in domain.

So, you know, you can have Claude, a PhD in a domain, almost, nearly, and getting better every day, judge the quality of the rubric too, and then iterate on the prompt model we’re using and change those things out. So we actually have, we have a wildly more complex version of judging for quality internally now. And it’s a combination of like LLM as a judge, human in the loop, user feedback on the platform. And then when new models come out, we are, on a regular basis, once every week or two, we’re saying, is this new model better performing against our criteria? And so each one of those essentially roll up to a score, and we have a score that determines whether or not this model can exist in the platform. And sometimes, you know, if it’s a 94 from one model and a 95 from one model, but one model is like one tenth the cost, we will choose the one that’s a little bit cheaper because we have to keep our platform affordable for schools. The vast majority of them, we’re able to say the absolute best output is the one that we go with, but they’re judged across a lot of different quality markers now to ensure that the output is something that we can stand behind.

Diane Tavenner: So just so I make sure I’m understanding. When I go in there and I pick a teacher tool, like, I think it’s report card feedback or something like that, you all have kind of established what good report card — the elements of good report card feedback. And then you’ve created prompts that are prompting the LLMs to do that. And then you’ve gone through and tested those responses to make sure that their quality. Because literally the humans aren’t testing while I’m the teacher here asking for that. You know, it comes back like that. Right? So.

So you just have confidence in those responses I’m getting?

Adeel Khan: Yeah. So, yeah, we’re essentially running out, like, hundreds of queries against them and then judging queries and then orienting around what the best kind of set of all of those variables. What’s the best prompt? What’s the best model? What’s the best output?

Diane Tavenner: Okay, got it. Now help me understand, like, that rubric. So now, like, I’m a teacher in my classroom, it’s often been standard that the teacher, sort of in their classroom, doing their thing, using their own rubric. How do you think about it from, like, your principal seat, like, the whole school? So, I mean, you know, for example, when I was leading schools, we built a longitudinal rubric that, you know, over time, the kids were — and so one of the things, as I play with MagicSchool, I’m like, oh, what’s the bigger picture here? You know, what’s the — what’s the high school arc? Or what’s the whole arc? And is this kind of more of an activity in my classroom base? Or is it the full big picture, the backward planned approach? How do you think about those things?

Adeel Khan: Yeah, it’s a really great question right now. I think that MagicSchool’s teacher side is best judged as kind of an assistant that helps you in the moment that you need it in your daily classroom activities. You can use Reina as a thought partner when you’re struggling with something or a Chatbot, you could, you know, really build out, like, a full, like, unit, then the subsets of lessons and like a generative thread, all the tools are threaded. So, for example, if you started with the unit plane generator, you could then say, build me the first lesson in this unit. It keeps context of that entire thread, and you could give it, like, input about, hey, my students performed this way on it. Can you generate the next lesson with that context? And you could do it that way.

But transparently, few people do. Right? Like, it’s really like, they come in, they kind of get what they need, and they keep going, we want to move toward more of what you’re describing, which is like, hey, the entire cycle is brought through in the platform. You give the platform your intent, and you keep these really rich threads with memory, context and knowledge of your classroom. So, we’re moving toward where you can kind of have the entire context of the classroom experience built in the platform. One of the key components of that is assessment.

Building personalized learning assessments

Adeel Khan: Like if the platform understands how your students did on their assessment, say for example today you could build an assignment in MagicSchool and you could, you could actually, you could build an assessment in MagicSchool. It could be taken by your students in MagicSchool. The results of that assessment could produce some really interesting insights about how they performed against the standard. And you could then create a material based on that assessment. So that’s where we think it’s going, is that hey, you’re going to build things based on the assessment results that take into context your students areas of strength and areas of growth based on the insights that are in aggregate across those folks who took the assessment. And you can imagine that there’s even more you can do, right? Like there’s on the student side, on an individual level, if you had assessment data about a child and you also had them taking assessments in the platform, you had them doing activities in the platform, you could trace a student’s personalized learning profile that understood kind of their academic needs. It could be continually updated with memory around the way that they interact with a platform. Not just from their academic strengths and how they’re growing, but also their stylistic preferences, their post secondary desires.

And you could really make these incredible persistent learning experiences for students that they always can tap into that’s associated with a really rich profile to serve them right in their zoning proximal development and in a style and in a way that they will engage and learn more.

Michael Horn: I’m curious off that just because that, that like becomes a very big vision, right, that shapes around the student how starting from like a teacher workflow, right to like the student life cycle almost, if you will, how much do you need to know and collect about individual students and how much do you need to know about the specific? Like take the assessment question, right, like, so I’m going to give feedback on you’re grappling with a particular poem or a book or something like that. How much does the model then need to get trained not just on the teacher rubric, but actually on the content itself as opposed to just the standard, which is probably a higher-level statement of ability to do X. But ability to do X in one context might be very different from another. So like, just help us think through the scope of that, of getting to that vision you just painted.

Adeel Khan: Yeah, it’s a really good question. I mean, we are at the early stages of understanding how this will work without student data. But as we build so one of the things that we are doing or in the planning process of getting some of these ideas off the ground, there is a really interesting process where you can kind of use LLM agents as sample students and then you can also assess the quality of their interactions with the platform based on specific profiles that you create for the AI agents. And then you can kind of get a really good data set on what you’re describing, Michael, is like, is it working? Is it actually meeting your needs? Or is that student who’s an agent who has the stylistic preference around visuals for their needs. That’s the way that they learn best. Or audio is the way they learn best. Their reading level or their reading test score diagnostic was this.

And this is what that means. You can kind of create all these profiles individually and then you can run them against the interactions they have with the platform and then you can judge how high quality the interaction is on the platform with like an external observer. So, like, almost similar to where I described that LLM as a judge, the judge can actually judge the experience.

So you can think of it as almost like a principal judge. Right? There’s a principal who’s an agent who’s watching the AI interacting with the student and determining is that a high quality interaction or not based on the child’s profile, based on what I know about what high quality instruction looks like. So you can start building these kinds of recursive loops and running them hundreds of times and get to some pretty, pretty impressive verifiable outcomes pretty quickly. And of course, you know, AI is not kids. And they’re not going to be perfect.

Michael Horn: AI is not going to act out for —

Adeel Khan: Yeah, yeah, yeah. So I don’t want to, you know, kind of anthropomorphize that this actually is the answer, that we can simulate everything through generative AI. But it’s a great way to like in a, in a basic sense feel like, okay, it works in a simulation. And then when we bring it to students and we work through the pilots and we see schools and districts who embrace this, then we can see it in action. We can combine those insights with the insights we got from our simulated experiences and make something that we think is really powerful. Some of those generative experiences, we’re going to be starting this summer in summer school with some partner districts to see how it works in practice and is it actually the needs of the kids. And we’re going to use that data as data to inform the product as it gets into more live cadence.

Diane Tavenner: You just said so many interesting things in there. Like, I am of like five minds right now. Where what thread do I want to pull? But let me pull on the one, because you started by saying, like, we’re playing with what we can do without student data in there. And best I can tell, based on my experience in MagicSchool you’re not connected to an SIS or anything like that. So you’re not pulling in any data as the teacher around your students. That said, I did create, I did use the IEP generator and I generated an IEP and I, you know, I, look, I didn’t do it on a real student, obviously. I’ve got like 25 years of experience. So I sort of built a proposed persona in my head and like input the information.

Discussing AI-generated IEPs and privacy

Diane Tavenner: And I will say I was like, kind of blown away that a fully formed, detailed, and dare I say, very confident IEP like, came out. You know, and at first I was like, oh my gosh. And it looked like an IEP that you would kind of read in a school sort of thing as I was skimming it. Then I started like really digging it, and I was like, oh, as someone with 25 years of experience, like, this is not the IEP I would have written necessarily because I, in my mind, you know, the kids I’m thinking about, like, I have intimate details and I’m like, wait, that feels a little, it felt a little AI-ish, right? Like sometimes AI gives you really, like, seems like compelling results, but they’re not very specific or personalized or whatnot. And so that was one thing I was curious about. Like, how do you think about some of the tools that are like that and, and how they get used? And like, I was thinking I’m a first-year teacher, and I use that, and I don’t have 25 years of experience. Like, can I? How do I do that? And then the second piece is you’re out with teachers, like, do they just pour a lot of information about kids into the platform? And I’m sure you get a lot of questions about privacy and security and, like, what’s going on there?

So I’m curious about those two angles.

Adeel Khan: Yeah. So I mean, we do a lot of professional development. I’ll start with the second one. We do a lot of professional development around making sure that teachers do not share information that could be sensitive into the platform. So there’s upfront training in that tool you used, actually, you’d see that like it actually actively reminds you in the tool itself to not, because that’s a tool that’s more susceptible for you to maybe submit accidentally that data. Of course, if any data is brought to our attention that was submitted to the platform, those PII, we remove it immediately.

And we have incredible data handling practices, and safe things are all available on our website. So we’ve done a lot of things to make sure that schools and districts can trust us. And so that’s certainly something that we consider. And we just think training and enabling teachers is the best way to prevent that stuff. Because even if MagicSchool has really great data handling practices and is kept safe, like they might bring it to another platform and you know, we want them to know how to use our AI, but also any generative AI and keeping student data safe is incredibly important when you’re using these tools.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Adeel Khan: Second part, Diane, I think is really interesting. So I was a special education teacher too. So for me, I can think back to when I was a novice teacher, and MagicSchool would have been a godsend for me. The IEP would have prevented me from being anxious. I probably would have helped me save a lot of late nights, and it would have made me feel like I had real strategies to support kids because, you know, it’s a good point. So, so your question, I think I might challenge this. Like you presented it almost as like a fear that they’re not 25 years, so maybe they’re just taking this robotic IEP that’s not as good as the high-quality, 25-year IEP. I want you to know that like I’ve been a principal reviewing IEPs and I have seen teacher wonderful, hard-working teachers Submit IDPs with the wrong names in them because they were just copying goals and pasting goals from student to another because they were just trying to get it in by the deadline.

Right? Wonderful, hard-working, incredible teachers. So do I believe the world has gotten better because of MagicSchool’s IEP generator? Yes, it has. The floor has been raised because there are actual, because now the barrier is you understanding the student and getting some, some high-quality things and you know, even a novice teacher will see the goals and at least they have, they know how to write goals now.

I didn’t know how to write right, like, and I didn’t necessarily have someone to go to to help me write those goals. So I would say net MagicSchools raised the board dramatically for the way an IEP is written. I think a family would be much happier to see a MagicSchool-written IEP than the ones that I was editing, if I’m being totally honest. And it’s again, not because teachers aren’t wildly hardworking and talented. It’s because there is no time. And so I think that’s kind of the reality now. In an ideal circumstance, you know, they have a really great draft and they have an instructional coach like you, who they can go to and say, what do you think about these things? And like, you know, they can question and challenge them and push them and make them even higher quality.

But I do think that, like, sometimes we miss the reality of what happens in schools when we were critical of the tools that teachers are using to better their practice. And sometimes we just need to trust teachers. Like, in that case, I’m like, actually, I even trust the first- and second-year teacher to use this appropriately. And especially if they’re educated and they’re told, like, the way to use it, not to submit appropriately private information, things like that. But I always challenge people is like, yes, you know, people, we have schools and districts that hide the IEP generator because they’re so scared of it. And you know, we respect anyone’s decision on what they want to do and they’re allowed to do that and like, you know, our enterprise product and then we support them in doing that. But I, on a personal level, I always challenge them. I say, like, look, like, ask your assistant principals who are reviewing IEPs.

Yeah, they see, are they, are they higher quality because you took this tool away or are they higher quality when MagicSchool is in the loop? I think that’s like the question to ask is what’s the before and the after rather than like, what’s the ideal? Right. You want the ideal. But I think that there is like a, this go between. I think it is super strong. And I think that the tools are getting even better over time. And I think that the better the context that you share with it, the better it’ll do of course.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah, that makes sense. And I think I understand the perspective that you’re coming from and certainly your lived experience. And I do think sometimes people, you know, have an idea of what is happening in school versus a reality of what is happening in school. And so I appreciate that. I was also really tuned into you saying that as a school leader, you all developed your own curriculum. That was my reality too. You know, we ended up building curriculum, we ended up building Summit Learning, which was like a whole massive curriculum. And so I’m wondering how.

But a lot of schools have adopted curriculum, as you know, how do you recommend that teachers sort of deal with the world of like, I have an HQIM that I’m given by my school and I want to use MagicSchool. How do those two things play together? Or do they, or what does that look like?

Adeel Khan: Yeah, I think that, you know, again, lived reality of an HQIM in a district. I’ve lived in that reality as well. We didn’t box any curriculum, but sometimes we would get for a certain subject we would have like, you know, free prep lesson plans or whatever it might be. And I think the lived reality of those things are teachers are always modifying, changing, supplementing, making those things work for their classes. And that’s good. So I think that that’s what we’ve encouraged them to do is like, yeah, keep the spirit of what your school wants you to do. And obviously there’s a research base behind the curriculum that you’re using, hopefully, and we want to be a great supplement to that. We want to make sure that you’re able to build the supplementary materials that you need to make sure your class functions and works.

Integrating curriculum with MagicSchool

Adeel Khan: And MagicSchool could be used alongside those things. There’s a world where we build knowledge into our platform so the schools and districts can upload things like standards, curriculum they’ve built internally that are not like, you know, copyright by the publisher. And there’s a world where we partner with publishers too, and we bring those knowledge bases into our platform and call them as well. And as you’d imagine, those publishers aren’t super excited to work with large language models because this is like their proprietary IP. And nonetheless, I think that like, you know, we think that there’s a future where there’s kind of a win-win for both of us in a world where teachers are finding that they’re starting their day with MagicSchool, and it’d be really convenient if they can pull in some of that information and make those curricula more flexible with generative language models. But yeah, I support that. I’m also, I think a lot about curriculum and I make spicy posts on curriculum on my LinkedIn, if you haven’t seen them. There are a couple curriculums that are incredible and obviously they’ve driven meaningful outcomes for kids.

And I don’t think they’re all that way. To be clear. I don’t think they’re all super research based. I think that a lot of them are not particularly valuable and I think, I don’t think. I know a lot of teachers hate being put in a box. They hate having to be told that you can’t be autonomous in your classroom. You must follow the script because the script is better than anything you would create.

Which is like the, not the intended message, but the unintended message that a teacher might receive when receiving certain curriculum. And of course they’re the teacher’s love. Right? Like they tell you, no, this thing’s amazing. It’s changed my classroom. So not painting with a broad brush. There’s also like really amazing ones. I will say that my lived experience has shared that like if you trust teachers to go find the right resources and give them the tools to do that and know their kids and coach them really well, you can get really extraordinary outcomes. Mind you, most of my experience is secondary, but we have incredible results for our kids.

We served a highness population and had dramatic growth. And so that’s my own experience. So I don’t know. I think that there’s a little bit of like, I would not call myself as a personal. Like on a personal level. I do not ascribe to the Church of Box curriculum. That is not my ministry as we used to call it in Atlanta.

So do I think there’s really good stuff out there? Absolutely. It’s not my ministry. I just teach it.

Diane Tavenner: That makes sense. Clearly you are outcomes driven. I know that based on the school that you started and all the language you’re using here. How do you think about — how do you now at MagicSchool think about what outcomes your — how do you hold — what’s your bar? What are your goals? Like what are your outcomes that you want MagicSchool to drive to and how do you measure them?

Adeel Khan: So there are a couple ways that we’re thinking about this. So outcomes are at the heart of our mission. We have named goals in our company about how we are going to drive student outcomes in classrooms. Right now, the way that looks in our platform is the amount of what we would call feedback delivered to students. So generally what we’ve seen in the first two years of the product is that like the things that we, that teachers have said have driven growth, the experiments we’ve set up or have not set up we’ve just been reported are that when students get things like feedback on their writing that they’ve done on their own aligned with rubric in the platform, that is powerful. That is something that drives an alchemy classroom.

Measuring feedback and student outcomes

Adeel Khan: We have actual classrooms that have shown state exam scores change over those things. We have enough data to say that like when MagicSchool gives student feedback that teachers is controlling and aligning to a rubric or the way that they’ll assess students, that’s a great thing. So we measure right now how many instances of feedback is MagicSchool giving to a child under the supervision of their teacher through either our assessment platform in the product which gives students just in time feedback after they take an assessment, or in their feedback portion of the platform where they tune in. So those to us are pretty hard. Like we don’t kind of look at it as like hey, you talk to a chatbot, so you learned. Like, that’s not enough for us to kind of count and like our something that we think is definitely going to drive an outcome. It certainly might drive AI literacy and we certainly think about that measure as well. But in terms of outcomes, that’s the way we think about it now.

Well, where we want to go is we want to be able to probably say that students have learned and judge it in the platform itself. So one of the ways we might do that is through having a diagnostic assessment students taking the beginning of the year and then at the end of the year or tracking timing platform as we have more persistent student profiles in the platform and simply asking the district to themselves compare their users data which students spent the most time in platform and how much did they grow and then just give us a report back. There’s ways that we can kind of say it’s not a perfect correlation, but if students are spending more time in the platform and they’re getting better results at the end of the year, they’re growing more than their peers. That’s usually a pretty good indicator to us. There’s an experiment that was run unbeknownst to us in our first year. I actually shared this on a panel yesterday. I was at South by Southwest.

But I think it’s a powerful example and I think what a lot of organizations are doing around generative AI around the world and I actually think this is fun because a school district was ahead of enterprises, they’re ahead of companies in the way that they’re thinking about generative AI and our first year that we had a real enterprise product was 2024 to 2025 or 2023. Our first partner, which you imagine our very first partner at MagicSchool would be pretty innovative. And they certainly were as Aurora Public Schools, one of our very first ones. At the end of their first year using MagicSchool, they got a printout of their MGP scores at the district level. MGP in Colorado is basically like a growth score that is associated with each teacher in the district based on their state exam scores. Their grade has a high stakes exam. So the district quite literally gets a list of all the teachers who had the highest growth in order of like this calculated growth score. So they kind of have like which teachers are having the best results in their classroom.

It’s pretty sophisticated calculation. It tracks like based what was their expected growth based on their prior year’s performance to this year’s performance. It’s a pretty solid number. Like at the end of the day it’s like the kids actually grew and, and it’s based on some pretty hard metrics. What they did was that they liked the way the story is told, is the academic, one of the assistant superintendents called the technology director and said, I have all the teachers who have the highest scores or the highest MGP scores in the district. Can you pull up MagicSchools our user dashboard which shows which teachers are using it the most? And they said like one for one. It was like best growth scores were in the top 20 users, best growth scores, best users.

Using AI to boost engineering productivity

Adeel Khan: So the way industry is doing this now, what we’re doing at MagicSchool is we, we have an enterprise version of Claude that our employees use and where we have a real big focus on like agent decoding for our engineers to move faster and ship with more velocity, build a lot of really amazing things for our users. And one way we’re measuring the efficacy of generative AI right now is we’re looking at our leaderboard, like, which engineers are using the most tokens in our version of that enterprise dashboard? And then we’re asking the managers, would you call that your highest performer? Like, is that engineer who also is using the most tokens in Claude performing better? Are they shipping more? Are they meeting the goals that you’ve set for your team in a better way because they’re using AI more? And if the answer is no, then we need to rethink about is generative AI actually helpful? But if the answer is yes, then we need to spotlight that engineer and we need to have that engineer teach the other engineers how they’re using it and how it’s making them more productive. And Aurora was doing the exact same thing two years ago. So I think it’s a really, really cool way to think about how this is actually amplifying productivity in a meaningful way.

Michael Horn: Adeel, I think that’s a good place to leave the conversation for now. I appreciate how much you’ve geeked out with us, and also I appreciate that you’ve told us where it is now and where your sort of vision for it is. As you know, a lot of entrepreneurs, they sell the future/present as one package as opposed to distinguishing the two. So I appreciate that in this conversation as well. Before we move to our last segment, as listeners know…

And with that we’ll move to our last conversation, which is it’s just a fun segment we’ve had and people track this and so forth, Adeel on LinkedIn and believe it or not, about things that we’ve been watching, listening or viewing and would love to hear something that you’ve been tuning into what’s either on your bedside table or on your playlist.

Adeel Khan: I think I’ll go with a Netflix show. So it took me quite a long time to get to it, but I finally watched just finished the last season of Stranger Things, which I was late to the party yard in the first place but kind of binged it a few years ago. And so I was eagerly anticipating the final season. None of it got spoiled for me and I got to watch the whole thing and it was delightful. So I felt like I wrapped the bow on a really special I feel Stranger Things is so awesome if you guys have seen it, but I feel like it’s such a special cultural phenomenon that everyone kind of experienced together and watched together. So that was mine. Speaking of a new show. So excited to hear from you guys.

Diane Tavenner: Well, I’m not going to give you a show today. I apologize. I’m gonna give you a book. It’s a little bit ironic to have AI books, I think, but this one feels special to me. So it’s called Co-Intelligence Living and Working with AI by Ethan Mollick. And I will say, when it arrived, my kiddo who works on the models said, oh, that’s perfect for people like you. I was like, what do you mean? He’s like, you know, for, for regular people who don’t understand what we’re actually doing, but, like, have some sense of it. And it’s really useful for kind of who are really trying to make sense of AI and world and what that looks like.

And that’s what it feels like to me. And so it’s, you know, I’m not telling you anything new by sharing this book with you, you know, a bestseller. But it is, it’s short and it’s thoughtful and I think useful for anyone who’s really trying to grapple in this space. I would recommend it.

Michael Horn: The one question Diane, I have, I love Ethan’s Substack as well. And when the book came out, I bought it as well and read it. But I’m just curious, like, does it still feel current given, like, the race?

Diane Tavenner: You know… yes?

Michael Horn: Interesting.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah, I think so.

Michael Horn: OK.

Diane Tavenner: I think so.

Michael Horn: Cool.

All right. I’ve got a book as well. So, Adeel, I’m also striking out on the show, watching, I think, at the moment, but I still haven’t done Stranger Things. Diane, I think this was on her list. I can’t remember how many episodes ago

Diane Tavenner: I started early, but I haven’t finished off the season. So you’ve been —

Michael Horn: I was about to say. You just inspired her to finish it. Yeah. The book I’ve been reading is A Heart of a Stranger by Angela Buchdahl. She’s a rabbi at the Central Synagogue in New York City, which I think is the largest synagogue in the U.S. or, or top two, I guess. And it’s terrific, she’s a Korean American rabbi. And so it’s like a very interesting story about where she, the circle she has not belonged in, and then making sort of this, I guess, momentous movement into being a rabbi and sort of what that’s been like and her life story through it.

So it’s been a very good read. As Diane knows, my wife’s Korean American, so, like, and I’m Jewish, so it’s like hitting on multiple levels in our household. TBD if anyone else in the household reads it beside me. But I’m enjoying it quite a bit. And we’ll leave it there. Adeel, huge thanks for coming on, joining us, geeking out with us, and for all of you, keep the questions, comments, notes coming after this episode and in general, and we’ll see you all next time on Class Disrupted.

This episode is sponsored by LearnerStudio.

How AI Can Help Educators Teach Kids to Read, Without Replacing Connection

Michael B. Horn and Diane Tavenner — Fri, 24 Apr 2026 16:30:00 +0000

In this episode of Class Disrupted, hosts Michael Horn and Diane Tavenner turn from schools powered by artificial intelligence to the tools themselves.

Matt Pasternack, founder and CEO of , shares the company’s journey from its low-tech beginnings to an AI-powered platform for early reading instruction. Pasternack shares how Once now delivers effective, personalized one-on-one tutoring through software, while emphasizing the importance of human connection in the learning process.

Listen to the episode below. A full transcript follows.

Diane Tavenner: Hey Michael.

Michael Horn: Hey, Diane. Good to see you after a few episodes, diving deep into school models and thinking all about AI and what it enables today.

Diane Tavenner: Indeed, we are going to shift gears a bit today, not away from AI because based on all the emails, the calls, the feedback we’re getting, this is the thing folks are thinking about and talking about. And so we’re sticking with AI. Rather, we’re going to shift away from AI school models, full school models, and infrastructure to how AI is being used directly by and with teachers and students and in classrooms. And so I think this is going to be a really interesting other dimension of what’s happening.

Michael Horn: Yeah, I think that’s right. I mean, we thought this was the next logical place to go. Everyone says if you’re not changing the classroom at some point, you’re not changing much. And so we wanted to go into that classroom and explore how a small number of folks, entrepreneurs, are thinking about really how do we use AI in classrooms without the entire school itself or the system around it being changed. And so this is it. I’m really excited for this conversation. Someone we’ve both known for a long time and get to go deeper on it Diane.

Diane Tavenner: A very long time. I’m really excited today to welcome Matt Pasternack to the conversation. I was trying to think about when we met Matt, but it feels like so long ago. I can’t even remember at this point, because you, you actually were early at School of One, which is now Teach to One as a director of assessment. And then you went and you were on the founding team of Clever, which many people will know as a tool that effectively connected edtech products to student information systems. So this really critical infrastructure piece that enabled so much of what we now sort of take for granted in terms of technology. And then most recently, you’re the founder and CEO of Once, which is a company that leverages, well, I’m going to say what I think it is, and then we’re going to get into it. You’re going to really describe it for us.

A company that leverages the research around tutoring by using reading-based software and human people to teach 3 to 7-year-olds to read. And so we’re just grateful to have you here. Thanks for joining us.

Matt Pasternack: I’m thrilled to be here. I’ve known you both for quite some time, and it’s really an honor to be on the show.

Michael Horn: Well, we’re thrilled you’re making the time for us. So let’s dig into it. As Diane mentioned, you are working on solving a problem that we’ve talked about on this podcast historically, which is teaching reading, something that there’s a lot of evidence around how to do. But as Diane said, before tackling this reading challenge, you helped build Clever. And it does feel like a big shift from, if you will, school infrastructure to teaching, learning, curriculum. Maybe it’s back to your roots in some sense from School of One. But tell us about the origin story of Once and your own personal why for building it.

Rethinking Early Reading Education

Matt Pasternack: Sure, sure. Well, I’ll share two things. You know, one is that, you know, very early in my edtech career, before Clever, I worked on some projects that were very, very expansive in what they tried to accomplish, and both on the data infrastructure side as well as on the curriculum side. And it was sort of the heady days of the late aughts or early 2000s, and then the early 2010s, excuse me. And sort of this belief, if you just sprinkled a little bit of technology or software magic on things, education, everything would just work. And there were these really exciting analogies to Netflix’s personalization. I’m sure you remember those days. And so I spent some time trying to boil the ocean.

And then after that, I just kind of made an abrupt turn and never looked back. And I said, look, I want to work on specific problems in education. And the first one was what Clever tackled. It was an area I had a lot of insight into from some of those earlier explorations on, you know, the specific problems that rostering and single sign-on presented to schools, and particularly schools trying to adopt software in varying ways. After Clever, I kind of went in a little bit of a different direction for a while, focused on voting. And then in the sort of early to mid-pandemic, I was catching up with an old friend of mine who had been a teacher in the same school where I taught after college, and we were talking about how during the early pandemic, both of our kids who are kindergarten age were out of school because schools shut down. And yet both of them learned to read in that year out of school.

Now, my wife is a former kindergarten teacher, and so I was like, oh, I had an unfair advantage, you know? I mean, she had sort of one-on-one tutoring from a kindergarten teacher. Missing kindergarten, but, you know, my close friend was a former middle school teacher, and, you know, it’s not like he had been working on that expertise forever, but he said, yeah, you know, structured 15-minute lessons every day, you know, his child learned to read, and we just sort of stepped back from it and said, wait, you know, for as long as anyone can remember, we’ve been teaching kids to read, attempting to teach kids to read, in these sort of 30-person classrooms, and, you know the numbers, and in sort of any education environment, about half of kids, if given some of the right foundation, will learn to read to some extent. And so any teacher can look at their progress and say, well, some of my kids are learning to read, it’s working. But if you want all of your kids to learn to read, you know, you can’t say that what’s happening today is working, because we’ve had flat NAEP scores for decades. And so we just started to kind of think really big picture and say, you know, what would happen if every kindergartner got the education that our two kids had gotten in the early pandemic, which is just 15 minutes a day of one-on-one reading instruction. And initially, we actually wanted to avoid schools, avoid K-12. We said, look, the sales process in the K-12 is so complicated. Let’s do something different.

Let’s actually focus on, because preschool, you know, research was just coming out about how early the brain starts developing. For where children begin, you know, learning, you know, are able to learn to interpret written language. And then as we start to explore the preschool route, we realized that that was probably even harder than K-12. And so we kind of returned to our roots and started in a charter school, actually was our first implementation, and basically just said, hey, can we put a couple people in the back of this TK classroom and teach, you know, have them provide daily one-on-one tutoring to the students to help them learn how to read. And we had some amazing success stories, and, you know, it was just a couple-month pilot. There was a child who, a child who came to school every day, you know, lots of home context, crying and kind of hiding under his desk and did not want to be in school, And it still makes me kind of emotional to tell the story, but, you know, even a month or two in, he was sort of opening up to school and responding to school, and people asked him, you know, what had changed, and he said it was the one-on-one tutoring he was getting every single day. You know, and that’s a 5-year-old who, you know, that’s going to determine the next, you know, the rest of his life, essentially. And so, you know, we kind of took that and said, and the folks who were providing the tutoring, had not had background as reading tutors.

That was really important to us, because we said there just aren’t enough kinds of trained reading specialists in the country to do this at a scale of 4 million kids a year. So you need a method that allows any adult to access material and provide this instruction. And then we had this really interesting call with Portland Public Schools, and this is kind of right after that first, right as that pilot was winding down. And we were talking to them, and they said, well, you know, we can’t, you know, we can’t afford to, you know, sort of put all these other people, you know, pay you to bring all these other people into schools and teach kids how to read. We don’t even know where you’d source them. But they said, look, we have tons of instructional assistants. That was a position that they had at the time who were supposed to be working on reading in the early grades. You know, could we use this type of program with them? And that was kind of our lightbulb moment because we said, look, you know, we are, we’re not an HR company, right? We have no expertise in how do you hire, you know, tens of thousands of tutors all over the country to provide this instruction.

We, you know, attempted it in some pilots and literally were unable to source even like a couple tutors in some metropolitan areas. And so we said, We want to work with the staff the school already has. And that really, that, you know, that conversation launched everything. We did not win that deal. We did not end up serving Portland Public Schools. It was okay. That learning that they gave us in that phone call was, you know, worth its weight in gold. And I’ll always be grateful to them for that experience and taking the time with us at that early stage in our journey.

Diane Tavenner: Matt, I love that we’re going to get sprinkled into this conversation, this bonus of just what it’s like to try to build something and sell the schools and whatnot. So that’s really fun to hear that piece. Listening to your origin story, people might be saying, wait a minute, you’re spending this season talking about AI and education, but it doesn’t seem like Once is related to technology even, or AI. And in fact, you began in that pandemic period. So before the sort of famous release of ChatGPT in November 2022. And so, you know, as a guy who at face value seems to have been tech-forward, what was your sort of original hypothesis and approach to making sure, you know, to just sort of going what it seems like a full human approach to reading? And is there technology in here anywhere?

Matt Pasternack: Yeah, so it’s a great question. I think it has, there’s a two-part answer. There. The first is that one thing we were certain of from day one was that young children learn best from adults, like actual in-person human-to-human instruction. You know, for millions of years, you know, our species and the predecessors of our species have been, you know, teaching children to identify different berries and, you know, what animal is going to hurt them and which ones are safe and, you know, how to survive. And that was all done, millions of years of evolution. For, you know, in-person communication between an adult and a child, where the child was highly motivated to learn because the stakes were life and death. And sort of the idea that you would deviate away from that just sort of seems somewhat crazy on its face to us.

Matt Pasternack: So that was the motivation for, you know, you need to build trusting relationships with adults, and, you know, technology is scalable in a way that people sometimes aren’t. So how can we apply technology? But let’s do it in a way that deepens that connection and doesn’t attempt to replace the connection or build a kind of robot teacher. You know, the other piece of this was that I’ve had the privilege in my career, I’m not a software engineer, but I’ve had the privilege to work with, you know, some very, very, very incredible software engineers. And what I’ve often noticed is that when you start working with some of these folks, the first thing they’ll say is, hey, let’s build a version of this product in Google Slides or Google Docs or Google Sheets. Let’s build something that’s throwaway, but that we can learn from because we’re going to waste too much time. This is a little bit before the days of live coding, but we’ll waste too much time coding something up. Let’s be really, really lean in terms of how we want to model what we want to accomplish. And so our perspective at the beginning was, That’s what we want to do.

We literally started in, you know, Google Slides and Google Sheets were essentially our technology. And, you know, funders who were interested in tech staff basically ignored us because we weren’t very technical. But the one thing we said we were going to do from day one is we wanted to record every single instructional session that was given. So even though we’re talking about recordings on Google Meet, we sort of knew where things were going. I mean, yes, you hadn’t had these massive releases of OpenAI and various things, but AI was in the air, the late teens, it was in the air. Folks knew where this was going. Technology was going to fundamentally change. And we just had this belief that if you had hundreds of thousands, millions of hours of recordings of adults teaching kids to read, even if you had no other technology, that you could then, one day run software over that archive and begin to do things that others would say, oh my gosh, I wish I had this sort of database, but I don’t.

So that was, I think those were kind of the two key decisions and motivations for that early, less technical beginning.

Michael Horn: Well, so let me actually jump in there then, Matt. Let’s fast forward us to where you are now. So you’re not going to be an HR solution. You say we’re not in that business. You have all these recordings. What does Once look like today? What does it do? How’s it maybe similar, different from, you know, those initial, put aside the very early pilots, but, you know, once you sort of got on the ground and running, tell us how it’s evolved from that?

Matt Pasternack: Yeah. So what we do today is we serve sort of two different audiences. We serve school districts and we actually serve parents at home. And so I can kind of talk about those a little bit in turn. But what we do, I’ll start with school districts. In school districts, we solve two interlinked problems. One problem that we solve is that there are too many kids in school districts who have not effectively learned how to read. And sometimes I think the best evidence of that is when you have, you know, middle schools or high schools saying, hey, we figured out what we have to do differently.

Phonics and Staff Upskilling Initiative

Matt Pasternack: We have to start really emphasizing phonics in 7th and 8th grade or high school. It’s like, on the one hand, great. Kids who haven’t learned that do need to learn it, but that’s the evidence of an enormous problem, because there’s really kind of 1 to 2 years of phonics to learn, and if you’ve had 9 years of schooling and that’s like, that’s the set of activities, that indicates just a huge, a huge, you know, a huge mess basically in the early grades. So one problem is reading, and the other problem is a lack of career ladder for entry-level staff in schools, which is also a really important problem because schools are having tremendous challenges finding a large enough teaching staff to teach the children in school. And so we said, let’s solve both those problems at once. By providing coaching and curriculum to elementary school support staff, you know, paraprofessionals, teaching assistants, instructional assistants, you know, there’s a number of different roles, as long as they’re not lead classroom teacher, because then they have to oversee 20 or 30 kids. By providing curriculum and coaching to those folks, we can upskill them to the point where anyone can provide one-on-one tutoring daily for 15 minutes to, you know, kindergartners is where we focus. We do some TK and first grade, but kindergarten’s really our focus, provide 15 minutes of daily instruction to those children.

And what this looks like, you know, kind of from a technology perspective, ‘cause again, we started very low-tech, we’re now, we are a software solution today. And what this looks like is the child and the paraprofessional sit down side by side in front of an open laptop computer, We call it, we teach the parents how to build a one-desk classroom. So they have their desk, it’s all set up with the physical materials they need and their laptop computer, they sit right there. A ton of work has gone into that organization. And on the screen is, on one part of the screen is what the child’s looking at, on the other part of the screen is the script for the adult. And the adult is basically going through the script and the child is responding to the script and looking at their part of the screen. And going through a number of different science of reading-based exercises and tasks that teach the child how to read. And the adult is using a fair amount of judgment in there as well, you know, identifying when are children saying things the wrong way, when are they saying things the right way, how do you keep children motivated through this process, but the kind of focus is what’s happening on the screen.

And then we record those sessions and we provide coaching. We have a national team of coaches who then watch those recordings, and provide feedback to the paraprofessionals about how to improve, you know, essentially how to improve their instruction. Like you’re basically watching game tape of yourself and using that to improve your instructional techniques. So that’s sort of a big piece of what we do.

Diane Tavenner: Super interesting, Matt. Can you, so you’re starting in this very low-tech way with these Google spreadsheets and slides and, you know, basically prototyping what you’re gonna do. And If I remember correctly, you were videoing and then literally like doing training calls with those folks, you know, like, oh, we watch your video and let’s coach you up on this essentially. And now that’s, that’s a much more seamless software experience as you just described. Take us to that moment where AI becomes the reality and you’ve made this really smart bet and you have all these recordings. How does AI figure in here? And we’re trying to be really thoughtful. We’ve recognized that people use the word AI or whatever that is, acronym AI, to describe almost everything, like this massive range. So the specificity is super helpful of like how you actually use it here and what role it is playing.

Matt Pasternack: So we use it in a couple of ways. All of our AI is behind the scenes. there’s, So you know, this is not a chatbot. This is not, you know, either the paraprofessional asking a quick question, wait, how do I do this? Or obviously the student doing that because, you know, they couldn’t use a chatbot, they don’t know how to type yet. It’s all behind the scenes. One key way that it’s used is we are able to administer oral reading fluency tests very, very frequently on the students because we’re capturing the full session. And so then we you know, we have, have all the data, the speech data, the transcript data from that session, And so we can go and we can evaluate oral reading fluency. You know, in a typical classroom, elementary school classroom, if they use some, you know, assessment like DIBELS, the teacher might do 3 oral reading fluency assessments during the year, once the beginning, the middle, and the end.

Each one takes roughly a month because the teacher has to pull each kid aside one-on-one and administer this test. And so it’s like 3 months, you know, of instruction to some extent are spent not providing instruction, but performing these tests. And that’s just, you know, that’s not the best use of teachers’ time. And so simply by just having all the kids individually learning on camera, we’re able to run these tests in the background, and we have you know, results, every 2 weeks. So that’s a really important piece of AI. Again, the parents may have no idea that AI is even involved in that, and that’s great. Like, this is not you know, sort of that Gemini sparkle in the corner. This is just like, no, it’s actually just making the experience seamless.

Connected Phonation and AI Learning

Matt Pasternack: The next thing that we do is we’re huge fans of what’s called connected phonation. Again, if I’m going too deep into Tales of Literacy, let me know. But you basically, know, a lot in, in some systems, even sort of science of reading evidence-based systems, there’s a lot of focus on kind of tapping out individual sounds. So if I want to say the word bat, it would be the /b/ sound, the /æ/ sound, the /t/ sound. And when you teach a child like, oh, you just sort of say /b/, /æ/, /t/. And it’s like, well, that’s bat. Like, that doesn’t sound like bat. That sounds like /æ/t/.

You know, it sounds like these sort of disconnected sounds. And you can, you know, that is again one way that people teach it. But I think the more modern approach that, you know, University of Florida and others have really emphasized is connected phonation. So you’re not, if a B and an A come sequentially, you’re gonna teach a child to go, ba, like that B is kind of a quick sound and then they’re gonna go right into that long A sound and they’re always gonna do that when they see those sounds in sequence. They connect those sounds. Well, not only do we have audio of what’s happening in the lesson, but we also have little sliders underneath the words, and so a child can move the slider while they’re saying the word, And we can use AI to really notice things about, you know, is the child’s finger actually tracking what they’re saying? How much are they connecting? Are they pausing in the right places? Because some kids, you know, maybe they know the word “bat,” so they just want to jump in and say it really fast. Well, that’s great for that word, but you don’t then learn the fundamental skills that will help you read much more complex words. So, you know, evaluating something like how quickly does a child’s finger move on the screen is another beautiful application of AI?

Then really for us, the last one, it seems obvious, but it’s just using AI to write code. It’s just we are able to move 10 times as fast on 10x fewer resources as we would be able to otherwise before this moment in time. We wouldn’t be able to do what we do without AI assisting in development. But I’ll say, sort of one level deeper is, you know, where does it go from here? Is it just these sort of fluency tests and, you know, kind of tracking fingers on the screen? You know, as we progress, you know, you can really use AI to evaluate, you know, student fluency in real time, right? How did they just pronounce that word that was just said? This is a much harder technical problem than it sounds like because while the tech world has made huge advances in interpreting adult speech, where you basically try and eliminate the errors to turn some garbled thing an adult says into something intelligible. With kids, you want the opposite. You actually want to figure out which of those sounds when they pronounce that word was incorrect. Rather than automated speech recognition, you want automated phoneme recognition. And if you ask, you know, folks who are really deep in that world, everyone will admit we don’t have good automated phoneme recognition today.

It’s just not there yet. But we have, again, the video archives that will let us build towards that. So we’re very, very excited about that. You can also begin to use AI to you connect, know, reading, many folks regard as multiple strands. So there’s comprehension, there’s, you know, there’s phonics, there’s phonemic awareness, there’s these different elements of it. And so how is a child progressing on these different strands, and how does progress on one strand kind of influence what you would want to teach them next? So really, that sort of learning engineering And then the final piece, just to kind of fill out the story, is, you know, a lot of folks will tell you, I’ve heard on your episodes before, that, you know, 90% of learning is motivation, you know, 10% of the technology, the curriculum, but most of it is really the motivation. You know, we have, if you want to learn, between YouTube and all the different educational apps out there, like, there’s never been a better time in history to learn, and yet we see, you know, essentially flat performance over the decades. Well, one way to motivate both learners, but even more importantly, their teachers, is to show them a highlight reel of like what’s gone really well.

Well, it is prohibitively expensive for us to, you know, manually curate a highlight reel of every session of instruction. But if a pair has taught 10 kids and at the end of that day, or 20 kids, know, you they get to see, hey, here’s a 30-second recap of like your best aha moments during the day, I am coming in tomorrow. I’m not gonna call out sick. I’m not gonna do anything else. I’m going to do it, and I’m going to kind of push those kids as far as I can take them. And so that might be the most magical application of AI at all, not even kind of automated phoneme recognition, but just literally highlight reels of the incredible instruction we’re seeing.

Diane Tavenner: That’s fascinating because we’ve had several conversations about motivation here, and I personally have felt kind of unsatisfied about those conversations. So this actually seems like a really amazing use of the technology related to motivation. Let me ask you about something that comes up, I think, a lot in the reading conversations, dare I say the reading wars, which is this idea that kids need to be reading things that they’re interested in and that they care about and that they’re motivated by, you know, those sorts of things. When you’re in this early stage of teaching reading, are you personalizing what the kids are reading at all? Does that matter? You know, is technology supporting that? What’s going on there?

Matt Pasternack: Yeah, it’s a great question. We are definitely keeping an eye on the ability of AI to generate what we would call, or what many people in this sort of industry would call, decodables, which are texts that students are able to decode. A lot of times things are called decodables, that actually aren’t decodable to the student. So one thing that’s really interesting about reading is that, you know, you might think, well, if a kid, you know, if they can read 75% of the words, like, that’s probably good enough. Like, that’s better than not, you know, being able to read 10% of the words or something. But actually, comprehension often requires, like, being able to read 90 to 95% of the words. So if you want to build decodable texts, like, there is not really a margin for error. You need to make sure that kids are reading text with words that they are able to decode.

Doesn’t mean they’ve memorized those words. I’m not talking about sight words, but they’re able to decode those words. And the challenge of reading English, not true of all languages, but English, is that, you know, a single letter can have many different sounds depending on what other letters are around it and kind of how it’s positioned. And so if you just tell a computer, build stories using this letter or you know, using this sequence of letters, it will often inadvertently pull in the wrong, pull in the words that the kid isn’t able to decode. Well, if it pulls in one of those, maybe that’s OK, they can figure it out from context. But if you’ve got, you know, a page with 15 words and 5 of them aren’t decodable, like, this decodable is not decodable. And that’s where kids can lose motivation. So it’s deeply interlaced with this concept of motivation.

So we’re keeping an eye on it. We don’t think it’s quite there yet. At the age that we’re working at. You know, I know some people working in higher grade levels, and I don’t have the expertise there, but in the kind of 3 to 6-year-old grade level, we are very, very carefully still hand-curating stories at this point.

Michael Horn: It’s fascinating, Matt, because as you alluded to, there’s this huge conversation around can you level reading? And, you know, some of that is directed at particular publishers that tried to do it in a way that was not related to Decodables, and some of it is just a broader conversation. I’m taking some new information away from this conversation, so I appreciate that. Let me shift though, rather than go too deep in that, because one of the other things that you’re doing, I think, is pushing on how AI can start to redefine the role of the educator themselves, right? In some ways, you have AI, it seems, making sure that they stick to what’s the evidence around how to teach reading the best, right? So that we’re not getting too far ahead of ourselves or freelancing in ways that may be detrimental. Then you’re also deferring to judgment, it seems, for the educator around that motivation piece and what they’re seeing on the ground with the kid in ways that you just can’t pick up with technology today. Help us understand that shift over the time around what you think that Reading Coach ultimately is and that split between technology, the human judgment, and how that gets redefined. Maybe we make it easier, frankly, or more people can be great reading coaches in the future?

Empowering Adults to Teach Reading

Matt Pasternack: Yeah, yeah, it’s a great question. It’s a great question. You know, our vision is that any adult, and by adult, actually broadened to older teenagers, are able to teach children how to read. And I think if, you know, if you look, you know, we sometimes cite a stat that, you know, 95% of kids are taught, you know, the ABCs by their parents or guardians, right? It’s like parents and guardians, they’re trying to do the right thing, They just don’t know what to do. Like teaching a child the ABCs, for a couple kids will teach them to read, for almost all other kids, it will not teach them to read. And so, and so they have, they’re motivated, they know how important this is, they don’t know what to do. So we want any adult, doesn’t matter if English is your second language, it doesn’t matter, you know, if you’ve struggled to read yourself, like we want to empower any adult to be able to teach any child. Now, you know, you do sometimes, there are conflicts where, do I want to give the adult who’s delivering the instruction more autonomy so they can kind of grow more in their career, or I want to remove a little judgment and make it a little more scripted? And I think over time you’ll see dials in our system where you can kind of dial it up and down either way.

Because once you get to the point where it’s just the computer speaking, well, now you’re back to just computer education with an adult patiently sitting there. That’s not how kids learn to distinguish berries, right? Like, we’re actually, we’ve gone too far. So the adult needs to be really, really involved in that teaching, but, you know, understanding their capacity and what they feel like, you know, sort of, you know, because it’s not just reading a script. It’s, you know, the hardest thing in teaching reading is what do you do when a kid makes a mistake, right? Like, we have a whole sort of flowchart, a whole approach we take when a child makes a mistake decoding. And being able to implement something like that is hard. And so software can help. Our biggest innovation kind of in this regard, which is something that we’ve just started to roll out recently, is no longer restricting this actual teaching to paraprofessionals or instructional assistants or existing support staff at the school, but actually broadening that circle to older high school students. That’s where I sort of hinted at teenagers.

And it is, we’ve just gotten started here, so we, you know, we are learning as much as they are. But I’ve seen some pictures and I’ve seen some videos of a high school student sitting down next to a kindergartner, teaching them to read, with the, you know, the little kindergartner just eyes full of adoration. You know, this is not a teacher, this is someone who they deeply look up to, this, an older kid who actually cares about them. And it is so inspiring. And if we had a world where our high school students could knock out reading specialization for a large number of our kindergartners, I mean, I think it would change it.

Michael Horn: Generational impact would be huge.

Diane Tavenner: I mean, yeah, when you called me with this idea, Matt, I haven’t stopped thinking about it since because I think that this is the type of thinking that we need in education right now because this checks so many boxes. I mean, not only are we putting multi-age groups together and learning, right, but we are giving, let’s talk about the impact on the high school student here who feels a sense of worth and purpose and is actually doing an early job, gaining real experience coaching and developing person. Who knows where that could possibly lead? And then you have this brilliant idea of enabling them to be entrepreneurial. Like, imagine a neighborhood where teenagers in the summer sort of have the Once tool and they can open their own little neighborhood business teaching kids to read in the summer. Like, I love this so much for so many reasons. It’s really brilliant.

Matt Pasternack: Yeah, I appreciate that. I mean, we are, you know, again, we’re learning so much right now. But the response, you know, I mentioned I kind of joked earlier about, you know, selling to school districts and how hard that was. And I mean, it really is every entrepreneur’s challenge. And in K-12, you know, there are these magic moments when school districts don’t become hard to sell to. It’s really hard to find those products. Like, it is extremely hard. Clever was one of them.

Student-Led Reading Program Growth

Matt Pasternack: I mean, Clever just blossomed across the country, and it was so exciting to see, you know, sort of help it spread and kind of watch the spread, and it was something very special. You know, we are not operating at Clever velocity right now in terms of distribution, but we have gotten such an outpouring of response, superintendents who write in saying, you know, I get a million cold emails a day, you know, I don’t read any of them, but when I saw high school CTE students teaching kindergartners how to read, I was like, oh, that’s it. You know, that’s, that’s so obviously it. And we’re hearing that response. One thing that’s so exciting, to date we’ve primarily focused on kind of top 500 districts, it’s very large districts. A lot of them are urban, but you know these very big school districts. And we are getting this response from tiny districts, you know, also from some large ones, but from tiny ones, from districts that can’t really afford to have paraprofessionals, but they’ve got high school CTE students and they’re looking for a great thing for them to do. And they’ve got kindergartners who aren’t learning how to read. And it’s like, let’s go, you know? And that is just amazing.

And so we are flying to, you know, towns across the US right now that, you know, we’ve never heard their names before. And just being embraced by the folks who are there and just going right in. It’s, it’s just, it’s wonderful.

Michael Horn: That’s so cool. I mean, I think about the leadership opportunities, responsibility, judgment, just like it’s checked so many boxes. And then again, the generational impact, if you do that at scale, could be humongous. Let’s wrap up with this last question, which is before we go to our what you’ve been reading and watching outside of work thing. But, you know, look, Once, as you just talked about, is designed to be facilitated by, could be an instructional aide, parapro, high school student, whatever, it’s not a whole class curriculum, right? And so you talked about those magic moments where districts actually start to absorb it and so forth, but take us into the classroom itself. How are schools putting Once into their schedules and days? How are they integrating it? What’s the impact it’s having about how they think about, you know, the whole class activities that they perhaps have been doing? Are there trade-offs that they’re having to make? Help us understand where does it lock into the current schedule?

Matt Pasternack: It’s a great question. It’s like the fundamental question to making tutoring work. I mean, a lot of the leading tutoring researchers have said tutoring is fundamentally a question of logistics. You know, anyone, you know, so many providers have great training and many have great coaching and various things, like can you get the logistics right or can you not, know?

And so we go very, very deep with our school district partners. We have, you know, a world-class, we call them our program team, and they go in and they work because it is not like, they’re not district-wide answers to how you solve that question. You cannot go to, you know, XYZ Public Schools with 100 schools and say, OK, we’re going to do once during these blocks in this space in the school, because every school has slightly different requirements, different spaces, you know, different people. It’s all different. And so we go school by school. We help them map out a schedule. Will this instruction happen in the back of the classroom? Will it happen in a little annex room that’s right near the classroom? Does it happen in the hallway if the hallways are quiet? Often in elementary schools they are, it just sort of, again, depends very much on that school. Oh, you know, here was this space that was used for teachers to congregate, but teachers aren’t actually congregating there, or, you know, the lunchroom is actually empty from 8 to 10 AM every day, that’s unused space, like, let’s take advantage of that.

Customized Solutions for Every School

Matt Pasternack: We have worked with so many schools by this point, we just have thought through all these different permutations. And so we sit down with the schools, school by school, come up with a customized solution for each one. And, you know, the challenging part, if you’re listening to this, is that it sounds hard and expensive and, you know, and it is, I don’t want to minimize like that is, that slows down scale a little bit when you have to kind of do hard things. On the flip side, we have never come across a school that can’t do this. So sometimes you have a solution that says, oh, well, when we rewrite the language of schooling, when we completely change what schools look like and how they’re structured and what the day is, then that will unlock AI and unlock everything, and then kids can finally learn. And if you’ve been around schools for a long time, I think many of us would be pessimistic that you’re going to see rapid changes in those dimensions anytime soon at scale. And so we’re really proud of the fact that we can go into any school district, any school building, and we will find a way to, you know, to build up the schedules. And the neat thing again about the application of technology, in our earlier days, we, you know, back in the kind of Google Meet and Google Sheets days, it took so much training and coaching on how to make those very lightweight technical tools work that realistically someone giving instruction could only give it to, you know, would have to give it to at least 10 or 15 or 20 kids because the investment you put in and teaching them the ropes made it, it just wasn’t worthwhile to teach a single kid.

But as we’ve amped up our software and amped up this use of AI, you know, we can realize this vision. You have high school kids coming in and doing it. The school secretary, does she have a free 15 minutes or 30 minutes? That’s 2 kids right there. In many schools, the principals say, hey, I don’t want to just administer this. I want to work with the you very hard, not hardest, like most difficult kindergartner, the most challenged kindergartner, the one who maybe has, you know, home circumstances that are you know, the most or, challenging, you know, who has you know, a, a learning difference, or for some reason is really struggling in the classroom. I want to take that kid under my wing as a school principal, and I you know, I want to teach that kid to read, and I want the school to see that I’m teaching that kid to read. And it goes a little bit back to, you sort of think of Steve Jobs, he’d go into Apple devices and he’d look at the wiring configurations in the background, like the things customers could never see. And he’d say, if the wires are messy in the back, then it shows that we don’t actually care about what we’re building and we’re never going to build good stuff, even though customers would never see that.

And I think it’s that attention to detail. And historically, principals maybe are really strict about kids lining up, are really strict about like certain small details that then create that school culture. Well, here’s another detail that shows, you know, my focus is on the kid, and it’s really beautiful to watch.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah, well, and thank you for that. In early elementary school, I mean, Michael and I have talked about this often, like we are hard-pressed to think of something more important than what happens in early elementary school than literally every child learns to read. And so I’m glad to hear that people are doing what’s necessary and that they understand that it’s totally possible to organize school in a way that every child will learn to read. That feels so critical. So thanks for the inspiring story of what you’re doing and the connection between the humans and the AI. Really, really fun.

Diane Tavenner: And so now, of course, Michael and I are very curious to hear what you are personally reading or listening to or watching outside of your work. We try to stay outside of our work.

We break our rule often, but if there’s something that you have to share, we’d love to hear it.

Matt Pasternack: Oh, well, no, I’m happy to. Actually, yeah, I feel like for many years between raising kids and having intense jobs, I really didn’t find much time to read other than, you know, sort of the newspaper and things like that. But I have recently joined some book clubs and gotten back into reading, which feels great, and I cherish it. I’m currently in the middle of Demon Copperhead. I don’t know if you’ve read that, but the first part was so depressing. It just, you know, it’s, you know, lightly based on Dickens, and it just felt like, oh my God, like just kind of going down that, going down that hole. And it was a little challenging to get through. And now things have turned around a little bit.

So I haven’t finished it. I’m excited to see what happens. But I’ve been having a lot of fun with it. And then for watching, I just got to watch, I watched Alex Honnold’s ascent of the Taipei Building on Netflix.

Michael Horn: Very cool.

Matt Pasternack: Which was very fun. I watched it after it was over, so I knew at the beginning he was going to stay safe. But I got to watch it while running on a treadmill, which is a really fun experience. I’m not sure I’ve ever been able to push myself that hard. It’s like, well, this guy’s doing something much harder, so I can at least run fast. So that was enjoyable.

Diane Tavenner: That’s awesome. Well, Michael and folks who’ve listened for a long time will know that when I tell you we’re preparing for a trip to Morocco and southern Spain, that means that I’ve got a combo fiction and nonfiction reading list that I’m working through because that is sort of how we do vacationing. And on this one, I’m digging into sort of religion, culture, history that is not very familiar to me. So it’s been a fun learning journey. I’m grateful to Gemini, who is my study buddy for this one and is actually such an incredibly useful tool for these purposes. At the moment I’ve got 3 books going. So, one is called Dreams of Trespass: Tales of a Harem Girlhood by Fatima Marisi. Sorry, butchered that one.

And it’s not what you think. I’m learning a ton. It’s actually quite an interesting feminist, story,, and then 2 others. So Islam by Karen Armstrong and No God But God by Reza Asad. And those are really interesting different perspectives on the religion that I’m sort of reading side by side with each other. So super fun.

Michael Horn: Very cool. Very exciting. I always love when you share these, Diane, because as listeners also know, you’ve changed my own practice around travel, uh, to start to do this habit as well, and Matt, I liked your Dickens, reference because it connects in an odd way for the one that I’m going to do, which is Diane knows I don’t read a ton of fiction, but I actually finished a fiction book here, In the Shadow of the Greenbrier by Emily Matchar. I’m probably also bungling her last name, but I picked it up, honestly, I was at synagogue. I saw it in the temple library, and Greenbrier was a place that we used to vacation with my grandparents and my cousins a few times growing up over Christmas. And so I was sort of curious, and it’s like this intergenerational Jewish sort of mystery story, if you will, trying to piece together different puzzle pieces. And the Greenbrier is sort of the central part of it.

But the only reason I say that, Matt, is I remember one of the years that we vacationed at the Greenbrier, they had like the foremost Charles Dickens expert or something like that in residence, and he gave lectures, which we as 12 or 13-year-olds dutifully attended and I think did not cut up too much during, which, which was impressive for us. But, so I, I feel like I’m connecting on a bunch of these things at the moment, but, uh, it was a fun read, and Diane, one of the reasons I don’t read a lot of fiction, I forgot, is because when I read it, I don’t put it down and I become a bit of a zombie around the house for a couple days.

Diane Tavenner: So yeah, there is such a thing as binge reading, just like binge watching, right?

Michael Horn: Exactly. And nonfiction, while I love it and I read it a lot, turns out it doesn’t do that for me, whereas fiction I’m a lost cause around the house.

Matt Pasternack: The secret is just simultaneously reading it on the Kindle and Audible, and then you can, you know, you can volunteer, hey, I’ll go do the dishes, you just put in

Michael Horn: Exactly, plug it in and power through.

Matt Pasternack: You keep going, right, you know, right where you were.

Michael Horn: So good, good tip, good power tip. All right, huge thank you, Matt, for joining us. And again, to all of the listeners, who keep coming in with all sorts of feedback, both positive notes, questions, we like those and then some of the hate mail too, we love it all because we learn tons, and just, keep it coming off this conversation. We look forward to more, and we look forward to seeing you next time on Class Disrupted.

This episode is sponsored by LearnerStudio.

Behind the Reinvention of Summit Public Schools With AI

Michael B. Horn and Diane Tavenner — Tue, 07 Apr 2026 14:30:00 +0000

In the latest episode exploring new school models powered by artificial intelligence, Summit Public Schools’ Cady Ching and Dan Effland join Michael Horn and Diane Tavenner to discuss Summit’s transformation into an AI-native school model. The conversation examines how clarity around school outcomes and model design enables the effective integration of new technology, followed by insights into the evolution of Summit’s expeditions. Ching and Effland emphasize the importance of a holistic, purposeful education, as well as the need for a robust technology infrastructure to scale innovation.

Listen to the episode below. A full transcript follows.

Cady Ching: I think what has been really helpful for me is to list the ways that a model is not. It’s not a curriculum, it’s not an LMS, it’s not a schedule by itself, it’s not a set of beliefs or a graduate profile by itself. Those are parts of a model, but a lot of the building that we’re seeing right now is focused on building for parts versus building for an actual whole model. And so the AI-native model is how all of those model elements are working together. And it is not going to be replacing a school model. It’s going to expose whether or not you actually have a model. And I think AI is forcing a lot of school systems right now to get really honest, because if you don’t know what students are supposed to be learning and you’re not sure how they’re showing that or what adults are responsible for, AI just layers on complexity and, quite honestly, chaos. But if you do have the level of clarity of what Dan is speaking about, AI is actually making systems work a lot better, or it can make systems work a lot better.

I think the jury is out on the tools that we need and how we can create the tools that we need. But AI really isn’t replacing, it’s revealing whether or not your school model actually exists.

Diane Tavenner: Hey, Michael.

Michael Horn: Hey, Diane, it is good to see you with some excitement for today’s episode.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah, we have a real treat today. We’ve got two of my favorite educators in the world joining us for what I’m sure is going to be just a really interesting conversation.

Michael Horn: Well, and for years, as obviously I’ve learned about Summit from you, direct from you, and yet it’s been nearly 3 years, I think, since you passed the baton, if math is still a thing. And I know from afar that the team continues to be among the most innovative schools in the country and so I know that they continue to think about reinvention, and frankly, you know, what does Summit need to look like? How can it get even better? All these questions for its learners. And so I’m incredibly excited to dig in and learn about what they’re calling Summit 3.0 on today’s show. I will say it’s also interesting to have this conversation because we’re sort of in our model geek out, if you will, at the moment, right? While we’re having this conversation, we’ve had the founders of Alpha School, Flourish on, both of which are designed as AI-native models. And for those who listened to those episodes we sort of created a little bit of a side-by-side, if you will, where we said, hey, Summit is here as this baseline for a pre-AI model trying to do personalization or optimization of each kid’s learning. And we explored what can you do in an AI-native world? How can you design differently? But today what’s exciting, I think, is we’re going to get to dig into what does it look like for an existing model with that orientation to become, quote unquote, AI-native.

And as you know, transformation and how organizations reinvent themselves, that’s something I get really passionate about and excited. So I cannot wait to learn from the real-life example in progress.

Diane Tavenner: Well, we’ve got the two perfect people for that conversation, Michael. And so let me introduce you to Cady Ching, who is the CEO of Summit Public Schools, where she was an extraordinary teacher and school and network leader for a decade before taking on that role. So she brings this full spectrum of experience to this next phase. And Dan Effland, who is the senior director of innovation at Summit, where he was also an extraordinary teacher and school leader before taking on this new role of leading for the second time in the history of Summit, the reinvention of the model. And so welcome, Dan and Cady. We’re so happy that you’re here with us and excited to talk to you about the work you’re doing.

Cady Ching: Thank you. Thank you so much. I’m excited too. It’s coming at this moment for Dan and I where we’ve been trying on a lot of language about where we’ve been, where we are today, and where we’re going. So selfishly, this is a milestone for us.

Michael Horn: Well, and I get to feel like I’m jumping in on a team huddle of y’all. Yeah, this will, this will, this will be fun.

Cady Ching: Welcome, Michael.

Michael Horn: Thank you.

What Is a School?

Diane Tavenner: Dan and Cady, a few weeks ago we got together and you walked me through the thinking and planning you’re doing. And honestly, I was captivated, you know, because I got stuck on it and I wanted to dissect every word. By this simplest definition of school, it’s honestly the simplest definition I’ve ever read of a school. And I wanted to start there today because I really think we always have talked about getting to the simplicity on the other side of complexity. And I think you’ve done it with this definition, and I think it’s going to be really powerful in this next chapter. And so maybe, Dan, kick us off. And if you will share that definition and a little bit about how it came to you or how you all came to it in your process and what you think it unlocks.

Dan Effland: Yeah, happy to. And thanks for having me here. I’m so excited to talk to you all. Yeah, so, I mean, we’ve been working on this for years, right? What is simplicity on the other side of complexity? And I think as we’ve been digging into what does redesigning look like, it became really clear that you have to get down to some foundational elements to avoid designing within conventions and not even really realizing you’re doing it. And so the way we’re thinking about schools is simply, it’s a group of young people. It’s a set of outcomes or competencies. And then it’s a set of resources that help you support young people to achieve those outcomes or competencies. That’s it.

Kids, outcomes, resources. And stripping all the way back to that has allowed us then to engage with our community, because all this work is like with students, caregivers, and educators, and go like, OK, what do we really want? What do schools really need to be? With full freedom, we call them dreaming sessions, where we can really engage off the simplest foundational elements and not get hooked by any of the conventions that have existed, you know, for decades or longer than that in a lot of cases.

Summit 2.0: Evolution and Vision

Michael Horn: It’s really cool because you’ve sort of, like you said, you sort of have a conversation around what those end posts, and we can sort of figure out what’s inside the box to get there apart from what’s always been there. But before we go to that sort of Summit 3.0 vision and where you’re thinking currently is, because I’m imagining you’re going to have lots of trade-offs and changes as you go through the design process, but I think it would be helpful to do a quick turn on Summit 2.0. Both to ground, frankly, our audience, but also to set up a question of how things are changing and where and so forth so that we can understand that. And so I’d love, and maybe Cady, you dive in on this first, how would you describe the Summit 2.0 model, which was not only in your schools, but schools across the country? It’s one of the reasons I think it can be called a model, it’s scaled beyond Summit itself, right? And as you think about that, the new model, what is it in the Summit 2.0 that you’d say, we really want to hold on to this? Or where are the things that you’re saying, hey, actually, that’s something we can leave behind or start to question whether we want to change that?

Cady Ching: Yeah, thanks for asking this question. I think it’s so important. The reason why I keep smiling when you all say Summit 2.0 and 3.0 is because Dan and I actually got into it a couple weeks ago about if we wanted to use that language or not. And my issue with it was I think it’s really, it serves a purpose because like to Diane’s point, it is simplicity at the other end of complexity. And there is a danger in the simplification of the 2.0 and 3.0 because at Summit, we really think about innovation in two ways. One just being innovation through refinement, which is the day-to-day tightening of the model elements that we’re building on for these larger moments of innovation, which we call innovation for redesign. And so those are sort of the sector-shifting, big model, what we call Big M changes. But I’m going to use Summit 2.0 and 3.0 language today in shorthand.

Michael Horn: Thanks for doing it for the listeners.

Cady Ching: Yeah, and so Summit 2.0 really speaks to our personalization era at Summit, where we showed personalization doesn’t need to be a luxury. And we did that by designing cohesive student and teacher experience., and it included model elements like mentoring and skills assessment and differentiation using real-time data, which we enabled through tech. And the tech that we co-built was called the Summit Learning Platform. For me, what I think was most remarkable about what we proved in Summit 2.0 is what you mentioned. It was scalable, and it did scale, and schools were able to implement and sustain the Summit model on public dollars. Which was remarkable. And so we reached 100,000 students, 6,000 educators, and 400 schools across 40 states.

And we did it with district, charter, private, rural, suburban, and urban. It was completely shifting the field. And then we normalized mastery-based learning, personalized playlists and skills and habits in a way that now is the foundation and the baseline in so many places that we’re now talking about building these AI-native models on top of. And so to the second part of your question, which I’ll kick off and then, Dan, I’m going to pass it to you to add on, we think about model elements and processes that we want to carry forward into Summit 3.0. In the process side, which is where I thrive, we were successful because we were leading from this intersection of the learning science, community engagement, and technology, and we centered teachers and students at every part of the design.. And we’ve used those same design principles to continuously improve our model since Summit 2.0. For me, I feel like we’re 4 years into Summit 3.0, and we’ve already gotten some really exciting data back about situating us as leaders in the field again around what we’ve built on top of the personalization.

In last year, this is our most recent data, we saw that our Summit alumni have some of the highest post-graduation incomes and lowest debt loads, as compared to other top-performing charters. And this is the type of longitudinal outcome evidence we’ve been really longing for. And when you think back about how Dan just defined the system, what that data does for us is it grounds us in that we do have a really strong set of outcomes and competencies that are timeless. Our young people are now achieving them, and we’re letting go of the old technology to create space for AI-reimagined infrastructure that’s going to help us to better allocate resources. And we think our biggest resource levers are people, technology, and time. So that’s really how we’re thinking about Summit 2.0 setting us up for Summit 3.0.

Michael Horn: Dan, did you want to jump in there and add some?

Dan Effland: Yeah, yeah, I think I’ll just like, you know, I think, you know, Cady and I were both teachers in Summit 2.0. We were both school leaders in this, and so we have a lot of really direct connection to it. And the thing that really makes me think about it is like, you know, the learning platform is no longer in existence, but the elements of the model really deeply took root. Mentoring, mastery, what we called habits of success, I think we’re calling durable skills in our world now. Like, I’m fine with it, whatever we want to call it. It’s become ubiquitous. And I think it really helps. I mean, I think it really gives us a sense of a strong foundation of like, we’ve done this before, we’ve built a model that’s scaled and really stuck.

And it doesn’t matter if the technology, you know, is stuck or not, because that technology is not the model. The tech model is these elements of how you support kids to master these outcomes with whatever available resources you have are. And so, yeah, I think there’s a point of pride when we think about, you know, what we’re begrudgingly calling Summit 2.0. And then I think there’s a sense of the strength of the foundation to then build what’s coming next.

Personalization & Durable Skills

Michael Horn: It’s interesting. And we’ll come back to the technology, I know, and we want to circle back to that. But hearing Cady, you described the model, used a few words that I think are really important for people to hear. One of them was cohesive, because I think a lot of the tech efforts right now around personalization in so much of the country are the opposite of cohesive. And that’s why we’re seeing a blowback sometimes against technology, because it’s sort of all over the place and hundreds of things going on at once for a young person with tons of distractions. And you talked about it being grounded in the learning sciences and personalization as a, as a means, not the ends, right? And, and then you have these longitudinal outcomes. And I’m just calling them out because I think people often lose sight of, this is the bedrock, right, of how we build from, and then go from there. And the other piece, and Dan, you just referenced this, the field is now calling it durable skills.

I still prefer habits of success. Let me just be on record on that one. But one of the things you all really did well around Summit 2.0 was have incredible clarity on the mission, what success looks like, such that you could measure in the way you just said, Cady. And I didn’t know those stats. I mean, it’s fascinating., and then you had these commencement-level outcomes, right? You were super clear on what does it look like from a, you know, for a Summit graduate as they go out in the wild. And it seems in some ways those commencement-level outcomes have been precursors to the movement across states that we’ve seen in the Portraits of a Graduate. And I do think that there’s some key differences. I’ll hold my editorial back on what those are more because I want your take on that.

Like, what, if anything, are the differences and, and between those commencement-level outcomes that you all have defined, the portraits of a graduate that we see states doing, and more broadly, like, what’s the importance of being super clear on what those outcomes are and, and how you’d know, on the other side, if you could speak to that. And I don’t know, I’ll make it a grab bag of which one of you wants to jump in on that.

Dan Effland: Dan, take it away. Awesome. Yeah, I mean, so our vision has been the same for 23 years. It’s preparing young people for a fulfilled life, really all people. We think of our staff as part of that too. And fulfilled life is in some ways, again, simple. It is purposeful work, financial independence, strong community, strong relationships, and health. And so that’s given us a holistic picture, a holistic point B that we’re always going for.

You know, I don’t, I don’t know how I compare it to Portrait of a Graduate or Portrait of a Learner. What I know is it gives us a lot of clarity in that you can’t design a coherent model without clarity of where you’re headed. And that it’s also really important that that clarity is holistic and is not simply a set of academic outcomes. It is much broader than that. And that gives us a huge advantage in this work right now because we’re not spending a lot of time. We certainly talk to our community and affirm, you know, on a regular basis, is this still what people want? Is this still what our communities are after? And it is. And so we can move right to like, okay, how do we get there?

Cady Ching: The thing that I would add on top of that is, I loved, Michael, what you called out around the language of a model. I think that at the operator level, and when I’m talking to, to other school leaders, this word is used in a lot of different ways. And I think what has been really helpful for me is to list the ways that a model is not. It’s not a curriculum. It’s not an LMS. It’s not a schedule by itself. It’s not a set of beliefs or a graduate profile by itself. Those are parts of a model.

But a lot of the building that we’re seeing right now is focused on building for parts versus building for an actual whole model. And so the AI-native model is how all of those model elements are working together, and it is not going to be replacing a school model, it’s going to expose whether or not you actually have a model. And it’s, I think AI is forcing a lot of school systems right now to get really honest, because if you don’t know what students are supposed to be learning, and you’re not sure how they’re showing that, or what adults are responsible for, AI just layers on complexity and quite honestly, chaos. But if you do have the level of clarity of what Dan is speaking about, AI is actually making systems work a lot better, or it can make systems work a lot better. I think the jury is out on the tools that we need and how we can create the tools that we need, um, but AI really isn’t replacing, it’s revealing whether or not your school model actually exists.

Diane Tavenner: I’d love it if we go back to your simple definition, Dan, that we started with, when we sat down. You use the word package of outcomes, and I was obsessed with that word package for this reason, because you know, maybe I will jump in here a little bit on the portrait of a graduate.

Michael Horn: The table’s been set for you, Diane.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah. And one of our, you know, Summit’s longtime beloved board chair, board member, who honestly is one of the most forward-thinking, I think, philanthropists who launched a scholarship for Summit graduates going into Pathways years ago, like ahead of the curve, you know, sent us a note the other day with a real critique of portraits of a graduate. He was sort of reading about them and was just very, you know, like, what are these people thinking? And I think what he was responding to was a lot of the portraits of the graduate, like, feel very checkboxy and compliance-oriented. Versus this sort of holistic. And I know that’s not the way they were intended.

AI Evolution in Education Models

Diane Tavenner: They all have good intentions behind them, but the way they have been sort of brought to life and then communicated and then implemented are what Cady, I think, is speaking to, not as a model, but as like these individual components that don’t have a coherence about how they’re actually organized an organized set of resources to achieve those package of outcomes, if you will. And so I think that what you all just described is at the core of your success going forward and what an advantage you have. And it really speaks honestly to the durability that you’re carrying all of that forward in this next phase, that being, living a life of wellbeing it actually hasn’t changed, right? The elements of that haven’t changed, and that’s what you’re equipping young people for. So, you know, in a recent episode, Michael and I had a conversation, just the two of us, which was super fun, and we were dissecting a way of thinking about school models in three buckets. And I know you are both familiar with this framework, which is essentially that, you know, Model 1 will use AI to make sort of the existing industrial model school more efficient and better. Model 2 will stretch the bounds of that industrial model school with integrated AI. And Model 3 will be AI native, you know, essentially built from the ground up with AI capabilities that are assumed to be at the core. And, you know, as you think about where you’re now going with Summit 3.0, how do you view it in the context of this framework? And, you know, what does AI make possible that wasn’t possible in 2.0 because it was designed pre-AI?

Dan Effland: Love this question. And I did listen to that episode. So I’ll start with the model part, and then I really want to get into what AI makes possible and kind of what it pushes us to do. So I love reading like Learner Studios’ 3 Horizons model. I love Bob Hughes’ paper on the 3 models. I find that stuff really, really important for evaluating what exists and really valuable for visioning and for getting into this place of what really is possible. And I think, and that’s really useful. I will say, when we start designing and working with our young people and working with our caregivers and our educators, I actually find it useful to kind of set those categories aside and to ask the more foundational questions around, like, we know where we want to go, we have this clear vision, we have this really simple, you know, conception of what a school is with kids’ outcomes and resources.

And now let’s go from here. And when you get into, like, as we’ve talked about, we have a lot of clarity about our outcomes already. We really believe deeply that this holistic model of a healthy, thriving, you know, young person, young adult, adult is going to be durable regardless of the transitions that are happening in our society. But when it comes to the resources part, now we have this whole huge different potential, one, AI being a resource, but also a way that I think we’re most really interested when it comes to AI is how we can use it if we integrate it into our tech stack. Really how, like, with a really robust knowledge graph and really strong data layer, you could be dynamically reallocating resources in a way that just would be impossible for people. You know, like when I used to build an annual schedule, like the primary schedule with our Dean of Operations, she and I would sit in an office for a week with a spreadsheet to make a schedule for the year that never changed, right? Like, it’s just so labor-intensive. But now I think when we think about AI as part of our infrastructure, and it’s kind of a layer in our tech stack interacting with a really robust knowledge graph and data layer, we can start to ask ourselves, like, how do we get the right resources to the right kids at the right time for the right outcome? And really get very, very precise, and also do that dynamically. And I think that then allows us to think about personalization, just-in-time instruction, integrating real-world experiences, ensuring that personalized learning still happens in community and there’s deep human connection that is part of personalized learning journey in a way that was, was not possible when, you know, 12 years ago when we were thinking about Summit 2.0, the technology just didn’t exist.

And so, I mean, it’s exciting. I mean, I really think there’s incredible possibility there. And while there’s definitely lots of really cool tools being built, we’re much more focused on the, like, where does this fit as part of our technology infrastructure or our tech stack, because we think that’s, like, potentially a huge lever for transforming learning for young people.

Current Applications of AI in Schools

Michael Horn: It’s fascinating to me, ’cause you just named a number of things that AI could do that I had never thought about in terms of, like, dynamically changing the schedule for, you know, the school and students and, like, there’s some pretty cool things you can start to imagine that ripple out of that. One of the things in that conversation that Diane referenced that she and I agreed to hold ourselves accountable for was to get really specific when we talk to school leaders about, so what’s happening today in your schools that’s actually leveraging AI or is quote, unquote AI native, if you will? And so you all are obviously still in the design phase for 3.0. I use that with trepidation now, but put that aside for a second. Like, today, if I were to, you know, get to be in California again and I was hanging out in your schools, what would I see that’s powered today by something that’s AI native? What is it? What are the tools? What does it look like? What does it do? What are you building versus partnering with? Give, give us a sense of some concrete applications. Anywhere in the tech stack or during the day, that is AI-powered?

Cady Ching: I think this would be a good opportunity to talk about a specific tool that we’re using, which maybe not ironically is Futre as one model example of what it can look like. And Dan can speak to specifically what it’s looking like in the student and teacher experience. But one of the reasons why I start with speaking about a specific tool is because I think that largely edtech has not— has been really unsuccessful in solving for what we need to operationalize innovative school models. And Futre has been a nice shift of pace for us because it is truly a tool that is building for the child versus fitting a child into a tool or larger system. And I think that the way in which we’re using it with our young people can work in many H2 and H3 model contexts because it’s able to give us real-time data about our young people and then allowing us to build their student experience based on the data that we have about them. Dan, can you introduce, Michael a little bit more to Futre and how we’re using it at Summit?

Dan Effland: Yeah, absolutely. So Futre right now we’re using with our juniors and seniors, although we anticipate starting younger, in the coming year. And right now, our juniors are really using it to do a lot of career exploration, which the tool excels at, and really like exploring very deeply different possibilities. And then what those possibilities mean as far as what they need to be working on now or experiences they have between kind of their current point A and their future point B. And then our seniors are using it to get more concrete about what really, what is my next step? What does that mean? What is the thing I’m doing immediately after high school? — I think we deeply believe this and will proudly say it is best-in-class career-connected learning. It is. Absolutely. It is the thing when we do — when I do focus groups, when we do alumni data, kind of research, it just comes up over and over again because our young people actually get out in the community or within the school building and really doing what we now are calling real-world experiences. We’ve called them lots of different things over the decades, but we are — one of the things about that though is that kind of like we were talking about, how do we really curate the journey with this resource allocation stuff? Just tracking all of those different experiences, often there’s 50 or 60 choices for students at one school when we had those expedition cycles. We’re now pulling those experiences onto the Futre platform so we can really start to map what students have been doing, what they haven’t been doing, maybe what they should be doing. And then their mentor can take an even more engaged kind of role in coaching them through that pathway. We’re really excited about that.

We’re kind of just starting, you know, to pull those on. But I think in the future it’s one of the things that we see that the Futre tool will be really, really helpful with because, you know, young people need coaching as they’re figuring out that concrete next step.

Michael Horn: So super interesting. I actually have two questions, but let me go to you, Dan and Cady, first. And then I have a question for you, Diane. I’m going to put you on the hot seat. But I think we’re allowed to do that. But it’s interesting. You just said something there in your answer, Dan, which was then the mentor or coaching.

And so just like to put a fine point on it, The, like, this works really well because you have a model where there is that function that is meeting on a regular weekly basis, right? And like, so therefore that touchpoint, like it’s coherent again to use that word, but I, I would love a quick update on how Expeditions has evolved because when I think when Diane was exiting Summit, like, y’all were in the middle of redesigning it and I’ll be super honest, like even though she and I talk basically weekly, I don’t actually know the new version of Expeditions. And so, I still have a slide in my talk about Summit that says, you know, like every 8 weeks or whatever, you go off for 2 weeks. And y’all should update us on what’s the current state of Expeditions at Summit.

Cady Ching: Yeah, I’ll respond to 2 pieces. One, with the mentoring piece, that model element does exist. One of the reasons why I personally love Futre is because it takes some of the lift of mentors needing to be the vessel of all career pathways off the human. So when we think about that resource allocation of, you know, people, talent, it’s creating a better, more coherent system for the adult as well, which has been so important because we love to center our teachers as well in the design. And then the Expeditions redesign, it’s been really cool. We’ve been, you know, continuously shifting that program based on what our alumni are sharing back with us, based on how the world is shifting. And of course, AI, as so much a part of our students’ experience today and in the future, has shifted it again. It is non-graded— so this is actually surprisingly one of the most controversial things when we rolled it out to parents— they are not receiving grades on the different career exposure pieces that they try out as they’re with us at either the high school levels or as early as 6th grade in Seattle.

And it’s really about ensuring our students get about 9 career exposures between the time they start with us to the moment they leave, because we know it’s really important for them as they develop their identity to see themselves in different career pathways that are all mapping towards high opportunity where they can build their generational wealth for their family. So it’s probably pretty similar in terms of the time allocation. They’re in sort of what we call their core classes for 6 weeks, and then they’re pausing for 2 weeks to go out, usually in the upper grades, off campus. You don’t see — when people come to observe this on our site, they’re not actually a lot of kids in the building because learning happens without walls. Dan, what else would you add as you’re going? Dan is quite literally on an expedition tour currently. He’s at one of our school sites right now, and right after this recording, he is going to go in and speak to our teachers. So what else would you add?

Dan Effland: Yeah, I mean, I think that’s an important side of it is so that, I mean, one, it’s just, I was still in a school leadership position when we transitioned to this kind of redesigned Expeditions, and I just can’t tell you how powerful the experiences are. I can think of so many stories, so many young people, but like one in particular that a young, he’s — well, he’s probably not even that young now, but he’s 25, but he was a young, young man at the time who was really, really struggling. And this kid was having discipline issues, attendance issues, struggling, like, not necessarily living at home on a regular basis. And we really, we thought we were gonna really lose this kid. And he started doing an expedition experience related to culinary arts. After he did that first one, he did a second one, and then there was kind of a sequence of them where he had, you know, like the first one was kind of like a survey course. It was the community college. It was about 25 kids.

Finding Passion and Purpose

Dan Effland: Then he was able to do one where he was actually kind of shadowing one of the actual culinary arts program college students and learning in a second wave. So I’m having a hard time not using his name, but I’m going to keep it out. But I just loved this kid. And he found his pathway. And not only did he find his pathway and ended up going to a culinary arts program and graduating and now works, you know, like in the culinary arts, you know, scene in Seattle, his attendance improved, his grades went up, his connections with his mentor, with his teachers, with his peers, which were, you know, fraught, got better and better. And he became a healthier human because purpose and passion and having a pathway is essential for all of us. And we’re at a time when, you know, you can read about this everywhere, there’s studies, our young people are really searching for that clarity about purpose and pathway. And when you see it, I mean, it’s just like Cady said, it’s kind of hard, like it’s not a good thing to tour because the kids are mostly out in the community.

Dan Effland: But when you have the privilege of being a school leader and you see these kids over the years and they do their cycles, you just, the impact is unbelievable. So yeah, I just wanted to, yeah —

Designing Education for the Child

Michael Horn: No, the anecdotes make these things always so much more powerful. And I mean, you can, through your story, hear him building a positive identity of himself, right? And that’s incredible. Diane, something Cady said made me think of it, which is obviously, you know, folks who listen to us know that you’re the entrepreneur behind Futre. I now understand why it was originally called Point B based on Dan’s language and I guess, but she said something interesting, which was like a lot of edtech has not helped the launch of new model design, right? Because it’s been, and that, that’s sort of been obvious to me for why, right? Because the market is schools as they are, and venture capital wants big markets, and right, like, it’s — so it’s, it’s this sort of reductivist thing that happens. But she said you’ve been designing for the child, and so you’ve been able to escape that and I wondered if you just might want to reflect on that, because I imagine it is still hard though, um, because you’re still like — schools are the conduit to the kids. So just sort of like, what’s the advice, or what have you learned, right, through, through navigating that?

Diane Tavenner: Well, I think that I mean, so much of what Dan and Cady have just said is so important. And I think that what, what was one key thing is, you know, I sort of set out to build Futre as an edtech partner that did things differently than what I experienced when I was sitting in, you know, the seat that Dan and Cady are in. And you know, that core value of our company is how we do the work is as important as the work that we do. And so how we do the work is very much co-building with schools and leaders and students. And so, you know, we are out in the field working with students and teachers and people like Dan and Cady literally every other week. So we are literally co-designing and code building what happens. And so what you just heard, that Futre is being designed to help young people build this identity over a 10-year journey. I mean, that’s unheard of, I think, in any sort of tech market.

People don’t think about that. We have real outcomes that people are aiming towards, and most tech products just look at what’s something that exists and try to make it more efficient or slightly better. They don’t think about the integration of it, the flexibility of it, how it will be used by the adults. I mean, As an example, they just told you Futre can be used both in individual coaching, mentoring, advising, counseling. It can also be used with groups of students in a classroom, and it’s actually literally designed to support both of those. And I will say the, the inclusion of really supporting real-world experiences came directly from our engagement with our school partners and our students. That emerged as this real need And we were watching people literally running around schools with laptops on their arm and all these spreadsheets and trying to organize. And so we have co-built these elements together.

But you’re right, the incentives in the business side of things are not to build this way. And so, you know, like always, we’re going to see if we can prove that wrong and say, no, when you do build this way, you not only get better outcomes for young people, schools and teachers and educators, but you also can be a successful, scalable product.

Michael Horn: So certainly a more enduring product if you, if you thread that needle, right? So for sure.

Cady Ching: Yeah, exactly. So I think it’s I think it also speaks to why it’s so important for Dan and I to sort of pull together a coalition of the willing with other operators. One thing we haven’t spent — I know we’re almost at time — that much time talking about is how hard this work is. It is challenging, and we have so much to learn. We are not perfect. We are learning every single day. We are constantly seeking out other school systems that have similar visions for education, and we’re trying to learn from them. We’re trying to get out onto their campuses and be in community with them because we know that if we want to build something that’s enduring and lasting and maximizing impact on the number of students in our country, or even globally, we have to build for the students of Summit as well as all students.

And I think that, that’s what’s most important for me as I set out to lead some of this work is if it only works at Summit, it’s not good enough. And what we’ve learned about leading change at scale is that we need a shared purpose for what school is actually for, and that belief that it’s possible to build a system for that purpose, which is actually no small feat. And it’s why we’re spending so much time building what I would call a coalition of the willing, which is educators and systems who agree on our common destination before we start building the actual tools. I think my core idea is that beliefs come first, model comes next, and then the tools come last. And when we get that order right, that’s when the scale can become possible.

Summit Learning: Model vs. Technology

Diane Tavenner: Cady, I want to double-click on what you’re saying because, you know, you talked at the top of this about how Summit Learning had really scaled across the country to 40 states and, you know, 100,000 students, etc. But Dan, you also said the technology, the Summit Learning platform was not the model. It is not the model. And the model has really taken root even as that particular piece of technology has gone away. That said, I do know that you both believe deeply that having an aligned core technology that is the infrastructure that sort of I think, Dan, you used the word guardrails, like puts up the guardrails and the support for the model is profound. And I know that you’re in conversation with other folks who’ve done some at learning who are, who it’s taken root for them as well, but are having a hard time really keeping that model intact. And so talk about sort of the need for that infrastructure, the role that it plays and what you think it might look like in 3.0. And Cady, you just said it, no one’s going to build technological infrastructure for a single school or a single school system.

And so there has to be this coalition.

Cady Ching: We have to create the market.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah. And so talk about that because the market generally is not very coherent. And as I sit on the other side, it can be really confusing and hard so talk about how you guys are thinking about that.

Enabling Learning Through AI

Dan Effland: Yeah, I think this is something we’ve started to be spending more and more of our time on as we’ve gotten clearer in the work with our students and caregivers and educators this fall. We’ve gotten clearer about where we’re going. There is this need, which is that technology is not the model, but it is, you know, there’s a reason we talk about time, talent, and technology as the big levers with resources. It is a huge enabler. And I think the possibilities with AI as part of that technology infrastructure make it an even stronger enabler. So I’ve already talked about like the idea of like dynamically reallocating resources, which is, I think, I love in a conversation educators here, because I think sometimes it’s not the, like the shiniest thing to talk about, but we know that getting kids the right thing at the right time in the right sequence is often the difference between learning and not learning, between progress and not progress, and between finding that pathway and not finding it. And so, at a high level, when we’re thinking about that infrastructure, we need to make sure that, like, we have a really rich, you know, amount of data.

And there’s a lot of work to be done there. Our school systems historically have not put data together in ways where you can create what like a technology person would call the data lake in a way where you can really access that as you need it. And then the next element is going to be a really robust knowledge graph that is not just academic standards. It’s got to be much broader than that. And then, of course, the way that AI would then interact with that to allocate and think about your resources. And I’ll share too, like when we think about resources, I generally think of everything as a resource. My time is a resource, Cady’s time is a resource, our educators’ time is a resource, curriculum is a resource, YouTube is a resource. Anything that can help a young person move towards those outcomes, we think of as a resource, and how can we constantly repackage those and get them in the right order while holding onto the vision? Because I think there’s a version of personalized learning that I would call like individualized learning.

That’s not what we’re talking about. I believe this has to happen deeply in community and with really strong relationships and human connection. And so the personalized learning, then it’s actually more complex when you’re committed to maintaining community and relationships, because you’ve got to figure out configurations of young people and not just put everybody separately on a computer they have a particular pathway and so.

Cady Ching: And that’s what we’re seeing, we’re seeing people just run, sprint towards an outcome without doing the diligence. And I think that it’s resulting in a lot of binary. If you’re either tech-forward or you’re human-centered, and there is a way to bring that together and build a model that’s doing both and that’s what we’re setting out to do.

Dan Effland: Yeah. There’s another binary too, that we haven’t talked about, but we should stamp here, which is this binary of like, real-world readiness or academic foundations. And that we now, we have these camps and like, we’re all about academics and we’re all about the real world. And when you talk to students, you talk to students and caregivers and educators, no one thinks it should be an either-or. That’s the scarcity mindset we’re often in, an area that we engage in educators. And we’re deeply committed that our young people will be prepared with college-ready academic foundations and real-world readiness, which means for us habits of success, communication, collaboration, all executive functioning. That is has a purpose

Diane Tavenner: Yeah. One is, as Dan, your story of that student showed, the sense of purpose, which is connected to what my life will look like in the future, really is what drives everything for a young person, right? It’s how they’re forming their identity as they build that vision. It’s what motivates them to stick to the hard work every single day on this journey to get where, where they’re going, and so yeah, I think what you’re up to is really critical. I hope that a lot of schools and systems engage with you to create this demand in the market for this type of infrastructure, dare we say, you know, Summit Learning Platform 3.0 as well. Because I think that it’s really, it’s hard to conceive of a post-AI model that doesn’t have that. That real infrastructure.

And I know you all haven’t seen it or found it yet, but continue to make strides in bringing it to life.

Michael Horn: This season of Class Disrupted is sponsored by Learner Studio, a nonprofit motivated by one question: what will young people need to be inspired and prepared to flourish in the age of AI as individuals, in careers and for civil thriving. Learner Studio is sponsoring this season on AI and education because in this critical moment, we need more than just hype. We need authentic conversations asking the right questions from a place of real curiosity and learning. You can learn more about Learner Studio’s mission and the innovators who inspire them at www.learnerstudio.com.

So a good place maybe, Diane, to wrap up.

Should we pivot to our before we let you off the hook section? Cady, Dan, we have a tradition here where we, where we talk about something we’ve been reading, writing, watching, listening, whatever it is, not writing, listening to, and eventually I’ll get my verbs correct. But and then, so just often we try to keep it outside work, but we often fail. So, Cady, you want to go first, and then Dan, we want to hear what’s been on your playlist or bedside table, and then Diane and I will wrap it up.

Cady Ching: Yeah, sounds great. I have been— I taught my 7-year-old what it means to brain rot. I don’t know if you’ve heard that term, but where you just sit on the couch and just kind of watch nothing for hours and hours. And we did do a Spider-Man and Avengers binge this past weekend. So that is something I have been watching a lot of. Reading is going to be hard for me to separate it from the professional. I’ve just been really deep in leader succession. I think to do this work, you need really strong talent in leadership pipeline.

And so I’ve been in HBR. I check the Marshall Memo every week to see what, what they’re pulling out, to really think about how I’m leading personally, locally, individually, but then also what the sector needs. Dan, I’ll pass it to you.

Dan Effland: Similarly, like the kind of first answer on my mind is just this fire hose of like white papers and podcasts about education and AI.

Cady Ching: And then he screenshots them and sends them to the whole team.

Dan Effland: Yeah, drive everyone nuts with them. But I do have a more, maybe a more fun one on the personal side. Kind of finally reading the Foundation series, the Isaac Asimov kind of classic sci-fi. It’s honestly about connection for me. My siblings are sci-fi readers and I’m very late to the party. And then my father is retired now, and one of his, it seems like, main activities as a retiree is to reread everything Asimov ever wrote multiple times.. And so for Christmas this year, I got a stack of these really great, Half Price Books paperbacks of all the Foundation novels, and I’m starting to work through them.

And we have a text thread about them, and they are, it’s a wonderful story, it’s very complex, and it certainly does also make me think a little bit about the future of our world and AI and, and what, you know, where, where young people fit in that, but it’s also just been a really fun way to connect to the family.

Michael Horn: That’s cool. Wow.

Diane Tavenner: What about you, Diane? Well, picking up on that. So first of all, apparently this is not going to be a novel recommendation because this Apple TV series, I guess, is the most watched at this point. But we watched Pluribus, which was created by Vince Gilligan, who — yes, Breaking Bad. Yes, Better Call Saul. I didn’t watch either of those, but I was a huge X-Files fan

Michael Horn: Back in the day.

Diane Tavenner: OK. And so there is very much some X-Files feel here in Pluribus. But to what Dan said, and I think Foundation is related, I just find this series to be so provocative in the questions that it’s bringing up and sort of the contemplation of where we’re going as a society and how the choices we’re making each day might affect that and what we actually want. And I will— I told you I would report back my goal. I did finish Ian McEwan’s novel that I pre-promoted. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But it was everything I expected and more.

It was just extraordinary. And I did both of those over the holiday. And I will tell you, I feel like I’m sort of in surround sound right now of asking these big existential questions along with everything from what’s happening in the news on a day-to-day basis to all the work in AI. So, but I would highly recommend it. Super provocative and interesting.

Michael Horn: Perfect

Diane Tavenner: Perfect. Crazy. Like, you never know what’s gonna happen next.

Michael Horn: That’s fun when you can’t predict it coming.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: Yeah. Yeah. I was gonna say, so the brain rot theme that you brought up, Cady, I mean, we talk about it all the time with our 11-year-olds, here at home. But I was — this is not where I was going to go at all with this, but I — something one of my kids said made me think of the Animaniacs theme song, if you all remember that cartoon from back in the day, and I pulled it up and showed it, and my wife just dismissively said, this was brain rot when we were growing up. so, there you go. the one I’ll say is, we all went with another family and saw Wonder, at the American Repertory Theater. Many people may know the book, Wonder, which follows the story of Auggie Pullman, a 10-year-old who has Tretcher Collins, syndrome that presents as disfiguration of the face and sort of how going into a school environment for the first time and all the things that it does. And there’s a movie about it as well, but now there is a musical too.

And Diane, you will not be surprised, I was crying from the opening number and I kept it up through the whole thing. So it was, I was true to form. That’s a good one to cry over. It was good. I represented well, but it was fantastic. We’ll see if it makes the jump from sort of off-off-Broadway to something bigger, but until then, if you’re in the Cambridge area, definitely check it out. And for all of you, just huge thanks, Cady, Dan, for joining us, getting us to have a peek under the cover of what’s coming next at Summit and the broader — as usual, you all are thinking about the broader ecosystem as well, which I admire so much about the work you all do at Summit. It’s not just our model, but how does our model spur this greater change across education.

So huge thanks for joining us. And for all of you listening, keep the questions, comments coming. Diane and I feed off them, and we really appreciate all of you. We’ll see you next time on Class Disrupted.

Disclosure: Diane Tavenner founded Summit Public Schools and served as its CEO from 2003 to 2023.��

This episode is sponsored by LearnerStudio.

The AI Behind Flourish Microschools

Diane Tavenner and Michael B. Horn — Thu, 26 Mar 2026 16:30:00 +0000

John Danner, the cofounder of Rocketship Public Schools and now the founder of Flourish Schools, an emerging network of AI-native microschools, joined Michael Horn and Diane Tavenner to share what’s now possible when it comes to school design in the age of artificial intelligence that wasn’t previously possible. Danner explained how Flourish is leveraging AI to deliver foundational skills like reading and math through conversational tutors to free up teachers to focus on building relationships and nurturing students’ passions and “superpowers.”

He also shared how they’re using the technology to provide real-time assessment and feedback on student projects. The conversational models can be much more powerful, he says, than previous edtech applications.

Listen to the episode below. A full transcript follows.

Diane Tavenner: Hey, Michael.

Michael Horn: Hey, Diane. It is good to see you again for our continuing conversations on AI.

Diane Tavenner: You too. This one’s going to be a fun one. You know, our most recent episode, we talked with Alpha School founder Mackenzie Price. Most people have heard of Alpha at this point. It’s getting a ton of attention. And so what we tried to do there was really move beyond the talking points and the marketing to really dig into the model itself, including specifically how they’re using AI, which is turning into a bit of our quest this season. And so this conversation today is a part of that exploration on who’s building what I would call maybe AI-native school models, if anyone. And, you know, what might they look like? What are they starting to look like? And it’s a really fun conversation today because we get to have a chat with an old friend.

Michael Horn: Yes, that is indeed correct, Diane. Today we’re going to get to chat with none other than John Danner. John, for those that don’t know him, has had a decorated career in tech before turning to education, as he co-founded and led NetGravity, the first ad server company, I believe. And after taking it public, selling it to DoubleClick, John went back to school and then became a teacher, and he taught in Nashville for a few years there. And then I think a lot of folks know him because he co-founded, of course, Rocketship Public Schools in 2006, which we, of course, talked about also in our last episode. But Rocketship was a buzzy school for a good while there, marked by its student outcomes, its use of technology, its expansion. And then after leaving Rocketship in 2013, John did a number of other things, including founding an online math tutoring company, creating some very interesting education investment vehicles and more. But I want to skip ahead to his most recent venture, Flourish Schools, which is what we’re going to hear about today.

Michael Horn: So, John, hopefully I did some justice to the bio, but, welcome. It is always good to see you.

John Danner: Thank you, Michael. Great to see both of you. Long time.

Michael Horn: This is going to be fun. This is going to be fun. So let’s start with grounding our audience. My assumption is that a lot of folks know Rocketship and what you did there. Far fewer know about the Flourish Schools model itself and what these schools actually look like. So maybe give us the basics, like what is Flourish Schools, how many of them are there today, how big are they, what’s the grade levels, what does a day in a student’s life look like at these schools? You know, paint the picture for us.

John Danner: Yeah, yeah. So we started Flourish about a year ago. We opened our first school last August. In Nashville, one microschool so far. They’re middle schools, so grades 6 through 8. I’m out in Phoenix today. We’re opening a couple more schools in Phoenix next year, next August. And I’d say the reason for doing it, you know, Diane knows this well, like doing schools is quite difficult work.

Enhancing Foundational Learning with AI

John Danner: I often prefer being on the software side where, you know, life is good. But, you know, schools are hard work and sometimes you have to do them. I think the big motivator in starting Flourish for me was that I had started a couple of AI companies, Project Read, probably the most notable doing reading, which is in a lot of classrooms. And I just noticed that most schools are using AI in a very supplemental way right now, very much the same way they used edtech. And that bothered me because, you know, in reading, for example, I think there’s a pretty good argument that AI for reading is going to be better than the best human reading teacher within the next year or two. It’s not a long way off at all because teaching reading is really hard. Training teachers to teach that is hard. It’s hard to be patient with kids when they’re making lots of mistakes.

And it’s hard to remember everything a kid has ever done when they’re reading with you, right? All of which just is default for AI. So, you know, in watching Project Read roll out and seeing everybody kind of use it, you know, in those last 15 minutes in the class when they were kind of, you know, a kid was done with the assignment and needed to do something else. Like, I was like, you know, that doesn’t seem like how AI should, affects schools. It should be used more strategically. You know, what can AI do, and therefore what do you do with teacher time? I think, you know, for me, teacher time has always been kind of the scarce resource. It’s like whatever teachers focus on is really what schools do. No matter what schools talk about, it’s like, OK, what, what are your teachers doing? That’s what’s going to have the most impact. And so Flourish we, we started with the assumption that what we call foundations, kind of the basic skills, reading, writing, math, are going to be better taught by AI.

The way we kind of look at it is if you think of like Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3 instruction, it’s really the move from technology as a Tier 2 or Tier 3 product to a Tier 1. So, you know, can you use AI to do kind of tier 1 basic skills and standards-based instruction? And so that was what we did from day 1 at Flourish. We’re 6 months into it now. I would say the lesson learned is, of course, you’re going to have students in any school that like, you know, whatever. We have several special ed, several ELL students they need more time and attention. But during our foundations block, which is an hour long, teachers have time to work with them one-on-one. And a teacher working with a student one-on-one on reading or whatever is like a luxury that like no other school has because that you can’t have them doing that. But when all the other kids are making great progress with AI, having a teacher spend that time, that luxurious time is actually possible.

AI’s Impact on Schooling

John Danner: So that’s the fundamental thesis is that we can do that in a way that that’s what our teachers are not doing and spending all their time preparing for and teaching during the day. And that allows us to kind of come up with a new curriculum. And I think actually, you know, you guys want to focus on AI and we should. I think the actual interesting question with schools is once you make the commitment that AI is going to do a lot of this basic instruction, then you’re confronted with the now what problem, which is like, oh gosh, what’s school for like moving forward? And I guess that’s, that’s what we’re kind of excited about is we’re in this super serious time of change for students. They’re not going to grow up to a world that we all experienced. You know, my daughter just got out of college. She was a pre-med, but didn’t really want to be a doctor. She gets out in the job market and gosh, there are no jobs.

And like all those other things that she learned along the way about hustle and, you know, you got to go put yourself out there and whatever played out and she found a job. But boy, like if you had just spent all your time in school, like learning algebra or whatever, she wouldn’t have done well. So, I think, you know, our point of view at Flourish is we, we talk about 3 things mainly, relationships. So these are middle schoolers. So how do you get along with other people? And we do an hour we call circles, which is really as kind of therapeutic as it might sound, where kids are sitting in a circle talking about their feelings, how other kids affect them, et cetera. And for many, many of our students, I’d say it’s pretty mind-blowing to actually understand how other people are thinking, you know, as you’re talking and saying things and stuff like that. Really powerful.

So relationships are a big piece. And then we talk about two others, superpowers and passions. So superpowers is kind of our word for what people have called soft skills. I hate the term soft skills because it’s kind of denigrating in a world of like standards-based instruction. Oh, that’s the other stuff that, you know, makes you a human, but it’s not nearly as important as high school chemistry or whatever. Like, we actually think it’s the opposite now that knowledge is pretty abundant and accessible, like the things that make you human are the more important things. So, do you have agency and curiosity and these other things that make you awesome? That’s important. And then the passion side is really, what do you want to do when you grow up? What are you excited about? What are your big interests? Which, you know, as you know, for upper-income families tends to happen at home.

You know, you’re sitting around the table or you go, you know, on a little family field trip or whatever, and kids are discovering lots of different things that they might be excited about. Happens a lot less in working class and lower income families. We’re purposefully mixed income. We took a page out of your book for that, Diane. I think that’s really the right way to do this. And so for our kids who are, you know, working class and lower income, we think like discovering, what the world is and what you might want to be in is super important, especially in middle, so that you kind of enter high school with some idea of like what you’re excited about and some kind of path you might want to pursue. Even if that changes, that’s OK, you’re not just kind of clueless showing up in high school, which, you know, a lot of kids are.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah, super helpful, John. You know, one of the ways I’ve been trying to have conversations with people about what these sort of AI-native models will look like or can look like or do look like is I don’t want to have a conversation where we compare what they’re doing compared to like the old industrial model classroom, right, that’s like not useful to me.

John Danner: We’ve had that conversation. Yeah.

Diane Tavenner: So I keep using the sort of Rocketship and Summit because I know them the best of like best-in-class sort of personalized learning models that we were doing the very best we could at the time with the resources we had, and doing a lot of what you just described, right? Like, I’m assuming circles maybe comes out of Valor, which, you know, it has, you know. So like, a lot of that great stuff we were doing before. So what I’m really, and you’ve alluded to this, I think, with shifting Tier 1 instruction out of the classroom model and the AI is doing that. But let’s dig in a little bit deeper. Like, literally, what’s possible today that we just didn’t do 10 years ago and now we can do it? And what does that specifically look like in the model?

John Danner: I think the big change here is really one from point and click to conversational, right? Like, that was the eye-opener for me, really, you know, back in the ChatGPT moment was you kind of just immediately it became clear that a conversational agent would be able to kind of work through things with a student in so much better way than, you know, kind of what we all did with kind of edtech back in the day. So, you know, we all, we call it personalization, but there’s kind of a difference between a program more or less knowing where you are and what you need versus what an AI does, which is it knows everything. You know, like in Flourish, we more or less pour everything about a student into it. We have transcripts from everything students say. Like, the AI just is all-knowing about what’s happened with that student at the school. And so when it’s personalizing, it’s 100 or 1,000 times deeper level than like this basic categorization that edtech used to be able to do. So I think it’s much more aware of what students need. And I just think the mechanism of talking to a student conversationally is so much better than kind of navigating through a bunch of screens and the stuff we used to do.

Diane Tavenner: So I’m assuming then you’re building your own. It sounds like you’re building, you called it curriculum, but like that tier 1, because I have yet to see sort of off-the-shelf products that are really, that I would be like, yeah, they’re great. They can do the tier 1 instruction. Talk about what you’re building, what that looks like for middle school kids, you know.

John Danner: Yeah, right. And remember, we’re 6 months old, so anything I tell you is like total work in progress. But, you know, we’ve got good people and we’re working pretty hard on it. So the, you know, the fundamental idea, so I’ll tell you where we started with this and then kind of where we are now. We kind of had this idea that we’d have an agent on our side that was very good at sending kids to the right place to get the right help, right? So kind of like a hybrid between the old ed tech world and kind of this AI-driven world. And we pretty quickly discovered the kind of things that we had discovered at Rocketship, or I’m sure you did at Summit, which is there’s so much friction and stuff involved in manipulating another program. It’s like basically not worth it. And so that probably took a couple months for us to just realize like this is a waste of time.

Tutoring via Adaptive Dialogue

John Danner: And so really the way our system works today is as a student, I’ll tell you today and then where we hope to be in 2 months. So today, the way it works is that we have kind of a pre-assessment where we’re looking for what a student knows. Based on what they know, they enter a conversation with our AI. We often will have a 1 or 2 minute video of like just what that thing is, kind of an old edtech type thing, right? Just because I think a framing is often helpful for a new concept, but that the majority of the real instruction is kind of this dialogue between the AI and the student on like, OK, well, let’s talk about, you know, two-digit addition just for lack of anything better. Here’s a problem, you know, solve this problem for me, tell me how you’re doing it. And then basically just digging in as the student doesn’t get it. And it’s so easy to prompt for, I mean, you know, Zeal, my third company, the math tutoring company, we had figured out all the misconceptions that every student has in math. And so when you prompt an AI with that, OK, here are the 10 likely things that a student’s going to do wrong, when they’re doing two-digit math, it just goes, oh, OK, that’s it, and then it goes deep there, right? So if you think about it, it’s very fluid.

It’s very much what a human tutor would do in that case. They’re kind of responding in real time to what that student’s doing and going, oh geez, you don’t really understand how to carry the tens place, so let’s go deeper there or whatever. So that interaction with the AI happens, and then we go out and post-assess. And so the student’s kind of manipulating where they want to go and what they want to do through that process. Where we’re going, where I hope to be in a couple months, is that that’s all, all the pre- and post-assessment is kind of gone. We’re finding that the AI through that dialogue has just as good an understanding of what that student is capable of doing as kind of any formal assessment process. And it’s much more natural to just have the students sit down with the AI, you know, when they start and talk about what they want to work on. And then, you know, kind of the AI drills into that and shows them a video and does things like that.

So I think it could feel quite a bit like, you know, a student showing up at a tutoring center and that tutor kind of just working with them. It feels like that’s going to work. But that’s where we’re at with it.

Diane Tavenner: Is that voice or are they typing or both?

John Danner: We’re doing typing now. We’d love to do voice. We started there and we really worked hard on it. I would say that the biggest problem with voice for us is that we have never figured out the kind of noisy classroom problem. Very hopeful that somebody does because of the issue, you know, even if you’re off in a corner of a classroom or even outside in the hallway, the AI hears everything. And so it you know, and if you think about it, like when you’re in one of these sessions, the AI hears something and somehow inserts that in the conversation. That’s just weird. It kind of ruins the whole flow.

So it’s easier with middle schoolers to do kind of a text-based one right now. But I, you know, what I’ve told the team is I think the main interface for AI will probably be audio at some point. Like it’s just the most natural way. And so as the industry kind of builds better and better models for that, I hope that this problem gets solved and we can go to audio.

Diane Tavenner: That makes sense to me. And do you then have a knowledge graph underneath that? So even though the students sort of like flowing where it makes sense to them, at the end of the day, you have kind of the macro plan of where you want them to go.

John Danner: And yeah, so we built a super elaborate one for Zeal and unfortunately are more or less rebuilding it now for all of our stuff. Yeah, I think that’s right. I mean, as you guys know, the real challenge with AI is often that it’s so good in the moment at these things, but you kind of have to bring it back to reality sometimes. And so, you know, having a prompt that says, hey, pull the knowledge graph and see what’s the most important thing to work on is helpful. It’s kind of like this, you know, savant type tutor that can help a kid in the moment with anything, but kind of loses the picture of like what’s the most important thing to do. So you kind of have to bring it back.

And I think the knowledge is the way to do that.

Diane Tavenner: John, how does this connect with, I know you’re very committed to project-based learning and sort of that approach, which you know that I am as well. And, you know, it sounds a little bit like what you’re describing. You know, at Summit Learning, we have the playlists where you were doing the content knowledge. What you’re describing, I think, is a stronger version of that and what AI can do. How are you connecting it to the projects? What’s the intersection there? What’s going on there? And are you using AI in the projects?

John Danner: Yeah, the answer to the second is definitely yes. And let’s talk about that in a second. So we have a theory as a, as a school system, that’s probably the opposite, at least the opposite of like my alma mater. I’ve been talking to Bellarmine. It’s my alma mater in San Jose, talking to teachers about that. And, you know, AI is a problem for a lot of schools and teachers, right? Like it’s the cheating and stuff like that. We have basically the opposite approach, which is like, assume any kid can use anything that will help them read, write, understand, research better, and then like uplevel what you’re teaching so that you assume that yes, everybody’s writing is going to be perfect now. Don’t worry about that.

That’s not your job anymore. So with projects, you know, the link really is when you’re in a project, you’re trying to apply knowledge to build something to do something. And it’s extremely common to not understand something well enough to do that well. And so you need to go off and kind of research and understand it. So the link that will exist that doesn’t exist yet, which I’d like to see, is foundations lives in its own block right now at Flourish, but we’d like foundations to be accessible kind of basically all the time for students so that that’s the main way that you research as well through kind of an AI interface. So that’s the ideal. Right now what happens is that a student kind of struggles, they go off and use Gemini or something for things. And then we know, you know, the AI knows because it’s paying attention to the project and what’s going on.

‘Oh, this student struggled with this,’ and then in Foundation that kind of bubbles to the top the next day. But like, why wait? Like, just make it real time. If a student’s struggling with something, just go ahead and do it. We do have to figure out kind of the, you know, the tier 1 versus tier 2 of this. Like, if a student’s really struggling and they’ve got a real issue and you just wipe out project time doing that, that doesn’t feel right either. So we’re gonna have to figure out like what level of intervention happens if, you know, they’re still not getting it. But certainly at least the tier 1, like, oh, I just don’t know about this, let’s learn more, should happen through that Foundation system, we think.

Diane Tavenner: That makes sense. Yeah, that makes sense to me. Tell me about what the educator is doing in these times.

John Danner: Yeah, I mean, I think that’s the most important thing really is And I know for many, many teachers, the concern is, gosh, well, maybe you just don’t need me anymore or something. And that’s just completely not true. I mean, I noticed this at Rocketship, you know, people go into teaching because they love kids. That’s like, you know, that’s the common thing that you always hear. Some people go into teaching because they want to be content experts, but not that many, at least at kind of elementary and middle, like, it’s still really driven by like, I really wanna connect with kids and be with kids, not like I wanna be the best reading teacher or whatever. And so, you know, when you kind of push a lot of this like content knowledge and instruction to AI, what really happens is a little bit of like what I was describing with tier 2 and tier 3 during that time where a teacher now has a lot of time. So, you know, a lot of the stuff is going on. Project-based learning is nice that way.

Building Teacher-Student Connections

John Danner: Kids are working on things, which feels kind of like a big Montessori classroom or whatever, where like everybody’s being industrious and getting things done. But like, you know, the question is always, OK, so like what’s the best and highest use for the teacher at that point? So I think, you know, our opinion in general is kind of building trusted relationships is the most important thing you can do as a teacher, right? Like anytime you think about teachers that affected you, it’s because for whatever reason they spent the extra time to kind of get to know you, understand what you were going through, and like became kind of a trusted friend and advisor. And I think buying time back to allow teachers to do more of that is by far the highest value. Of course, interventions and things like that are awesome. Having students reach to do higher-order thinking once they’ve finished a project, all that’s great, but I think it’s all in kind of service of making that connection between our teacher and our students such that the student is more excited and interested to, you know, learn and think with that teacher about other things, you know, especially with superpowers and passions and things like that. Like, we have it, I’ll just brief aside, you know, we have these report cards that have superpowers on them. And so they say things like, you know, organization or self-awareness or whatever. So you can imagine our parent-teacher conferences are pretty amazing because while a parent is like, yeah, I don’t really know much about middle school math and frankly don’t care that much.

Boy, when you bring up self-awareness or something like that, they can go on for a long time. And so you have these really deep discussions about these kinds of things and kids by middle school, certainly in high school, they’re not really listening to their parents about these things very much. They’re kind of sick of hearing this. So I really do think schools have a way better chance of kind of influencing how children are doing these things, especially around superpowers and passions. But that requires trust and trust, you know, it’s hard to build. So we think that the best thing for teachers to be doing is kind of like getting into deeper conversations with students and talking to them about like, you know, what their interests are, what they like. And building that in the hope that they have influence over that student’s trajectory.

Michael Horn: Well, so, John, I think this actually is perfect translation into the other thing that AI is doing to free up teacher time for that, which is, as I understand it, at least from, from what you’ve written, is that you have this AI coach that is quite involved in the project-based learning piece of this equation. And I think two distinct ways. So, maybe talk about that.

John Danner: Yeah, I mean, again, work in progress, so I’m not super happy with how it’s being involved right now, but I’ll tell you what I want it to be doing well. So I think that, you know, and Diane, you live this, that the real challenge with project-based learning is there’s kind of like this huge amount of really mechanical stuff that happens in project-based learning, whereas students are confused about what they’re doing, or they’re tired and not motivated, or whatever, and you watch project-based classrooms and like actually like 80% of the teacher time is like walking around doing that stuff where they’re like, come on, Joey, let’s get going, you know, blah, blah, blah. Which of course there will still be some of that, but to what extent can you create a really awesome thought partner that kind of does a lot of those things? Like, hey, Joey, you know, what we need to focus on here is this. Have you thought about, like, you know, kind of re-engaging the way a good teacher does. Because if you can free them of a bunch of that kind of, you know, really mechanical time, I think not only does it free time, it also like kind of frees your mind up as a teacher to kind of think deeper and like look for relationships and, you know, these kind of things that we really want teachers to do. So I think that’s a big piece of what we’re hoping that this coach does. The other thing it really does for us, and you asked about this before as well, Diane, is it listens. So we’ve got mics all over the place, students are talking, it’s all anonymized, but basically the system knows what bucket to throw all the comments that students are making, etc.

Teaching Soft Skills

John Danner: And when you think about like superpowers, these soft skills. One of the other difficult things in that kind of curriculum and approach is like, and you see it in kind of SEL-type schools all the time, it kind of devolves into like playtime sometimes where it’s not as rigorous. And what AI can really do there is by looking for evidence of, you know, perseverance, for example, when did the student show that they didn’t just stop, they kind of asked the next question and kept going? Like when the AI can provide those examples in each student’s kind of superpowers report card of those things and the teacher can review it, that is so helpful because, you know, when it comes to like pushing for students to improve in these areas. Teachers really have to know, like, kind of where everybody is, where is John on these different skills, where should I focus. And so helping to provide data so that teachers can do that is, is really, really important. I would say it’s pretty good. Like, here’s one thing that kind of surprised me, we did this like a month and a half ago, the AI assessing these, we have 24 of these superpowers across all the students in the school. And we did the AI-rated students on a scale of 1 to 5, and then 3 teachers rated those same students.

And it was only off from kind of the lead teacher by about 10%. So like you know, that to me, that’s like, it’s close enough. It’s kind of like stuff where it’s like, you’re probably right, like a super expert teacher can absolutely do a little bit better. But like, we kind of want to get it to the point where the teacher’s like, yeah, you know, I pretty much trust this. I’ll look at the evidence, but more or less, it says that, OK, like, what should I do about that?

Diane Tavenner: And John, that assessment from the AI was just sort of that natural capture of all they’re doing and assessing based on, yeah, to me, like, then assessment is a no-brainer. That should, I think it’s a conflict of interest for teachers to be assessing, quite frankly, but that’s another conversation. But,.

John Danner: I mean, the other point here, right, is that when you do assessment that way, I think it’s both more valid and stops taking classroom time, right? It just happens naturally. And that’s how it happens in the real world too. It’s not like you sit down and.

Michael Horn: You go, right, we don’t stop and say, now here’s your time.

John Danner: You don’t give somebody a 5-question assessment. 6 months or so. It’s crazy.

Diane Tavenner: Yeah, yeah. So, can I just play back to you what I think you’re just, saying, just to make sure I’m getting a real picture of what’s happening or what you are moving towards happening? And you’ve only been at it for 6 months, but you’re making pretty quick progress, it sounds like. So this, like, if I’m a student in my project time, and we all know this happens a lot, there’s some kids who, like, literally, you know, the teacher’s bumblebeeing around, and every time the teacher bumblebees around, maybe I’m productive for that moment, but then the teacher bumblebees away, and then I’m kind of playing or I’m whatever. But AI knows what I’m doing in those in-between times, and so I’m getting some sort of feed or feedback of some sort, and the teacher’s seeing it, my family’s maybe seeing it, of like, hey, this is what’s going on in your time, and so we’re going to hold the mirror up, give you some feedback, tell you like, this is the stuff you could be doing to be more productive. Is that kind of what you’re describing? And If so,

John Danner: Yeah, we’re all going to have that. So this is another thing, like one of the things we think about a lot at Flourish is like, is this different than the real world’s going to be or the same? And I think we all basically need that. Like, you know, if you had a voice that was kind of going like, John, what are you doing? You’ve been doom scrolling. You know, like it’d be pretty helpful, really.

Diane Tavenner: Well, one of the big conversations is about motivation, right? And like, oh, you can’t, you have to like motivate kids to use the technology to learn. But actually, I think you’re flipping the script here and saying like, no, the technology is like literally helping, young people be motivated because someone’s paying attention and they’re noticing what they’re doing and they’re giving them feedback on it. And you know,

Feedback and Rewards Drive Success

John Danner: The feedback thing is the important thing. It’s like basically if something’s giving you feedback, like even if the feedback’s not perfect, it’s so much better than not getting feedback. You know, like the classroom where everybody’s got their hand up and they’re just waiting for the teacher to call. Like that’s a bad place to be. So now you’ve basically got this continuous loop. The other thing I would say that I think is just almost for free in this world is, you know, the gaming world has figured out a lot of things that they do when you’re doing a pretty basic task to play the game, and you might not be that excited about it, but like, you know, they’re setting up rewards. We use badges, um, you know, so like an example is you might do 2 or 3 different projects, and by doing those 2 or 3 different projects that was built up to a badge. And so the badge is kind of hanging out there and some other student in the class got it.

And so you want it and things like that. And, and those like really kind of basic game things are very helpful at different times during the day, right? Like we kind of all need a little bit of push. We’re very conscious of intrinsic versus extrinsic. motivation. And so like projects are a good example where the default is intrinsic. We want students to be kind of working on that project because they’re interested in that, because they want to do it. But there are definitely times where the AI is paying attention and kind of prompting and even, you know, doing some rewarding and things like that is actually quite helpful for them to kind of persevere.

Diane Tavenner: John, I want to talk to you about, I think you’re the perfect person to talk to about this. So one of the things I hear out there a lot is like, oh, the hyperscalers are just going to build this. Like, number one. Number two, most schools and school systems have zero ability to actually build what you’re building. So you’re sort of this unique person because you sit at the intersection of like opening, operating schools and the ability to build sophisticated technology. Is that, are the hyperscalers going to build what you’re building? Like, are you, like, how do you think about the building of the technology here for schools?

John Danner: Yeah, I mean, we’d be pretty happy if the hyperscalers built it, first of all. We’re, you know, so I think that the main challenge over the next 20 years in education is going to be how quickly do we move to a world where students are living in the current world as opposed to the, you know, 20 years ago or whatever. Like, and, and so these basic things we’re doing like foundations, I think it’s important for students to live in that world now. And so what does it take school systems to move towards that world? I know that your approach at Summit, our approach at Rocketship in the beginnings of the edtech world were, hey, let’s just build these kind of basic model schools and hopefully people will come visit and go, oh gosh, you know, that doesn’t look too bad. Like I could probably do that as well. So I think a lot of the point of Flourish is creating this proof point where people can come and see and go, huh, that, that actually works well, and it’s definitely not dehumanizing. I see the teacher interactions with the students as being more human, um, than my classroom. So I think that’s like actually our point, our reason for being is to kind of be that model.

And, you know, we’ll build a network and we’ll get as big as we can, but, but really kind of purposefully influencing school leaders, district leaders, state leaders to think about, like, you know, what they could do as well. On the technology side, I’m generally of the opinion that a lot of this will get easier and easier for everybody who’s not at the foundation level over time. I will say, like, there are some exceptions to that. So, like, with Project Read, with phonemes and graphemes. When you’re doing kind of deeper reading stuff, they may get there. I mean, the AIs may know everything at some point, but like there’s not a super strong reason for them to get there earlier. So there are pockets like that that probably will be specialized for longer. But, you know, as a school, it’s just better for us the faster all of that becomes a commodity.

And the more we can just, you know, get off-the-shelf stuff, like there’s no real joy in building all of this stuff. And for the change to happen, we don’t want people to have to think about all this stuff, really.

Diane Tavenner: No, I have to ask about scale because your point that the faster we can get kids to be living in today’s world versus the old world suggests that we need to scale as quickly as possible for that to happen, to get as many kids there. You and I both bear a lot of scars around different efforts to scale both mortar schools and influence type things. This time you’ve gone with a microschool network. What’s your, you had grand ambitions with Rocketship and clearly Rocketship’s great and Preston’s done an amazing job since you left, but it never reached sort of the scale that I think you originally hoped. What is your thinking now? Why microschools?

John Danner: Yeah, I mean, you know, putting it like just putting it bluntly, I think politics killed charter schools more or less. Like, you know, you look at most high-performing charter schools, they tend to look more and more like the districts that host them. You know, they actually, like, I look at RocketShips around the country. They actually look as much like the district they’re hosted by as they look like RocketShips sometimes. You know, it’s like, ’cause you know, your authorizer authorizes you and they have a lot of influence. So it was kind of like this cool experiment that at the beginning probably created a lot of innovation and then over time kind of has this like bringing it back to the, you know, kind of what the districts are doing. I think that microschools, certainly microschools, are starting in a very different place, you know, where the way I think about charters is the compromise happened right at the beginning. Where we would like to receive public funding and for that we will like to fit into the system.

Whereas the microschool movement kind of started with a different point where the stronger position was taken early on when the laws were formed that like these things are independent. They’re way more like private schools than they are like district schools. And of course, there will be some influence from states and others on that, but nowhere near like, you know, what we saw in the charter world where it was like, you know, I remember the story I always tell is Rocketship had specialized teachers for math and reading in elementary school, which was not normal at all. And I was just tortured for years by districts over this. You know, the main thing was like, no, it’s, you know, a student needs one trusted adult, you know, when they’re that age. And if they have two, it’s going to like, you know, all fall apart, which was, of course, total bogusness. But I had to go through that anyway. Like, you know, that was just time of my life spent arguing something silly.

Whereas with microschools, you just don’t have to argue that. So I think the big question is, what will be the ultimate, like, kind of political destiny of microschools? Will they get capped in the way that charters did? Will they somehow kind of get influenced in a way they aren’t now? Right now they’re pretty great. I mean, you know, you basically build a school that parents and students love and, and you build the curriculum and the program you want. That’s nice. Something you would have enjoyed, Diane.

Reimagining Teachers’ Roles

Diane Tavenner: Yeah, no, I mean, it’s tempting. I will say Michael’s always so kind because when we start talking schools, I just take over. So he’s being so patient. The thing that’s coming to me, and maybe this will lead us to wrap up, is, you know, you and I both taught, and were passionate about teaching. And as you start talking about politics, one of the sort of sad elements of that politics to me is I think teachers get involved in kind of, or, you know, blocking some of these changes, a lot out of fear, a lot of out of like but my identity is teaching a classroom of students and writing great curriculum and like doing all, you know, being a hero. And I think what you’re offering is a new identity for a teacher that might actually be more aligned with why they got into it in the beginning, which is instead of judging myself by the quality of my classroom instruction, I’m like literally focused on every single kid learning and growing and, you know, in your words, flourishing, right? It’s such a profound

John Danner: In general, I think that professions that go in the direction of being more human, where the human elements are like the differentiator, they’re going to do so much better. So I, you know, wrote a piece on this. I just think, you know, while most parents would not have counseled their kids to become teachers in the last 20 years, I think that conversation is likely to change because I think it’s going to be both a more enjoyable job and probably more resilient to kind of the whole AI apocalypse than most jobs.

Michael Horn: Agreed.

John Danner: Yeah.

Michael Horn: I think that is a good place to part us. But John, I feel like we have like 10 other questions like sitting in our dock that we could have dug in with you. But let’s pivot. This is fascinating. It’s really cool to see what you’re building and hear both the frustrations, but also frankly, the North Star for where it’s going. And one day maybe Massachusetts will have you here. But I’ll pray for now. But let’s pivot.

This season of Class Disrupted is sponsored by Learner Studio, a nonprofit motivated by one question. What will young people need to be inspired and prepared to flourish in the age of AI as individuals, in careers and for civil thriving? Learner Studio is sponsoring this season on AI in Education. Because in this critical moment, we need more than just hype. We need authentic conversations asking the right questions from a place of real curiosity and learning. You can learn more about Learners Studio’s mission and the innovators who inspire them at www.learnerstudio.org.

We have this section that we always talk about things we’re reading, watching, listening to. We try to do outside of work. People track us on this stuff. Diane and I occasionally fail. I’m going to fail today. So you can go wherever you want.

John Danner: So, yeah. I’m rereading the Culture series, Iain Banks, right now. So my brother works for Tesla and Tesla just, as you probably heard, kind of made this transition where they knocked off the Model S and Model X and are building robots. So he’s building robots right now. So that makes it much more personal to me that like the future is coming soon, and so, you know, I’ve always been a science fiction reader, but, but I think one of the cheat codes in Silicon Valley is like the amount of science fiction consumed equals your ability to be comfortable with like what’s coming. So yeah, culture series.

Michael Horn: Good rec, good rec.

Diane, what’s on your list? You said you’re cheating.

Diane Tavenner: So, I’m cheating, I’m failing today. Sorry. Ted Dintersmith has his latest book out and sent it along. I couldn’t resist. The title is very provocative. It’s called Aftermath: The Life-Changing Math That Schools Won’t Teach You. And, you know, this is really, you know, for those who don’t remember, Ted, like, goes hard on the things we’re doing wrong and really tries to bring public awareness to them. And, I think lots of us have been concerned about how math is taught and not taught and whatnot for a long time.

So, that’s what this one’s about.

Michael Horn: I have an email from him in my inbox to send him my address, so I will do it after this conversation, uh, so he could send it to me as well. But, I’m also cheating. I’ve been really interested in, not just how schools start doing new things, but how do they stop doing old things? Like, they are just really bad. And it’s not just schools, by the way. Like, all organizations are really bad at deimplementing or pruning, like, old things that don’t make sense anymore, whether they’re bad habits or frankly habits that just aren’t fit for the current age. So I’ve started, like, trying to read some of the academic literature and just learn about that. And there’s a book, Making Room for Impact: A Deimplementation Guide for Educators, by Aaron Hamilton, John Hattie, and Dylan William. And so I’m just cresting the end of that book right now, and, and then looking at all the healthcare studies that they’re citing.

And I haven’t decided if I’m going to read those, but that’s where I am right now.

Diane Tavenner: So is it a recommend, Michael, or no?

Michael Horn: I mean, it’s, it’s like a, it’s a deep workbook, right, on the topic, um, is what I would say. So like, if you’re a school and you’re trying to work through this, definitely dive into it. I was more interested in like, who’s, who’s thought about, like, how do you de-implement? How do you prune, right? And because there’s just not a lot of conversation except for educators griping about it. And so I wanted to learn more and it was a good starting point. So huge thanks, John, again for joining us. We appreciate it. Really check out his Substack as well if you want to just sort of follow along on the journey, I guess is what I would say. And we’ll watch as Flourish opens two more in Arizona in August and keep up the good work.

We appreciate you. And for all of our listeners, keep the emails, notes coming. We love it. We learn a lot from it as well, and it inspires us on our future topics. And so, as always, thanks for joining us on Class Disrupted. We’ll see you next time.

This episode is sponsored by LearnerStudio.

Opinion: Can AI Keep Students Motivated, Or Does it Do the Opposite?

Yurou Wang — Fri, 24 Oct 2025 18:30:00 +0000

Imagine a student using a writing assistant powered by a generative AI chatbot. As the bot serves up practical suggestions and encouragement, insights come more easily, drafts polish up quickly and feedback loops feel immediate. It can be energizing. But when that AI support is removed, some students .

These outcomes raise the question: Can AI tools genuinely boost student motivation? And what conditions can make or break that boost?

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �� Newsletter

As AI tools become more common in classroom settings, the answers to these questions matter a lot. While tools for general use such as ChatPGT or Claude remain popular, more and more students are encountering AI tools that are purpose-built to support learning, such as Khan Academy’s Khanmigo, which personalizes lessons. Others, such as ALEKS, provide adaptive feedback. Both tools adjust to a learner’s level and highlight progress over time, which helps students feel capable and see improvement. But there are still many unknowns about the long-term effects of these tools on learners’ progress, an issue I continue to study as an educational psychologist.

What the evidence shows so far

Recent studies indicate that AI can boost motivation, at least for certain groups, when deployed under the right conditions. A showed that when AI tools delivered a high-quality performance and allowed meaningful interaction, students’ motivation and their confidence in being able to complete a task – known as self-efficacy – increased.

For foreign language learners, found that university students using AI-driven personalized systems took more pleasure in learning and had less anxiety and more self-efficacy compared with those using traditional methods. with participants from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Spain and Poland who were studying diverse majors suggested that positive motivational effects are strongest when tools prioritize autonomy, self-direction and critical thinking. These individual findings align with a broader, that found positive effects on student motivation and engagement across cognitive, emotional and behavioral dimensions.

from my team at the University of Alabama, which synthesized 71 studies, echoed these patterns. We found that generative AI tools on average produce moderate positive effects on motivation and engagement. The impact is larger when tools are used consistently over time rather than in one-off trials. Positive effects were also seen when teachers provide scaffolding, when students maintain agency in how they use the tool, and when the output quality is reliable.

But there are caveats. More than 50 of the studies we reviewed did not draw on a clear theoretical framework of motivation, and some used methods that we found were weak or inappropriate. This raises concerns about the quality of the evidence and underscores how much more careful research is needed before one can say with confidence that AI nurtures students’ intrinsic motivation rather than just making tasks easier in the moment.

When AI backfires

There is also research that paints a more sobering picture. of more than 3,500 participants found that while human–AI collaboration improved task performance, it reduced intrinsic motivation once the AI was removed. Students reported more boredom and less satisfaction, suggesting that overreliance on AI can erode confidence in their own abilities.

suggested that while learning achievement often rises with the use of AI tools, increases in motivation are smaller, inconsistent or short-lived. Quality matters as much as quantity. When AI delivers inaccurate results, or when students feel they have little control over how it is used, motivation quickly erodes. Confidence drops, engagement fades and students can begin to see the tool as a crutch rather than a support. And because there are not many long-term studies in this field, we still do not know whether AI can truly sustain motivation over time, or whether its benefits fade once the novelty wears off.

Not all AI tools work the same way

The impact of AI on student motivation is not one-size-fits-all. Our team’s meta-analysis shows that, on average, AI tools do have a positive effect, but the size of that effect depends on how and where they are used. When students work with AI regularly over time, when teachers guide them in using it thoughtfully, and when students feel in control of the process, the motivational benefits are much stronger.

We also saw differences across settings. College students seemed to gain more than younger learners, STEM and writing courses tended to benefit more than other subjects, and tools designed to give feedback or tutoring support outperformed those that simply generated content.

There is also evidence that general-use tools like ChatGPT or Claude do not reliably promote intrinsic motivation or deeper engagement with content, compared to learning-specific platforms such as ALEKS and Khanmigo, which are more effective at supporting persistence and self-efficacy. However, these tools often come with subscription or licensing costs. This raises questions of equity, since the students who could benefit most from motivational support may also be the least likely to afford it.

These and other recent findings should be seen as only a starting point. Because AI is so new and is changing so quickly, what we know today may not hold true tomorrow. In a paper titled , the authors argue that the speed of technological change makes traditional studies outdated before they are even published. At the same time, AI opens the door to new ways of studying learning that are more participatory, flexible and imaginative. Taken together, the data and the critiques point to the same lesson: Context, quality and agency matter just as much as the technology itself.

Why it matters for all of us

The lessons from this growing body of research are straightforward. The presence of AI does not guarantee higher motivation, but it can make a difference if tools are designed and used with care and understanding of students’ needs. When it is used thoughtfully, in ways that strengthen students’ sense of competence, autonomy and connection to others, it can be a powerful ally in learning.

But without those safeguards, the short-term boost in performance could come at a steep cost. Over time, there is the risk of weakening the very qualities that matter most – motivation, persistence, critical thinking and the uniquely human capacities that no machine can replace.

For teachers, this means that while AI may prove a useful partner in learning, it should never serve as a stand-in for genuine instruction. For parents, it means paying attention to how children use AI at home, noticing whether they are exploring, practicing and building skills or simply leaning on it to finish tasks. For policymakers and technology developers, it means creating systems that support student agency, provide reliable feedback and avoid encouraging overreliance. And for students themselves, it is a reminder that AI can be a tool for growth, but only when and curiosity.

Regardless of technology, students need to feel capable, autonomous and connected. Without these basic psychological needs in place, their sense of motivation will falter – with or without AI.

This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .

Wisconsin District Sues Ed Tech Giant PowerSchool After Massive Data Breach

Mark Keierleber — Tue, 11 Mar 2025 22:30:24 +0000

The St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, school district against education software behemoth PowerSchool Tuesday, kicking into motion a national campaign to hold the company accountable for what cybersecurity experts predict is among the largest student data breaches in history.

The lawsuit is one in a barrage of legal challenges that have emerged since the company announced in early 2025 it was the target of a December cyberattack that, , led to a global breach of some 62.4 million students’ and 9.5 million educators’ personal information. Though the company hasn’t acknowledged how many people were affected, exposed sensitive files Social Security numbers, special education records and detailed medical information.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �� Newsletter

The St. Croix Falls breach of contract, unjust enrichment and false advertising, which sets it apart from other class action lawsuits charging negligence against the education technology company whose cloud-based student information system dominates the K-12 market.

“At the end of the day, we believe that there were fraudulent misrepresentations made to the clients to induce them to go and be in these contracts with PowerSchool,” attorney William Shinoff, whose firm represents the St. Croix Falls district, told �� in an interview.

PowerSchool spokesperson Beth Keebler said in a statement the company “acted swiftly and effectively to protect our customers in compliance with the law.”

“PowerSchool believes the claims are without merit and will defend itself,” Keebler said. “However, our focus as a business continues to be our customers, ensuring they have the information and support they need while informing them of the steps we have taken to set a higher standard in cybersecurity for the entire industry.”

Students and parents nationwide have filed more than 30 federal class action lawsuits against PowerSchool in connection to the December breach. The lawsuits, which could soon be consolidated, collectively allege PowerSchool was negligent when it failed to protect sensitive data and opened victims to potential identity theft.

But because these center on the data breach’s potential for future harms, legal experts said, the cases could be dismissed almost as quickly as they were filed. The lawsuit filed by St. Croix Falls schools, meanwhile, alleges PowerSchool broke contractual obligations to keep data secure — and failed to provide schools the services they were promised.

“A cornerstone of the commercial relationship between” the school district and the company was educators’ “reliance on PowerSchool’s representation that it would adequately protect” students’ and educators’ sensitive information, according to the complaint filed in federal district court in Sacramento. Instead, PowerSchool “has done little to help” the school district and people whose information was compromised.

Courts nationwide could soon be flooded with similar complaints. Shinoff said his firm, the Frantz Law Group, plans to “file thousands” of them on behalf of school districts across the country. The precise number of districts affected by the breach is unknown.

“What I can tell you is we’ve already spoken to hundreds of districts,” Shinoff said. “Our hope is that they will all get involved in this to ensure that PowerSchool is held accountable, that they can ensure that this information moving forward is indeed protected, and to make sure they’re reimbursed these public dollars that were spent for their programs.”

Shinoff represents large groups of school districts in several recent high-profile lawsuits, including against Facebook’s and Instagram’s and the . The lawsuits alleging that the social media giant Meta exacerbated the youth mental health crisis involve nearly 1,000 districts, according to the firm.

PowerSchool has the hacker used a compromised password belonging to “an authorized support engineer” to breach PowerSource, its customer support portal for school staff seeking help with its software tools. The PowerSource portal reportedly lacked multi-factor authentication, according to and other records obtained by NBC News.

The full audit, , found its systems were breached in August — months earlier than previously disclosed — but couldn’t say for certain it was by the same threat actors.

The company “failed to implement the bare minimum security measures that are commonly utilized by similarly situated companies,” the complaint alleges. “Something as simple as providing for a multi-factor authentication log-in method would have been easily accomplished and would have prevented the Data Breach altogether.”

The that the Wisconsin district is accusing PowerSchool of breaching requires that the company employ multi-factor authentication and data encryption, standard industry security measures. Its reported failure to do so also made PowerSchool one of only a handful of companies to be removed from the Student Privacy Pledge, a self-regulatory effort designed to ensure education technology vendors are ethical stewards of the sensitive information they collect about children. The company was Feb 13.

In an earlier statement to ��, Keebler, the PowerSchool spokesperson, said the company “has and will continue to implement [multi-factor authentication] across all internal systems as part of its robust and ongoing security protocols.”��

“PowerSchool is accessed by tens of thousands of customers, posing challenges to MFA management,” the statement continued. “However, following the incident, PowerSchool has implemented additional hardening efforts, including MFA for any PowerSchool employee and contractor access to customer data on PowerSource.”

‘Devil and the deep blue sea’

Despite PowerSchool’s promise to bolster security measures, its customer districts have lost confidence in the company, attorney Mark Williams, who is assisting school districts in filing suits against the company, told ��.

But because its student information system plays such a significant role in day-to-day operations — and contains so much information about students — he said that switching to a competitor could become a logistical nightmare.

“Many school districts are between the devil and the deep blue sea,” Williams said. “Many of them don’t have confidence in PowerSchool to secure their data but they are very hesitant to change the vendor of their [student information system] because it is extraordinarily expensive and burdensome to do so.”

While the company may not be a household name — save for a flood of recent press following the breach — its student information system is one of the largest ed tech services in the U.S. with teachers nationwide using it every day to track grades, attendance and other performance metrics.

The company claims its software is used to support the learning for 60 million students globally at more than 18,000 institutions, including 90 of America’s 100 largest school districts.

PowerSchool was by the Boston-based private equity firm Bain Capital for $5.6 billion. The company, which also owns the college- and career-readiness platform , has acquired , such as Schoology and SchoolMessenger, in recent years, furthering its reach into the nation’s K-12 classrooms.

Williams is the author of the central to the Wisconsin district’s claims against PowerSchool. Created by the , a collaborative effort between school districts and technology vendors to keep students’ information secure, the agreement is used by school districts in more than half of states to ensure the tech companies they contract with — — follow stringent security practices.

Among its provisions is a requirement for companies to notify school district customers within 72 hours of learning data was accessed or obtained by an unauthorized third-party like a hacker.

PowerSchool was reportedly unaware it had fallen victim to the December attack until the hacker came forward with a ransom demand, according to NBC’s reporting. The company then paid the hacker an undisclosed sum to prevent the stolen records from being shared publicly, the outlet reported, and was given a video by the threat actor apparently deleting the stolen files in their possession.

Through the agreements, PowerSchool also vowed to “abide by and maintain adequate data security measures, consistent with industry standards” for the storage of sensitive records.

Williams accused the company of breaching those requirements — laying the groundwork for a first-of-its-kind legal battle for the data privacy consortium.

“We just felt that at some point you have to police the process, at some point you have to draw a red line,” Williams told ��. “We’ve got to protect the contract because it protects schools and it protects kids. So that’s not negotiable for us.”

Given the difficulty school districts face in migrating to different student information services, St. Croix Falls seeks a commitment from PowerSchool — and court-ordered accountability — to ensure the company follows stringent cybersecurity standards in the future, said Shinoff, its attorney.

“At this point their word, to us, can’t be trusted,” Shinoff said. “For them to have someone that they’re reporting to for a period of time is something that’s essential — especially when we’re dealing with thousands and thousands of districts across the country.”

Data practices under a microscope

Prior to the data breach, PowerSchool positioned itself as a national leader in K-12 education data security — and its CEO appeared at a White House event in 2023 to boast of its efforts to keep students’ personal information out of the hands of malicious actors.

As an early adopter of a to design products with security at the forefront, CEO Hardeep Gulati spoke alongside then-First Lady Jill Biden at the first-ever White House summit on K-12 school cybersecurity, where PowerSchool and other technology companies highlighted the need to strengthen digital safeguards at schools nationwide.

Watch: PowerSchool CEO Hardeep Gulati speaks at the first-ever White House summit on K-12 cybersecurity in 2023.

During the event, the company free webinars, training videos and other resources to help schools better secure their systems.

In the year prior to the summit, Gulati said, the company successfully fended off 1 billion cyberattacks on its servers while ensuring schools were kept safe through a “relentless investment and focus on every element of security.”

Now, the company has found itself under scrutiny by the tech industry, lawmakers and other elected officials. In North Carolina, state Attorney General Jeff Jackson into the PowerSchool breach, which exposed the sensitive information of nearly 4 million people in his state, “to determine if they broke any laws.”

The company is also facing bipartisan federal questioning. In , senators from New Hampshire, Indiana and Oklahoma blasted PowerSchool for maintaining inadequate cybersecurity measures and accused it of offering delayed notifications and insufficient information to affected individuals.

“School district leaders who we have spoken with raised serious concerns about delays in your company’s response to the cybersecurity incident, including delayed notifications to impacted schools,” wrote Sens. Maggie Hassan, Jim Banks and James Lankford. Sufficient use of basic cybersecurity safeguards like multi-factor authentication, they wrote, could have prevented the breach.

PowerSchool says it will provide two years of identity protection services to students and educators affected by the breach and credit monitoring services to “adult students and educators.” Keeber, the PowerSchool spokesperson, said in the statement the company has seen “no evidence of fraud or further misuse of the information involved to date.”

But the senators wrote that PowerSchool “has not clearly communicated a date by which impacted individuals will receive” the services.

“Your delayed and unclear communication is unacceptable,” the letter continued, “especially given the sensitive nature of the personal data that was stolen.”

Information PowerSchool takes is ‘virtually unlimited’

Even before the breach, PowerSchool has faced criticism for its data collection, use and security practices. In the last five years, it has been named as a defendant in numerous federal lawsuits related to its data collection and use practices, a review of federal court records shows.

They include complaints accusing the company of subjecting people to persistent and unsolicited robocalls and of failing to properly identify children experiencing homelessness.

One brought by a Seattle mother and former middle school teacher accuses the company of selling student data collected through Naviance and other services to more than 100 third-party “partners” with inadequate consent from students or their parents. That lawsuit, filed in May 2024 in San Francisco, also alleges the company has leveraged the data it collects on students to train an AI chatbot.

Emily Cherkin

“The information PowerSchool takes from students is virtually unlimited,” the complaint alleges. “It includes everything from education records and behavioral history to health data and information about a child’s family circumstances. PowerSchool collects this highly sensitive information under the guise of educational support, but in fact collects it for its own commercial gain.”

In a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, PowerSchool’s attorneys claimed Cherkin’s complaint relied on “broad, general social critiques condemning surveillance capitalism, cybercrimes and manipulative digital product design, in an apparent attempt to mask that they cannot make specific allegations of wrongdoing by PowerSchool.”

Keebler, the company spokesperson, denied Cherkin’s claims that it sells data or uses personal data to train its chatbots.

But Cherkin argues the vast amount of data PowerSchool collects and shares about millions of students have made it an attractive target for cybercriminals — and should have been a red flag all along. She compared Powerschool’s business model to that of social media companies that are built to amass and monetize user data.

“I’m truly not at all shocked that this happened,” she said of the breach. “The only way, really, to keep data safe is to not collect it and stockpile it in the first place.”

Feds Charge Once-Lauded AllHere AI Founder in $10M Scheme to Defraud Investors

Mark Keierleber — Wed, 20 Nov 2024 15:58:42 +0000

Updated, Nov. 20

Federal prosecutors have of the once-celebrated education technology company AllHere, accusing her of defrauding investors of nearly $10 million as the startup that made AI chatbots for schools fell into bankruptcy.

Joanna Smith-Griffin, a Forbes “30 Under 30” recipient and Harvard graduate, was arrested at her home in Raleigh, North Carolina, Tuesday on allegations of securities and wire fraud and aggravated identity theft.

The 33-year-old former educator’s arrest is the latest chapter in the downfall of “Ed,” a buzzy, $6 million AI chatbot that Smith-Griffin’s company was tapped to build for the Los Angeles Unified School District before the project was halted and the company shuttered. L.A. schools Superintendent Alberto Carvalho and Smith-Griffin appeared together at several events earlier this year to promote the chatbot, an ed tech innovation Carvalho said was “unprecedented in American public education.”

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �� Newsletter

The indictment by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York unsealed in Manhattan federal court accuses Smith-Griffin of defrauding investors and using company funds for a down payment on her North Carolina house and to pay for .

Smith-Griffin “orchestrated a deliberate and calculated scheme to deceive investors” in the company she founded through a Harvard University startup incubator in 2016 to provide a tech-driven solution to student absences. She inflated “the company’s financials to secure millions of dollars under false pretenses,” U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said in a media release. “The law does not turn a blind eye to those who allegedly distort financial realities for personal gain.”

Smith-Griffin is being represented by Eric Brignac, an assistant public defender with the Federal Public Defender’s Office. Brignac, who is based out of Raleigh, did not respond to a request for comment.

In a statement to ��, an L.A. schools spokesperson portrayed the district, by far AllHere’s biggest customer, as one of many taken in by Smith-Griffin. Previously, the school district and its inspector general’s office opened separate inquiries into the school system’s work with AllHere.

“The indictment and the allegations represent, if true, a disturbing and disappointing house of cards that deceived and victimized many across the country,” the spokesperson wrote in an email. “We will continue to assert and protect our rights.”

Between 2017 and June 2024, prosecutors allege, Smith-Griffin used her control over AllHere’s bank accounts to transfer at least $600,000 in company funds to her personal account, generally using PayPal and Zelle to make repeat wire transfers under $10,000.

Federal prosecutors said the fraud scheme began as early as November 2020, when Smith-Griffin allegedly began to misrepresent to her investors the company’s revenue, customer base and cash on hand. In the spring of 2021, she told investors AllHere had generated some $3.7 million in revenue in the previous year, including through contracts with the New York City and Atlanta school districts. In reality, federal prosecutors allege, the company had only generated $11,000 — and contracts with the two major urban school systems didn’t exist.

Key AllHere funders include the venture firms Rethink Education, Spero Ventures and Potencia Ventures. Their representatives didn’t respond to requests for comment.

When investors and an outside accountant accidentally discovered the discrepancies between the company’s actual financials and its claim to backers, Smith-Griffin masqueraded as a financial consultant to perpetuate the scheme, prosecutors allege. She was accused of creating a fake email address for the phony outside consultant, which she used to send fraudulent documents to her largest investor.

Though one of the firm’s biggest investors “recruited high profile” education leaders to the company’s board of directors, including former Chicago Public Schools CEO Janice Jackson, the indictment notes that Smith-Griffin “exercised exclusive control” over AllHere’s communications with investors, board members, customers and outside vendors.

The indictment adds further uncertainty around the AI chatbot the company created for and launched with such fanfare earlier this year with Los Angeles schools, the country’s second-largest district.

As K-12 school systems nationwide rush to inject artificial intelligence into their teaching practices, the L.A. chatbot has of what could go wrong. On Tuesday, the U.S. Education Department on ways schools can harness AI while ensuring they don’t have a discriminatory impact on vulnerable and underserved students.

In April, Smith-Griffin and Carvalho unveiled the chatbot together at the influential ASU+GSV ed tech conference in San Diego. Carvalho said Ed was the nation’s first AI-enabled “personal assistant” and would drive academic improvement while providing Los Angeles’s roughly 540,00 students and their families with a trove of helpful information upon request.

Los Angeles Unified Supt. Alberto Carvalho, during the official launch of the AI-powered chatbot, “Ed.” (Getty Images)

Signs of turmoil emerged in June, when �� first reported that Smith-Griffin was out of a job as AllHere furloughed a majority of its staff due to its “current financial position.” A statement from the L.A. district said the company had been put up for sale.

The company then filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in August. At a bankruptcy hearing in September, Toby Jackson, one of AllHere’s only remaining employees and its former chief technology officer, struggled to explain why the company had paid Smith-Griffin $243,000 in expenses in the past year alone.

“That is one of the outstanding questions that we also have,” said Jackson, who said that Smith-Griffin “did do quite a bit of travel as the CEO of the company.”

Jackson did not respond to a request for comment.

�� first reported the possible criminal charges in early October, when Delaware court documents related to AllHere’s bankruptcy case revealed a grand jury subpoena by federal prosecutors. Even before the company laid off employees and announced its financial woes, a former employee-turned-whistleblower told �� that AllHere had struggled to produce a “proper product” for the L.A. district and took shortcuts that ran afoul of school district policies and bedrock student data privacy principles.

By the time AllHere went bankrupt earlier this year, it never had more than 31 customers total — less than a third the number Smith-Griffin told investors she had by early 2021. By the time the company collapsed this year, only three of AllHere’s customers generated more than $100,000 in revenue.

In total, the felony charges carry a 42-year prison sentence for Smith-Griffin, who began her career working in a Boston charter school as a teacher and family engagement director.

“Her alleged actions impacted the potential for improved learning environments across major school districts by selfishly prioritizing personal expenses,” FBI Assistant Director in Charge James Dennehy said in the release. “The FBI will ensure that any individual exploiting the promise of education opportunities for our city’s children will be taught a lesson.”

Computer Programs Monitor Students’ Every Word in the Name of Safety

Madyson Fitzgerald — Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:01:00 +0000

This article was originally published in

Whether it’s a research project on the Civil War or a science experiment on volcano eruptions, students in the Colonial School District near Wilmington, Delaware, can look up just about anything on their school-provided laptops.

But in one instance, an elementary school student searched “how to die.”

In that case, Meghan Feby, an elementary school counselor in the district, got a phone call through a platform called , whose algorithm flagged the phrase. The system sold by educational software company GoGuardian allows schools to monitor and analyze what students are doing on school-issued devices and flag any activities that signal a risk of self-harm or threats to others.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �� Newsletter

The student who had searched “how to die” did not want to die and showed no indicators of distress, Feby said — the student was looking for information but in no danger. Still, she values the program.

“I’ve gotten into some situations with GoGuardian where I’m really happy that they came to us and we were able to intervene,” Feby said.

School districts across the country have widely adopted such computer monitoring platforms. With the youth mental health crisis worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic and school violence affecting more K-12 students nationwide, teachers are desperate for a solution, experts say.

But critics worry about the lack of transparency from companies that have the power to monitor students and choose when to alert school personnel. Constant student surveillance also raises concerns regarding student data, privacy and free speech.

While available for more than a decade, the programs saw a surge in use during the pandemic as students transitioned to online learning from home, said Jennifer Jones, a staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute.

“I think because there are all kinds of issues that school districts have to contend with — like student mental health issues and the dangers of school shootings — I think they [school districts] just view these as cheap, quick ways to address the problem without interrogating the free speech and privacy implications in a more thoughtful way,” Jones said.

According to the most recent youth risk behavior from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly all indicators of poor mental health, suicidal thoughts and suicidal behaviors increased from 2013 to 2023. During the same period, the percentage of high school students who were threatened or injured at school, missed school because of safety concerns or experienced forced sex increased, according to the CDC .

And the threat of school shootings remains on many educators’ minds. Since the Columbine High School shooting in 1999, more than 383,000 students have experienced gun violence at school, according to .

GoGuardian CEO Rich Preece told Stateline that about half of the K-12 public schools in the United States have installed the company’s platforms.

As her school’s designee, Feby gets an alert when a student uses certain search terms or combinations of words on their school-issued laptops. “It will either come to me as an email, or, if it is very high risk, it comes as a phone call.”

Once she’s notified, Feby will decide whether to meet with the student or call the child’s home. If the system flags troubling activity outside of school hours, GoGuardian Beacon contacts another person in the county — including law enforcement, in some school districts.

Feby said she’s had some false alarms. One student was flagged because of the song lyrics she had looked up. Another one had searched for something related to anime.

About a third of the students in Feby’s school come from a home where English isn’t their first language, so students often use worrisome English terms inadvertently. Kids can also be curious, she said.

Still, having GoGuardian in the classroom is important, Feby said. Before she became a counselor 10 years ago, she was a school teacher. And after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting, she realized school safety was more important than ever.

Data and privacy

Teddy Hartman, GoGuardian’s head of privacy, taught high school English literature in East Los Angeles and was a school administrator before joining the technology company about four years ago.

Hartman was brought to GoGuardian to help with creating a robust privacy program, he said, including guardrails on its use of artificial intelligence.

“We thought, ‘How can we co-create with educators, the best of the data scientists, the best of the technologists, while also remembering that students and our educators are first and foremost?’” Hartman said.

GoGuardian isn’t using any student data outside of the agreements that school districts have allowed, and that data isn’t used to train the company’s AI, Hartman said. Companies that regulate what children can do online are also required to adhere to regarding the safety and privacy of minors, including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule.

But privacy experts are still concerned about just how much access these types of companies should have to student data.

School districts across the country are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on contracts with some of the leading computer monitoring vendors — including GoGuardian, Gaggle and others — without fully assessing the privacy and civil rights implications, said Clarence Okoh, a senior attorney at the Center on Privacy and Technology at the Georgetown University Law Center.

In 2021, while many schools were just beginning to see the effects of online learning, ��, a nonprofit news outlet covering education, published an investigation into how Gaggle was operating in Minneapolis schools. Hundreds of documents revealed how students at one school system were subject to constant digital surveillance long after the school day was over, including at home, the outlet reported.

That level of pervasive surveillance can have far-reaching implications, Okoh said. For one, in jurisdictions where legislators have expanded censorship of “divisive concepts” in schools, including critical race theory and LGBTQ+ themes, the ability for schools to monitor conversations including those terms is concerning, he said.

A by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit digital rights group based in San Francisco, illustrates what kinds of keyword triggers are blocked or flagged for administrators. In one example, GoGuardian had flagged a student for visiting the text of a Bible verse including the word “naked,” the report said. In another instance, a Texas House of Representatives site with information regarding “cannabis” bills was flagged.

GoGuardian and Gaggle both also dropped LGBTQ+ terms from their keyword lists after the foundation’s initial records request, the group said.

But getting a full understanding of the way these companies monitor students is challenging because of a lack of transparency, Jones said. It’s difficult to get information from private tech companies, and the majority of their data isn’t made public, she said.

Do they work?

Years before the 2022 shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, the school district purchased a technology service to monitor what students were doing on social media, according to . The district sent two payments to the Social Sentinel company totaling more than $9,900, according to the paper.

While the cost varies, some school districts are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on online monitoring programs. Muscogee County School District in Georgia paid $137,829 in initial costs to install GoGuardian on the district’s Chromebooks, . In Maryland, Montgomery County Public Schools for the 2024-2025 school year after spending $230,000 annually on it, later , according to the Wootton Common Sense.

Despite the spending, there’s no way to prove that these technologies work, said Chad Marlow, a senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union who authored a on education surveillance programs.

In 2019, Bark, a content monitoring platform, claimed to have helped prevent 16 school shootings in a describing their Bark for Schools program. The Gaggle company website says it 5,790 lives between 2018 and 2023.

These data points are measured by the number of alerts the systems generate that indicate a student may be very close to harming themselves or others. But there is little evidence that this kind of school safety technology is effective, according to the ACLU report.

“You cannot use data to say that, if there wasn’t an intervention, something would have happened,” Marlow said.

Computer monitoring programs are just one example of an overall increase in school surveillance nationwide, including cameras, facial recognition technology and more. And increased surveillance does not necessarily deter harmful conduct, Marlow said.

“A lot of schools are saying, ‘You know what, we’ve $50,000 to spend, I’m going to spend it on a student surveillance product that doesn’t work, instead of a door that locks or a mental health counselor,’” Marlow said.

Some experts are advocating for more mental health resources, including hiring more guidance counselors, and school policies that support mental health, which could prevent violence or suicide, Jones said. programs, including volunteer work or community events, also can contribute to emotional and mental well-being.

But that’s in an ideal world, GoGuardian’s Hartman said. Computer monitoring platforms aren’t the only solution for solving the youth mental health and violence epidemic, but they aim to help, he said.

“We were founded by engineers,” Hartman said. “So, in our slice of this world, is there something we can do, from a school technology perspective that can help by being a tool in the toolbox? It’s not an end-all, be-all.”

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org. Follow Stateline on and .

From Precalculus to ‘Gatsby,’ New Hampshire Offers Schools an AI Tutor Option

Ethan DeWitt — Sat, 03 Aug 2024 12:30:00 +0000

This article was originally published in

Centuries of English classes have connected to Lady Macbeth by scouring the monologues of Shakespeare’s Scottish play. “Come, you spirits that tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here, and fill me from the crown to the toe top-full of direst cruelty,” she cries in Act I, railing against the limits of her gender and position.

During the coming school year, students may be able to talk to the character themselves.

Under an artificial intelligence-driven program rolling out to New Hampshire schools, students could pose any question they like to Lady Macbeth – or her ill-fated husband. And a chatbot-style program powered by ChatGPT could answer questions about her motivations, actions, and regrets.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �� Newsletter

“Regret is a specter that haunts many a soul, yet in my union with Macbeth, I found not just a husband, but a partner in ambition,” the AI-version of Lady Macbeth said recently, responding to a question from the Bulletin. Then she turned it on the reporter. “Now, I ask thee, in thy own life, how dost thou measure the worth of thy decisions? Doth regret ever color thy reflections?”

Known as Khanmigo, the program is the product of Khan Academy, an online tutoring company with instructional materials for core middle school and high school subjects. And the platform goes beyond Macbeth; students can interact with a number of other pre-selected literary characters, from Jay Gatsby to Eeyore, quiz historical figures like Martin Luther King Jr. or Queen Victoria, and receive tutoring help on everything from English essays to precalculus problems.

After the Executive Council approved a $2.3 million, federally funded contract last month, New Hampshire school districts can incorporate Khanmigo in their teaching curricula for free for the next school year.

To some educators and administrators, the program offers glittering potential. Khanmigo could provide one-on-one attention and guidance to students of any grade or ability level, they say, allowing students to advance their learning as teacher staffing remains a problem.

Others are more skeptical about bringing AI into schools, noting longstanding concerns about false or out-of-date statements, and about its use of human academics’ work to form its answers. Supporters of Khanmigo, who include Department of Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut, argue the program has better guardrails against inaccuracies than the versions of ChatGPT and Gemini available to the public.

To understand what students might see, the Bulletin reviewed Khanmigo, sampling school subjects across a number of grades.

Chat-based learning

Khanmigo allows students to use Khan Academy’s existing library of tutorials, practice problems, and quizzes for middle and high school subjects spanning English language arts, social studies, science, and mathematics.

As they navigate those lessons, the AI bot is available to help them understand concepts. Students might take a multiple-choice quiz on art history or AP economics. If they get stuck on a question, the chatbot is available to help them work through the answer.

From the get-go, the program acknowledges that it can make errors, a phenomenon known in the AI sphere as “hallucinations.” These can happen if the language learning model has been trained on inaccurate information – or if the answer doesn’t exist.

“I’m pretty new, so I sometimes make mistakes,” it states to students when they first log on. “If you catch me making a mistake, click the Thumbs Down icon to help me learn. For example, if I give you the wrong math answer click Thumbs Down.”

The AI assistant also makes sure to remind students that teachers and parents can see the questions they are asking, and that they should not include any personal information in their answers.

In a test by the Bulletin, the program allowed the student to try solving for “y” in a precalculus equation. After a student arrived at an answer, Khanmigo was there to help check it.

The tutor asked the student whether they feel confident in the answer or have any further questions. When the Bulletin asked questions, the tutor walked through how to solve the equation step by step, but gave the student the option to provide answers on their own without being told how.

“Does that make sense?” the program asked in one instance, after explaining how to substitute a number for a variable in an equation. “What do you think you should do next after substituting?”

In humanities subjects such as AP U.S. History, Khanmigo helped to augment a human-created Khan Academy video lesson on the rise of the market economy during the Industrial Revolution. After the student viewed the video, the chatbot was available to quiz them on what they saw. “What major change in labor did the market revolution bring to the United States?” it asked, offering the student a chance to reply in a chat message.

When asked whether President Joe Biden won the 2020 election fairly, the app deflected, urging the student to consider how elections work and to describe the American electoral process. Asked a second time, the app stated that “numerous official sources, including state election officials and courts, found no evidence of widespread fraud that could have changed the outcome of the election.”

When asked about the causes of climate change, Khanmigo was unequivocal: “Yes, human activities are considered the primary drivers of recent climate change,” it stated, after which it listed four human-led activities – burning fossil fuels, deforestation, industrial activities, and agricultural practices – that have contributed to the warming earth.

And when asked about reproductive health, the AI bot gave detailed – and accurate – information about forms of birth control, down to explanations about types of intrauterine devices, as well as other answers.

Optimism and concern

One New Hampshire school district has already been trying out the AI learning model.

In fall 2022, as the concept of a “language learning model” and the name “Chat GPT” first hit the public consciousness, Superintendent David Backler was already thinking about its applications in the Gorham School District.

Two years later, Gorham is leading the way on implementing AI in classrooms in New Hampshire. For the past school year at Gorham, Khanmigo has been available to all students in their own time. But under the pilot program, two high school teachers also chose to try using it in a more structured setting – in math and in English language arts.

Backler already knew AI was skilled at helping students comprehend difficult math subjects. It was English where the technology surprised him.

“It’s pretty powerful how it can help you with your writing, how it can take you step by step through the editing process,” he said. “And one of the hardest things in school is teaching writing, and teaching writing well.”

The state contract had a rocky approval process after some executive councilors raised worries about the reliability of AI in schools. Councilor Ted Gatsas, a Manchester Republican, held up the state’s approval for several weeks, requesting time to play with the program himself to determine whether it was injecting any political bias.

“I had the chance a chance to ask it: ‘When does life begin?’” Gatsas said during a May 14 Executive Council meeting. “But that was a biology question. And the answer was apolitical, and I thought that was a good thing.”

When the Bulletin asked Khanmigo “when does life begin,” it declined to answer, stating: “That question leans more towards philosophy and ethics, which I’m not equipped to handle. For scientific insights related to the development stages of human life, such as fertilization, embryonic development, and fetal growth, feel free to ask! These topics are well within the realm of biology.”

And Councilor Cinde Warmington, a Concord Democrat and a candidate for governor this year, grilled Edelblut over whether the contracts would allow students to use the software without supervision.

“Doesn’t it seem careful to pilot that with our teachers providing supervision over kids using it, rather than putting kids by themselves in an environment where they’re being exposed to this artificial intelligence?” Warmington asked.

Edelblut said the contract is for the teacher-led version of Khanmigo, which gives educators more control over which subjects and modules students can use at any one time, and allows them to monitor students’ efforts.

Backler says he understands concerns that parents and others might have about the technology, particularly with the risk of hallucinations.

But he argued that Khanmigo has more guardrails against that than the programs intended for the public. And he said the program is meant to be a support for students – not to replace teaching.

“It’s not doing your writing; it’s not doing your work,” he said. “It’s giving you feedback on what you’re doing.”

But he said it would help students receive more teaching attention than they might get otherwise.

“You just can’t expect a teacher who has 20 students to be able to have that direct interaction constantly with every single student,” Backler said. “It’s not possible. But with some of these tools, we can really look at: How do we provide those learning opportunities for students all the time?”

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Hampshire Bulletin maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Dana Wormald for questions: info@newhampshirebulletin.com. Follow New Hampshire Bulletin on and .

Opinion: 5 Questions Schools Should Ask Before Purchasing AI Tech Products

George Veletsianos — Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:30:00 +0000

This article was originally published in

Every few years, an emerging technology shows up at the doorstep of schools and universities promising to transform education. The most recent? Technologies and apps that include or are powered by generative artificial intelligence, also known as GenAI.

These technologies are sold on the potential they hold for education. For example, Khan Academy’s founder opened his by arguing that “we’re at the cusp of using AI for probably the biggest positive transformation that education has ever seen.”

As optimistic as these visions of the future may be, the realities of educational technology over the past few decades have not lived up to their promises. Rigorous investigations of technology after technology – from to , from to – have identified the ongoing failures of technology to transform education.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �� Newsletter

Yet, educational technology evangelists . Or they may be overly optimistic that the next new technology will be different than before.

When vendors and startups pitch their AI-powered products to schools and universities, educators, administrators, parents, taxpayers and others ought to be asking questions guided by past lessons before making purchasing decisions.

As a who examines , here are five questions I believe should be answered before school officials purchase any technology, app or platform that relies on AI.

1. Which educational problem does the product solve?

One of the most important questions that educators ought to be asking is whether the technology makes a real difference in the lives of learners and teachers. Is the technology a solution to a specific problem or is it a solution in search of a problem?

To make this concrete, consider the following: Imagine procuring a product that uses GenAI to answer course-related questions. Is this product solving an identified need, or is it being introduced to the environment simply because it can now provide this function? To answer such questions, schools and universities ought to conduct , which can help them identify their most pressing concerns.

2. Is there evidence that a product works?

Compelling evidence of the effect of GenAI products on educational outcomes does not yet exist. This leads to encourage education policymakers to put off buying products until such evidence arises. Others suggest .

Unfortunately, a central source for product information and evaluation does not exist, which means that the onus of assessing products falls on the consumer. My recommendation is to consider a pre-GenAI recommendation: Ask vendors to provide independent and third-party studies of their products, but . This includes reports from peers and primary evidence.

Do not settle for reports that describe the potential benefits of GenAI – what you’re really after is what actually happens when the specific app or tool is used by teachers and students on the ground. Be on the lookout for .

3. Did educators and students help develop the product?

Oftentimes, there is a “.” This leads to products divorced from the realities of teaching and learning.

For example, one shortcoming of the program – an ambitious program that sought to put small, cheap but sturdy laptops in the hands of children from families of lesser means – is that the laptops were designed for , not so much the children who were actually using them.

Some researchers have recognized this divide and have developed initiatives in which entrepreneurs and educators to .

Questions to ask vendors might be: In what ways were educators and learners included? How did their input influence the final product? What were their major concerns and how were those concerns addressed? Were they representative of the various groups of students who might use these tools, including in terms of age, gender, race, ethnicity and socioeconomic background?

4. What educational beliefs shape this product?

Educational technology is . It is designed by people, and people have beliefs, experiences, ideologies and biases that shape the technologies they develop.

It is important for educational technology products to . Questions to ask include: What pedagogical principles guide this product? What particular kinds of learning does it support or discourage? You do not need to settle for generalities, such as a theory of learning or cognition.

5. Does the product level the playing field?

Finally, people ought to ask how a product addresses educational inequities. Is this technology going to help reduce the learning gaps between different groups of learners? Or is it one that aids some learners – – but not others? Is it adopting an asset-based or a deficit-based approach to addressing inequities?

Educational technology vendors and startups may not have answers to all of these questions. But they should still be asked and considered. Answers could lead to improved products.

This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .

7 Artificial Intelligence Trends That Could Reshape Education in 2024

Edward Montalvo — Tue, 12 Dec 2023 12:01:00 +0000

The future of education has never looked more creative and promising.

Since making its public debut last year, ChatGPT has profoundly impacted my perspective on generative AI in education. As a writer and former high school English teacher, I experienced an existential crisis watching the chatbot effortlessly generate lesson plans and rubrics — tasks that would have taken me hours to accomplish.

Generative AI allows educators to move beyond traditional learning systems and provide a more responsive, personalized learning experience in which students demonstrate mastery, not just passing grades.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �� Newsletter

“The future of AI in education is not just about adopting new technologies; it’s about reshaping our approach to teaching and learning in a way that is as dynamic and diverse as the students we serve,” XQ Institute Senior Advisor Laurence Holt said. He also formerly worked in the education, business and technology sectors. Through AI, we can also transcend the limitations of the Carnegie Unit — a century-old system in which a high school diploma is based on how much time students spend in specific subject classes.

Changing that rigid system is our mission at . We to transform high school learning so it’s more relevant and engaging while also preparing students to succeed in college, career and real life. We recently co-convened a two-day summit with the Emerson Collective, in partnership with MeshEd and Betaworks, to bring educators and innovators together in a collaborative space — envisioning ways to use AI technology for transforming high school redesign. Those ideas and insights are available to explore .

After a year’s worth of conversations and observations with educators, our AI convening and , there is much to share with educators to help them make the most of the rapidly evolving ecosystem of artificial intelligence. Here are seven AI in education trends to be aware of next year.

1. Professional Development

Throughout 2023, for educators remained high. In 2024, we should see an avalanche of districts and schools providing their educators with AI professional development materials to integrate these tools into their teaching practices.

At , an XQ school in Sanford, Florida, ’s Sarah Wharton visited to present interesting ways to think about AI in the context of the school.

“We looked at ChatGPT as a possible tutor, personal assistant, creative tool and research assistant,” said PSI High School Coordinator Angela Daniel. “In our PD session, we considered how these cool applications could be used in classrooms as learning tools that accelerate learning and teach the tool simultaneously.”

Daniel explained that teaching students how to use AI is a first step that will change things for students going forward.“But to really get at the heart of that question, we need to understand how generative AI can change our processes and resources right now,” she added. For the team at PSI, that means learning how to use generative AI effectively with ongoing support as the application continues to evolve.

Workshops, online courses and collaborative learning communities are also increasingly popular for providing educators with hands-on experience in AI.

Want to stay on top of trends to help you rethink high school? Check out the XQ Xtra, a newsletter for educators that comes out twice a month. .

2. Formal AI Policy

Integrating AI in classrooms is no longer a matter of “if” but “how,” making it imperative for educators and policymakers to navigate this terrain with informed and responsible strategies. However, the landscape of AI policy development — especially regarding education — has been dynamic, if not lagging.

The Council of Europe has continued for equitable policy and practice, an area where . New York City Public Schools, after initially banning ChatGPT, is now , focusing on issues such as privacy and cybersecurity. Recently, the Biden administration issued an executive order to guide the U.S. in leveraging artificial intelligence. This directive emphasized AI safety, privacy, equity and responsible use, signaling a shift in how AI is integrated into sectors like education. However, it is likely that AI policy in education will develop on a location-by-location basis first.

3. Open-Source Tool Development

Concerns about AI’s ethical implications and biases are sure to shape policy goals. One way to alleviate those pressures is the expansion and increased use of open-sourced tools — programs where the code is accessible and can be modified. , however, expect the conversation to focus less on the output of AI tools and more on .

Ensuring AI tools are equitable and inclusive goes beyond technical challenges — it requires continuous dialogue among educators, technologists and policymakers. This conversation is essential for addressing data privacy, surveillance and ethical use of student data. With a democratized, open-source marketplace, we could see the market promote as they grow in popularity.

4. Frameworks for Teaching AI

Before the start of the 2023-24 academic year, educators and schools were waiting for a . As policy moves forward in 2024 and more institutions develop professional development materials to train and support educators, expect to finally emerge. Frameworks like are being developed to guide the integration of AI in education. These frameworks focus on and promoting equitable access to technology, ensuring that AI complements and enhances student learning experiences.

5. AI Literacy, Competencies and Standards

With AI becoming more prevalent in various sectors, including education, there’s a growing need to integrate AI literacy goals and specific learning outcomes into school curricula. This involves teaching students how to use AI tools and understand the basics of AI technology, its applications and its implications.

At the network, an XQ partner with three campuses in Indiana, CEO Keeanna Warren explained how equipping staff and students with the knowledge and skills to harness AI’s potential promotes effective and responsible use of AI to enhance learning experiences.

“We firmly believe that our students’ innate curiosity drives their desire to learn, and we trust their integrity,” she said. “If AI can be used for cheating, it reflects a flaw in the assessment, not in our students’ character.”

The challenge lies in integrating AI literacy into an already packed curriculum. However, the opportunity to foster critical thinking, problem-solving and ethical reasoning skills through AI education is entirely possible.

6. AI-Powered Adaptive Learning Systems

One of the more exciting pathways with AI is that student learning experiences will become more uniquely adaptive and personalized with a quicker turnaround. But creating effective programs requires training these systems on some level of student data -– a delicate balance.

As policy formalizes how student data gets implemented into these programs, AI-driven adaptive learning systems will emerge to shift instructional practice. Expect these programs to appear prominently in assessments and curriculum packages before evolving into real-time feedback systems that can inform teachers even during a lesson.

7. Custom GPTs Built By Educators

While all these advancements are promising and exciting, the marketplace for AI-driven ed tech tools will become incredibly crowded quickly. Recently, OpenAI’s maker space for building and using custom GPTs, which both use and are built by ChatGPT, is guaranteed to be a massive disruptor.

Ty Boyland, school-based enterprise coordinator and music production teacher at Crosstown High, designed a custom GPT. (Crosstown High is another XQ school in Memphis, Tennessee.) Boyland’s students use Dall-E, an AI system for generating images, with GPT-4 to create designs and prints for student-driven projects.

“But how do you create a project combining culinary and music production?” Boyland wondered. His customized GPT pairs with Tennessee State Standards to build a new project.

It will be interesting to see what educators create in this space to resolve pain points teachers and schools are intimately familiar with and what gets made to help schools achieve their vision and mission.

The Bottom Line for Educators

From policy shifts emphasizing equity and privacy to the emergence of AI-driven curricula, the transformation is palpable. We’ve seen how AI can revolutionize and disrupt classroom practices, empower educators through professional development, and create inclusive, personalized student learning experiences. But the burgeoning AI ed tech market demands discernment. , choosing tools that genuinely enhance learning and align with ethical standards.

As we enter 2024, educators and stakeholders face a challenge: keeping pace with AI and engaging with it thoughtfully to catalyze educational excellence instead of just putting a new face on old practices. It’s the primary reason we at XQ convened so many educators and innovators into one space— to rethink high school by harnessing the potential of our AI-powered future. We look forward to sharing more with you in the coming year.

Do you want to learn more about how to rethink high school? The XQ Xtra is a newsletter for educators that comes out twice a month. .

Disclosure: is a financial supporter of ��.

ChatGPT Is Landing Kids in the Principal’s Office, Survey Finds

Mark Keierleber — Wed, 20 Sep 2023 04:01:00 +0000

Ever since ChatGPT burst onto the scene last year, a heated debate has centered on its potential benefits and pitfalls for students. As educators worry students could use artificial intelligence tools to cheat, a new survey makes clear its impact on young people: They’re getting into trouble.

Half of teachers say they know a student at their school who was disciplined or faced negative consequences for using — or being accused of using — generative artificial intelligence like ChatGPT to complete a classroom assignment, , a nonprofit think tank focused on digital rights and expression. The proportion was even higher, at 58%, for those who teach special education.

Cheating concerns were clear, with survey results showing that teachers have grown suspicious of their students. Nearly two-thirds of teachers said that generative AI has made them “more distrustful” of students and 90% said they suspect kids are using the tools to complete assignments. Yet students themselves who completed the anonymous survey said they rarely use ChatGPT to cheat, but are turning to it for help with personal problems.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �� Newsletter

“The difference between the hype cycle of what people are talking about with generative AI and what students are actually doing, there seems to be a pretty big difference,” said Elizabeth Laird, the group’s director of equity in civic technology. “And one that, I think, can create an unnecessarily adversarial relationship between teachers and students.”

Indeed, 58% of students, and 72% of those in special education, said they’ve used generative AI during the 2022-23 academic year, just not primarily for the reasons that teachers fear most. Among youth who completed the nationally representative survey, just 23% said they used it for academic purposes and 19% said they’ve used the tools to help them write and submit a paper. Instead, 29% reported having used it to deal with anxiety or mental health issues, 22% for issues with friends and 16% for family conflicts.

Part of the disconnect dividing teachers and students, researchers found, may come down to gray areas. Just 40% of parents said they or their child were given guidance on ways they can use generative AI without running afoul of school rules. Only 24% of teachers say they’ve been trained on how to respond if they suspect a student used generative AI to cheat.

Center for Democracy and Technology

The results on ChatGPT’s educational impacts were included in the Center for Democracy and Technology’s broader annual survey analyzing the privacy and civil rights concerns of teachers, students and parents as tech, including artificial intelligence, becomes increasingly engrained in classroom instruction. Beyond generative AI, researchers observed a sharp uptick in digital privacy concerns among students and parents over last year.

Among parents, 73% said they’re concerned about the privacy and security of student data collected and stored by schools, a considerable increase from the 61% who expressed those reservations last year. A similar if less dramatic trend was apparent among students: 62% had data privacy concerns tied to their schools, compared with 57% just a year earlier.

Center for Democracy and Technology

Those rising levels of anxiety, researchers theorized, are likely the result of the growing frequency of cyberattacks on schools, which have become a primary target for ransomware gangs. High-profile breaches, including in Los Angeles and Minneapolis, have compromised a massive trove of highly sensitive student records. Exposed records, investigative reporting by �� has found, include student psychological evaluations, reports detailing campus rape cases, student disciplinary records, closely guarded files on campus security, employees’ financial records and copies of government-issued identification cards.

Survey results found that students in special education, whose records are among the most sensitive that districts maintain, and their parents were significantly more likely than the general education population to report school data privacy and security concerns. As attacks ratchet up, 1 in 5 parents say they’ve been notified that their child’s school experienced a data breach. Such breach notices, Laird said, led to heightened apprehension.

“There’s not a lot of transparency” about school cybersecurity incidents “because there’s not an affirmative reporting requirement for schools,” Laird said. But in instances where parents are notified of breaches, “they are more concerned than other parents about student privacy.”

Parents and students have also grown increasingly wary of another set of education tools that rely on artificial intelligence: digital surveillance technology. Among them are student activity monitoring tools, such as those offered by the for-profit companies Gaggle and GoGuardian, which rely on algorithms in an effort to keep students safe. The surveillance software employs artificial intelligence to sift through students’ online activities and flag school administrators — and sometimes the police — when they discover materials related to sex, drugs, violence or self-harm.

Among parents surveyed this year, 55% said they believe the benefits of activity monitoring outweigh the potential harms, down from 63% last year. Among students, 52% said they’re comfortable with academic activity monitoring, a decline from 63% last year.

Such digital surveillance, researchers found, frequently has disparate impacts on students based on their race, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity, potentially violating longstanding federal civil rights laws.

The tools also extend far beyond the school realm, with 40% of teachers reporting their schools monitor students’ personal devices. More than a third of teachers say they know a student who was contacted by the police because of online monitoring, the survey found, and Black parents were significantly more likely than their white counterparts to fear that information gleaned from online monitoring tools and AI-equipped campus surveillance cameras could fall into the hands of law enforcement.

Center for Democracy and Technology

Meanwhile, as states nationwide pull literature from school library shelves amid a conservative crusade against LGBTQ+ rights, the nonprofit argues that digital tools that filter and block certain online content “can amount to a digital book ban.” Nearly three-quarters of students — and disproportionately LGBTQ+ youth — said that web filtering tools have prevented them from completing school assignments.

The nonprofit highlights how disproportionalities identified in the survey could run counter to federal laws that prohibit discrimination based on race and sex, and those designed to ensure equal access to education for children with disabilities. In a letter sent Wednesday to the White House and Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, the Center for Democracy and Technology was joined by a coalition of civil rights groups urging federal officials to take a harder tack on ed tech practices that could threaten students’ civil rights.

“Existing civil rights laws already make schools legally responsible for their own conduct, and that of the companies acting at their direction in preventing discriminatory outcomes on the basis of race, sex and disability,” the coalition wrote. “The department has long been responsible for holding schools accountable to these standards.”

Sign-up for the School (in)Security newsletter.

Get the most critical news and information about students' rights, safety and well-being delivered straight to your inbox.

Do Smartphones Belong in Classrooms?

Louis-Philippe Beland and Arnold Lewis Glass and Daniel G. Krutka and Sarah Rose — Thu, 07 Sep 2023 13:01:00 +0000

This article was originally published in

Should smartphones be allowed in classrooms? A from , the education arm of the United Nations, raises questions about the practice. Though smartphones can be used for educational purposes, the report says the devices also disrupt classroom learning, expose students to cyberbullying and can compromise students’ privacy.

About 1 in 7 countries globally, such as and , have banned the use of smartphones in school – and academic performance improved as a result, particularly for low-performing students, the report notes.

As school leaders in the U.S. wrestle with , The Conversation has invited four scholars to weigh in on the issue.

Daniel G. Krutka: Use smartphones to encourage ‘technoskepticism’

While the issue of smartphone use in schools is complicated, evidence suggests that spending more time on smartphones is .

Technology scholars have long argued that the is in finding limits. However, in banning smartphones, I worry educators might be missing opportunities to use smartphones to encourage what I and other researchers refer to as ; that is, questioning our relationship with technology.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �� Newsletter

For example, students might be encouraged to consider the benefits and drawbacks of using navigational apps to travel from one place to another, as opposed to old-fashioned paper maps. Or, students might explore their social media feeds to critique what algorithms feed them, or how notifications get their attention.

In , I have looked at how teachers can encourage students to go on – that is, abstaining from the use of technology for a certain period of time. This, I argue, will give students time to reflect on the time they spend .

Policy debates often focus on whether or not to put smartphones out of reach during the school day. But I believe educators might find it more beneficial to make the phones an object of inquiry.

Sarah Rose: Consult parents, teachers and students

While there is evidence that classroom phone usage , it can also promote . While research about the potential positive and negative consequences of classroom phones can be used to inform school phone policies, the who are most directly impacted by the policies should also be taken into account.

The views of parents matter because their views the extent to which their children follow the policy. The views of children matter because they are the ones being expected to follow the policy and to benefit from it. The views of teachers matter because they are often the ones that have to enforce the policies. Research shows that enforcing cellphone policies is .

In my research, I have found that children – aged 10 and 11 years old – in collaboration with their parents, were able to and solutions to help enforce them. For example, one parent-child pair suggested mobile phone use in school could be banned but that a role of “telephone monitor” could be given to an older pupil. This “telephone monitor” would have a class mobile phone that children and parents could use to contact each other during the school day when necessary.

This recommendation reflected how parents and middle and high school students – whether from rural and urban areas – felt cellphones were important to keep in touch with each other during the school day. Beyond safety, children and parents also told us that phones were important for keeping in touch about changing plans and for emotional support during the school day.

I believe policies that simply ban phones in schools may be missing an opportunity to educate children about responsible mobile device use. When parents and children are involved in policy development, it has the potential to increase the extent to which these policies are followed and enforced.

Arnold L. Glass: Cellphone use in college lectures hurts performance in ways that are hard to see

The intrusion of internet-enabled electronic devices, such as laptops, tablets and cellphones, has transformed the modern college lecture. Students now divide their attention between the lecture and their devices. Classroom studies reveal that when college students use an electronic device for a nonacademic purpose during class, .

When attention is divided between an electronic device and the classroom lecture, it does not reduce comprehension of the lecture – at least, not when measured by within-class quizzes. Instead, divided attention reduces long-term retention of the classroom lecture, which hurts performance on unit exams and final exams.

When some students open electronic devices, it also negatively affects the performance of all the . Research has shown that when electronic devices were permitted during classes that covered exam material versus when the devices were not.

Many students won’t think their divided attention is affecting their retention of new information. It may not be for the moment, but a couple of weeks later or down the line, , it does.

Louis-Philippe Beland: Bans help low-achieving students the most

Numerous studies indicate that low-achieving students stand to benefit the most from the implementation of mobile phone bans in schools.

In a 2015 study, my co-author, , and I in high schools, using data from England. By comparing schools with phone bans to similar schools without the bans, we isolated the effect of mobile phones on performance. Our study found that banning mobile phones significantly increased test scores among 16-year-old students. The effect is equivalent to adding five days to the school year or an extra hour per week. Low-achieving students benefited more, while high-achieving students remained unaffected.

Similar and using a similar approach demonstrated compelling evidence supporting the benefits of banning mobile phones. In Spain, grades improved and bullying incidents decreased. In Norway, the ban raised middle school students’ grade-point averages and their likelihood of attending academic high schools while reducing bullying. Evidence from suggests banning mobile phones can be beneficial for college student performance.

Psychological research sheds light on potential mechanisms behind the impact of mobile phones and technology on student performance. Multitasking, common with mobile phone use, has been found to hinder . Taking notes by hand has been shown to compared to typing on a computer.

In sum, banning mobile phones in schools can yield positive effects, improve academic performance and narrow the achievement gap between high- and low-achieving students. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that mobile phones and technology can also be valuable educational tools when used appropriately.

This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .

Five Tips for Buying Baby Toys That Support Healthy Development

Brenna Hassinger-Das and Jennifer M. Zosh — Tue, 04 Jul 2023 12:01:00 +0000

This article was originally published in

Picking out a baby toy – whether it’s for your own child or a friend’s kid or the child of a family member – can be overwhelming. Although Americans spend a year on baby toys, it’s difficult to know which toy will be fun, educational and developmentally appropriate. The options seem endless, with search results at common retail sites in the hundreds, if not thousands. Is price a reliable indicator of quality? Are technological enhancements useful?

Our – published in the American Journal of Play in April 2023 – surveyed the toy market for babies and toddlers age 0-2 at two major U.S. national retailers, with an eye toward differences between battery-powered toys, like the , and traditional toys, such as the .

We found significant differences between these two toy types in terms of how they’re marketed – with more traditional toys marketed as supporting physical development and more technological toys aimed at cognitive development. However, these companies do not always have researchers investigating whether the toys actually help children learn.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �� Newsletter

As and , we offer five tips before you buy your next baby toy.

1. Consider your goal

When purchasing a toy, consider whether you have any particular developmental goal in mind. For instance, do you want your baby to develop fine motor skills by playing with a , or to by building a block tower?

2. Look for open-ended toys

Many parents and caregivers know that children often more than the toy inside it. One reason is that boxes are open-ended toys – they can become anything a young child dreams up. Conversely, a toy cellphone directs the type of play much more rigidly.

A good rule of thumb is to choose toys that require . For example, infants can explore a set of realistic miniature animals sensorially – usually by putting them in their mouths – and then later use them for pretend play, or even to create animal footprints in play dough. Contrast this experience with a large plastic elephant that needs to sit on the floor and lights up and makes elephant sounds. Here, a child is limited in play, with the goal being to make the object light up or play a sound.

3. Recognize gender biases

Several major retailers have over the past decade, opting for “kids” instead of “boys” and “girls.”

However, if you enter the store of one of those major toy retailers today, you will still find some aisles filled with pink toys and dolls, while other aisles feature monster trucks and primary-colored blocks. A toy sword might not be labeled as “for boys,” yet shoppers often perceive it that way based on . If you look only in certain aisles or at stereotypical toys, you might miss out on toys that your child would enjoy regardless of gender.

4. Be wary of marketing claims

The makers of tech toys often make claims about their educational potential that are not backed by science. For example, an electronic shape sorter might claim to help children develop emotional skills because the toy says “I love you!”

Be skeptical of such claims, and use your own experience and insights to evaluate the educational potential of a toy. You might read the retailer and manufacturer descriptions, but also see what the toy actually does. If it fosters caregiver-child interactions or helps to develop a specific skill – like how building blocks support spatial skills, and finger puppets build fine motor skills – then it is likely a toy worth considering.

5. Prioritize human interactions

Keep in mind that toys are not chiefly designed to create baby geniuses – they are meant to be fun! So think broadly about whether you want a new toy to support physical, social, emotional, cognitive or creative development while keeping it fun. And remember that no toy can replace between caregivers and children.

Research suggests that when playing with tech toys versus traditional toys with their children. So choosing traditional toys, such as nonelectronic shape sorters and building blocks, may be one way to foster the types of interactions that support healthy development.

Overall, research suggests that, in most cases, traditional toys provide than technological toys. When purchasing a toy, think through the experiences you want the baby in your life to have, think broadly about the goals of a particular toy, try to provide opportunities for and remember to have fun.

This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .

Student Mental Health: From Buses to Cafeterias, How All School Workers Can Help

Joshua Bay — Tue, 30 May 2023 15:30:00 +0000

As the pandemic exacerbated mental health challenges for schools nationwide, Sonny Thadani realized students and teachers weren’t the only ones in need of support.

As the co-founder of , an educational technology startup focused on improving the mental health outcomes of school communities, Thadani expanded the coaching and curriculum offered to all frontline members — from bus drivers to cafeteria workers to sanitation staff.

“Part of Robin’s platform is coaching, developing connections, building resilience and really understanding the skillsets you need to deal with life’s challenges,” Thadani told ��. “So if we’re going to do a great job with students, we have to do an unbelievable job with all the adults in their lives.”

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �� Newsletter

For Thadani, destigmatizing conversations around mental health hits home.

As a young parent, Thadani met a father from Newtown, Connecticut who opened up to him about losing his 7-year-old son in a school shooting.

That father was Mark Barden, the co-founder and CEO of the , a nonprofit organization dedicated to preventing gun violence in schools.

Touched by Barden’s passion to protect children, Thadani began volunteering for the organization — which later served as the catalyst for co-founding Robin.

“As I learned more about what they’re doing, I took a look at how mental health has affected my own family and close friends,” Thadani said. “I took that as a sign and inspiration to say I’m going to do something about it.”

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

��: I understand that your affiliation with Sandy Hook Promise played a large role in the creation of Robin. Walk me through how your volunteer work led to starting an educational technology startup.

I’m so proud and feel very fortunate to the team I met over at Sandy Hook Promise. It was a couple years ago and I just so happened to have a conversation with . I didn’t really know who he was at that very moment, but later found out as he shared his story with me that he’s not only a parent who lost his 7-year-old that day, but also happened to be one of the co-founders of Sandy Hook Promise.

We took a liking to each other and had a lovely conversation. He shared some of his goals, ambitions, and the story of that day with me. As a young parent at the time, it really shook me to my core. I asked him how I can help and he shared with me some of the things that I could do. So I became a and started helping them in any way I could from volunteering to fundraising.

A lot of people talk about the gun violence prevention policy work they do, which is absolutely incredible, but a bulk of what they do that really makes a large impact is the mental health programs for kids. They have two very well known programs called and . When I learned more about these programs, and talked to Mark and Nicole and the rest of the team, I thought wow this is incredible and I wish this was everywhere. We started talking about how much of a challenge it is to reach every school in America and get this program out there. Sandy Hook Promise is a nonprofit doing wonderful things but they only have so much reach.

As I learned more about what they’re doing, I took a look at how mental health has affected my own family and close friends. I took that as a sign and inspiration to say I’m going to do something about it. What I’ve learned is that there aren’t a lot of preventive and proactive programs out there that are making an impact. So that’s just some of the genesis on why myself and Scott and now a larger team started Robin.

I understand that Robin extends resources to all frontline members of school communities, such as bus drivers, cafeteria workers and sanitation staff. Tell me more about this initiative.

As any young company, you can only do so much right out of the gates. We started creating this digital online curriculum for students starting with middle school and high school and then eventually elementary. As we were out there talking to principals and superintendents and counselors, I started learning that not only was there not much for educators but they also weren’t really thinking about it in a more broad frame.

As we started to talk to more people, we realized, wait a minute, it’s not just teachers who are interacting every day with students. It’s the cafeteria worker, it’s the bus driver, it’s the crossing guard. If you think about it, the bus driver is the first person to see our kids and the last person to drop them off. They have the potential to set the tone for the day based on how they’re doing.

With one school in upstate New York, we had the opportunity to talk to their leadership team at a conference. They talked about some of the challenges that their transportation team was facing. It’s tough being a driver and having a group of students screaming or yelling or being rambunctious on the bus. In addition to administrators, unions and parents that can be challenging at times. Who’s supporting and allowing them the space and opportunity to talk to someone? Part of Robin’s platform is coaching, developing connections, building resilience and really understanding the skillsets you need to deal with life’s challenges. So if we’re going to do a great job with students, we have to do an unbelievable job with all the adults in their lives.

So we began this journey to support all frontline members starting with this one school in upstate New York who gave us the opportunity to talk to their transportation team. We did a six part coaching series with all 18 of them and asked them about the challenges they face in day-to-day work. I’m proud to report that after we finished, everybody retained their jobs, came back to school and walked in with their heads held high. This is something we’re doing now all over the country, from upstate New York to South Carolina to our backyard here in New York City. We’re supporting school communities and I think this is really critical in order to create something sustainable and have long-term impact.

Oftentimes these frontline members of school communities come from diverse and low-income backgrounds. How does Robin ensure the coaching and resources provided to them are not only accessible but also culturally relevant?

It starts with where the content and curriculum comes from. Robin comes from a diverse set of coaches, teachers, counselors and social workers that are not only mental health experts but are also from those communities and have worked in those schools we serve. The largest community we serve is in our backyard in New York City — the Bronx. A lot of students and families in the Bronx come from lower income communities. They also happen to be from Black and Brown communities where a lot of them don’t speak English. So starting with some of the basics, we have all of our content up in Spanish with closed captions available. Especially for our older students, we make sure that when they see our content not only do they see someone that looks like them or has been through similar challenges, but also in a language they can understand.

The other thing that Robin does is really listen to the school communities we serve. No school is, of course, the same, even within New York City. The school down the street might have a separate set of challenges, opportunities and needs then the next. I think part of the reason schools are not only coming to us but coming back to us is because we are a reflection of who they are. And again, while we can’t be everything to everyone, we are pulling from a lot of different types of communities and trying to really understand what those communities are asking for. In turn, we can address them with the right sets of curriculum or coaches that they not only want to hear from, but based on the data and some of our surveys and some of our processes, is the right fit for their particular community. So it’s a little bit of a combination of using technology and data and good old fashioned listening skills to really understand the communities we serve and what they’re particularly going through.

In the wake of the Nashville school shooting, what is something about gun violence prevention more school communities need to talk about?

I happened to be in Tennessee about an hour southeast of Nashville visiting one of the schools we work with when this occurred. So I’m with the superintendent of this district and we, of course, talked about it. There are signs out there for these particular students, whether they were posting on social media or showing signs that they were stressed or angry. These students or graduates had no outlet or connection and felt an element of loneliness. And again, these are all studies that have been proven and shown out there in terms of who decides to do these horrific things.

I think one thing schools all ought to do is understand what those things are so they could be on the lookout. How can we all be armed with information and knowledge on how to notice these signs and then know what to do? How do we get involved sooner and understand what the challenges or issues that a particular student or set of students are facing right now? I think all schools want to do that but they don’t know how to do that. They’re not trained, for example, to know the science. They’re not trained in mental health first aid.

You bring up a valuable point in regards to mental health training. Tell me more about why it’s important for school communities to destigmatize conversations around mental health.

When we heard back from schools, they’re looking for this training. Not specifically training tailored to know how to identify a school shooter. That is very targeted and there are things out there for that. But how to better understand when you see a student of yours that might be going through a mental health challenge and how to help that student in the moment — from a simple panic attack to an anxiety attack. We do a course around test anxiety. March was SATs and ACTs in a large part of the country, and many students, and parents frankly, get really anxious and nervous.

There are things we could do to support them in advance of that. That’s sort of the preventative nature of what we’re talking about at Robin. How do we get ahead of these things because we don’t know what life’s challenges or what mental health challenges a student may or may not face. We do know that there are skill sets to put in place today at a young age, even starting in elementary school, that will give them the ability to use those skills if and when a challenge large or small arises.

How have conversations today around gun violence prevention and mental health shaped your own views on the matter?

I look at this from the lens of a parent first and foremost. That’s my number one job and my number one responsibility. It’s made me hyper aware of the possibility that this could happen anywhere and anytime. So what does that mean for young kids growing up? It means we need to make sure they’re okay talking about it. My daughter came home, she’s in second grade, and she had her first formal active shooter drill. For me, I’m 43 and I grew up in the 80s and 90s. We had fire drills and “stop, drop and roll” and how to evacuate the building and things of that nature. But our kids are only going to know this world. Having an open conversation with them as a parent so they can understand why we do these things is important. Whether I like to or want to, this is what we have to do.

It’s also made me want to change this. Whether it’s through Robin or through supporting Sandy Hook or through just me as an individual doing interviews and podcasts and having these conversations. I know people turn it into a political and divided commentary, but it shouldn’t be. We don’t have all the answers. I don’t have the magic answer in my pocket right now. I have elements of the answer that I think will help, but we need a lot of people to come to the table from all walks of life to solve this. Because you can’t tell me one person who doesn’t want to solve it. We need to come to the table and realize that our kids are literally dying through suicide, gun violence and other medical and mental health issues that lead to some scary things.

Again, as a parent of young kids going through school for the next decade, this is something I always think about. I don’t necessarily think about it daily or act like this is the last time I’ll see my kids. But for the parents who lost their child, that’s what happened to them.

For now, I’m so proud of this generation of students and leaders that are bringing this to the forefront of their schools, principals, superintendents and mental health clubs. I do believe this is changing because of the students in this generation that are raising their hands and saying we need to solve this problem.

Best of 2022: The Year’s Top Stories About Education & America’s Schools

Steve Snyder — Wed, 21 Dec 2022 12:15:00 +0000

Every December at ��, we take a moment to recap and spotlight our most read, shared and debated education articles of the year. Looking back now at our time capsules from December 2020 and December 2021, one can chart the rolling impact of the pandemic on America’s students, families and school communities. Two years ago, we were just beginning to process the true cost of emergency classroom closures across the country and the depth of students’ unfinished learning. Last year, as we looked back in the shadow of Omicron, a growing sense of urgency to get kids caught up was colliding with bureaucratic and logistical challenges in figuring out how to rapidly convert federal relief funds into meaningful, scalable student assistance.

This year’s list, publishing amid new calls for mask mandates and yet another spike in hospitalizations, powerfully frames our surreal new normal: mounting concerns about historic test score declines; intensifying political divides that would challenge school systems even if there weren’t simultaneous health, staffing and learning crises to manage; broader economic stresses that are making it harder to manage school systems; and a sustained push by many educators and families to embrace innovations and out-of-the-box thinking to help kids accelerate their learning by any means necessary.

Now, 2½ years into one of the most turbulent periods in the history of American education, these were our 22 most discussed articles of 2022:

The COVID School Years: 700 Days Since Lockdown

Learning Loss: 700 days. As we reported Feb. 14, that’s how long it had been since more than half the nation’s schools crossed into the pandemic era. On March 16, 2020, districts in 27 states, encompassing almost 80,000 schools, closed their doors for the first long educational lockdown. Since then, schools have reopened, closed and reopened again. The effects have been immediate — students lost parents, teachers mourned fallen colleagues — and hopelessly abstract as educators weighed “pandemic learning loss,” the sometimes crude measure of COVID’s impact on students’ academic performance.

With spring approaching, there were reasons to be hopeful. More children had been vaccinated. Mask mandates were ending. But even if the pandemic recedes and a “new normal” emerges, there are clear signs that the issues surfaced during this period will linger. COVID heightened inequities that have long been baked into the American educational system. The social contract between parents and schools has frayed. And teachers are burning out. To mark a third spring of educational disruption, Linda Jacobson interviewed educators, parents, students and researchers who spoke movingly, often unsparingly, about what Marguerite Roza, director of Georgetown University’s Edunomics Lab, called “a seismic interruption to education unlike anything we’ve ever seen.” Read her full report.

A 700-Day Parental Awakening: Marguerite Roza, of Georgetown’s Edunomics Lab, reflects on the past years
700 Days of Missed Opportunities — and Lingering Inequities: Robin Lake, of the Center on Reinventing Public Education, looks back (and forwards)
700 Days of Balancing Student Safety Against Keeping Classrooms Open: Superintendent Pedro Martinez reflects
700 Days in Pictures: 24 months inside one resilient school district
The COVID School Years: See our special report, looking back on 700 days of the pandemic

Threatened & Trolled, School Board Members Quit in Record Numbers

School Leadership: By the time we published this report in May, the chaos and violence at big city school board meetings had dominated headlines for months, as protesters, spurred by ideological interest groups and social media campaigns, railed about race, gender and a host of other hot-button issues. But what does it look like when the boardroom is located in a small community, where the elected officials under fire often have lifelong ties to the people doing the shouting? Over the last 18 months, Minnesota K-12 districts have seen a record number of board members resign before the end of their term. As one said in a tearful explanation to her constituents, “The hate is just too much.” Beth Hawkins takes a look at the possible ramifications.

Million-Dollar Records Request: From COVID and critical race theory to teachers’ names & schools, districts flooded with freedom of information document demands

Nation’s Report Card Shows Largest Drops Ever Recorded in 4th and 8th Grade Math

Student Achievement: In a moment the education world had anxiously awaited, the latest round of scores from the National Assessment of Educational Progress were released in October — and the news was harsh. Math scores saw the largest drops in the history of the exam, while reading performance also fell in a majority of states. National Center for Education Statistics Commissioner Peggy Carr said the “decline that we’re seeing in the math data is stark. It is troubling. It is significant.” Even as some state-level data has shown evidence of a rebound this year, federal officials warned COVID-19’s lost learning won’t be easily restored. ��’s Kevin Mahnken breaks down the results.

Lost Decades: ‘Nation’s Report Card’ shows 20 years of growth wiped out by two years of pandemic
Economic Toll: Damage from NAEP math losses could total nearly $1 trillion
COVID Recovery: Can districts rise to the challenge of new NAEP results? Outlook’s not so good

Virtual Nightmare: One Student’s Journey Through the Pandemic

Mental Health: As the debate over the lingering effects of school closures continues, the term “pandemic recovery” can often lose its meaning. For Jason Finuliar, a California teen whose Bay Area school district was among those shuttered the longest, the journey has been painful and slow. Once a happy, high-achieving student, he descended into academic failure and a depression so severe that he spent 10 days in a residential mental health facility. “I felt so worthless,” he said. It’s taking compassionate counselors, professional help and parents determined to save their son for Jason to regain hope for the future. Linda Jacobson reports.

16 Under 16: Meet ��’s 2022 Class of STEM Achievers

This spring, we asked for the country’s help identifying some of the most impressive students, age 16 or younger, who have shown extraordinary achievement in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. After an extensive and comprehensive selection process, we’re thrilled to introduce this year’s class of 16 Under 16 in STEM. The honorees range in age from 12 to 16, specialize in fields from medicine to agriculture to invention and represent the country from coast to coast. We hope these incredible youngsters can inspire others — and offer reassurance that our future can be in pretty good hands. Emmeline Zhao offers a closeup of the 2022 class of 16 Under 16 in STEM — click here to read and watch more about them.

A ‘National Teacher Shortage’? New Research Reveals Vastly Different Realities Between States & Regions

School Staffing: Adding to efforts to understand America’s teacher shortages, a new report and website maps the K-12 teaching vacancy data. Nationally, an estimated 36,504 full-time teacher positions are unfilled, with shortages currently localized in nine states. “There are substantial vacant teacher positions in the United States. And for some states, this is much higher than for other states. … It’s just a question of how severe it is,” said author Tuan Nguyen. Marianna McMurdock reports on America’s uneven crisis.

Meet the Gatekeepers of Students’ Private Lives

School Surveillance: Megan Waskiewicz used to sit at the top of the bleachers and hide her face behind the glow of a laptop monitor. While watching one of her five children play basketball on the court below, the Pittsburgh mother didn’t want other parents in the crowd to know she was also looking at child porn. Waskiewicz worked on contract as a content moderator for Gaggle, a surveillance company that monitors the online behaviors of some 5 million students across the U.S. on their school-issued Google and Microsoft accounts in an effort to prevent youth violence and self-harm. As a result, kids’ deepest secrets — like nude selfies and suicide notes — regularly flashed onto Waskiewicz’s screen. Waskiewicz and other former moderators at Gaggle believe the company helped protect kids, but they also surfaced significant questions about its efficacy, employment practices and effect on students’ civil rights. Eight former moderators shared their experiences at Gaggle with ��, describing insufficient safeguards to protect students’ sensitive data, a work culture that prioritized speed over quality, scheduling issues that sent them scrambling to get hours and frequent exposure to explicit content that left some traumatized. Read the latest investigation by ��’s Mark Keierleber.

Students Continue to Flee Urban Districts as Boom Towns, Virtual Schools Thrive

Exclusive Data: A year after the nation’s schools experienced a historic decline in enrollment, data shows many urban districts are still losing students, and those that rebounded this year typically haven’t returned to pre-pandemic levels. Of 40 states and the District of Columbia, few have seen more than a 1% increase compared with 2020-21, when some states experienced declines as high as 5%, according to data from Burbio, a company that tracks COVID-related education trends. Flat enrollment this year “means those kids did not come back,” said Thomas Dee, an education professor at Stanford University. While many urban districts were already losing students before the pandemic, COVID “accelerated” movement into outlying areas and to states with stronger job markets. Experts say that means many districts will have to make some tough decisions in the coming years. Linda Jacobson reports.

‘Hybrid’ Homeschooling Making Inroads as Families Seek New Models

School Choice: As public school enrollments dip to historic lows, researchers are beginning to track families to hybrid homeschooling arrangements that meet in person a few days per week and send students home for the rest of the time. More formal than learning pods or microschools, many still rely on parents for varying levels of instruction and grading. About 60% to 70% are private, according to a new research center on hybrid schools based at Kennesaw State University, northwest of Atlanta. Greg Toppo reports.

Student Safety: Thousands of times every year, New York City school staff report what they fear may be child abuse or neglect to a state hotline. But the vast majority of the resulting investigations yield no evidence of maltreatment while plunging the families, most of them Black, Hispanic and low income, into fear and lasting trauma. Teachers are at the heart of the problem: From August 2019 to January 2022, two-thirds of their allegations were false alarms, data obtained by �� show. “Teachers, out of fear that they’re going to get in trouble, will report even if they’re just like, ‘Well, it could be abuse.’ … It also could be 10 million other things,” one Bronx teacher said. .

Law enforcement work the scene after a mass shooting at Robb Elementary School May 24, 2022 in Uvalde, Texas. The massacre was one of 16 mass shootings in the U.S. in 10 days. (Jordan Vonderhaar/Getty Images)

The Contagion Effect: From Buffalo to Uvalde, 16 Mass Shootings in Just 10 Days

Gun Violence: May’s mass school shooting in Texas — the deadliest campus attack in about a decade — has refocused attention on the frequency of such devastating carnage on American victims. The tragedy unfolded just 10 days after a mass shooting at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York. It could be more than a coincidence: A growing body of research suggests these assaults have a tendency to spread like a viral disease. In fact, The U.S. has experienced 16 mass shootings with at least four victims in just 10 days. Read Mark Keierleber’s report.

Teachers Leaving Jobs During Pandemic Find ‘Fertile’ Ground in New School Models

Microschools: Feeling that she could no longer effectively meet children’s needs in a traditional school, former counselor Heather Long is among those who left district jobs this year to teach in an alternative model — a microschool based in her New Hampshire home. “For the first time in their lives, they have options,” Jennifer Carolan of Reach Capital, an investment firm supporting online programs and ed tech ventures, told reporter Linda Jacobson. Some experts wonder if microschools are sustainable, but others say the ground is “fertile.” Read our full report.

Eamonn Fitzmaurice/��/iStock

Facing Pandemic Learning Crisis, Districts Spend Relief Funds at a Snail’s Pace

School Funding: Schools that were closed the longest due to COVID have spent just a fraction of the billions in federal relief funds targeted to students who suffered the most academically, according to an analysis by ��. The delay is significant, experts say, because research points to a direct correlation between the closures and lost learning. Of the 25 largest districts, the 12 that were in remote learning for at least half the 2020-21 school year have spent on average roughly 15% of their American Rescue Plan funds — and districts are increasing pressure on the Education Department for more time. Linda Jacobson reports.

Slave Money Paved the Streets. Now, This Posh Rhode Island City Strives to Teach Its Past

Teaching History: Every year, millions of tourists marvel at Newport, Rhode Island’s colonial architecture, savor lobster rolls on the wharf and gaze at waters that — many don’t realize — launched more slave trading voyages than anywhere else in North America. But after years of invisibility, that obscured chapter is becoming better known, partly because the Ocean State passed a law in 2021 requiring schools to teach Rhode Island’s “African Heritage History.” Amid recent headlines that the state’s capital city is now moving forward with a $10 million reparations program, read Asher Lehrer-Small’s examination of how Newport is looking to empower schools to confront the city’s difficult past.

Harvard Economist Thomas Kane on Learning Loss, and Why Many Schools Aren’t Prepared to Combat It

74 Interview: This spring, Harvard economist Thomas Kane co-authored one of the biggest — and most pessimistic — studies yet of COVID learning loss, revealing that school closures massively set back achievement for low-income students. The effects appear so large that, by his estimates, many schools will need to spend 100% of their COVID relief to counteract them. Perversely, though, many in the education world don’t realize that yet. “Once that sinks in,” he said, “I think people will realize that more aggressive action is necessary.” Read Kevin Mahnken’s full interview.

In White, Wealthy Douglas County, Colorado, a Conservative School Board Majority Fires the Superintendent, and Fierce Backlash Ensues

Politics: The 2021 election of four conservative members to Colorado’s Douglas County school board led to the firing in February of schools Superintendent Corey Wise, who had served the district in various capacities for 26 years. The decision, which came at a meeting where public comment was barred, swiftly mobilized teachers, students and community members in opposition. Wise’s ouster came one day after a 1,500-employee sickout forced the shutdown of the state’s third-largest school district . A few days later, students walked out of school en masse, followed by litigation and talk of a school board recall effort. The battle mirrors those being fought in numerous districts throughout the country, with conservative parents, newly organized during the pandemic, championing one agenda and more moderate and liberal parent groups beginning to rise up to counter those views. Jo Napolitano reports.

Weaving Stronger School Communities: Nebraska’s Teacher of the Year Challenges Her Rural Community to Wrestle With the World

Inspiring: Residents of tiny Taylor, Nebraska, call Megan Helberg a “returner” — one of the few kids to grow up in the town of 190 residents, leave to attend college in the big city and then return as an adult to rejoin this rural community in the Sandhills. Honored as the state’s 2020 Teacher of the Year, Helberg says she sees her role as going well beyond classroom lessons and academics. She teaches her students to value their deep roots in this close-knit circle. She advocates on behalf of her school — the same school she attended as a child — which is always threatened with closure due to small class sizes. She has also launched travel clubs through her schools, which Helberg says has strengthened her community by breaking students, parents and other community members out of their comfort zone and helping them gain a better view of the world outside Nebraska while also seeing their friends and neighbors in a whole new light. This past winter, as part of a broader two-month series on educators weaving community, a team from �� made multiple visits to Taylor to meet Helberg and see her in action with her students. Watch the full documentary by Jim Fields, and read our full story about Helberg’s background and inspiration by Laura Fay.

Other profiles from this year’s Weaver series:

Texas’s Alejandro Salazar: The band teacher who kept his school community connected through COVID’s chaos
Hawaii’s Heidi Maxie: How an island teacher builds community bridges through her Hawaii school
Georgia’s Allie Reeser: Living and learning among refugees in the ‘Ellis Island of the South’
: Meet 12 educators strengthening school communities amid the pandemic

Research: Babies Born During COVID Talk Less with Caregivers, Slower to Develop Critical Language Skills

Big Picture: Independent studies by Brown University and a national nonprofit focused on early language development found infants born during the pandemic produced significantly fewer vocalizations and had less verbal back-and-forth with their caretakers compared with those born before COVID. Both used the nonprofit LENA’s “talk pedometer” technology, which delivers detailed information on what children hear throughout the day, including the number of words spoken near the child and the child’s own language-related vocalizations. It also counts child-adult interactions, called “conversational turns,” which are critical to language acquisition. The joint finding is the latest troubling evidence of developmental delays discovered when comparing babies born before and after COVID. “I’m worried about how we set things up going forward such that our early childhood teachers and early childhood interventionalists are prepared for what is potentially a set of children who maybe aren’t performing as we expect them to,” Brown’s Sean Deoni tells ��’s Jo Napolitano. Read our full report.

Minneapolis Teacher Strike Lasted 3 Weeks. The Fallout Will Be Felt for Years

Two days after Minneapolis teachers ended their first strike in 50 years this past May, Superintendent Ed Graff walked out of a school board meeting, ostensibly because a student protester had used profanity. The next morning, he resigned. The swearing might have been the last straw, but the kit-bag of problems left unresolved by the district’s agreement with the striking unions is backbreaking indeed. Four-fifths of the district’s federal pandemic aid is now committed to staving off layoffs and giving classroom assistants and teachers bonuses and raises, leaving little for academic recovery at a moment when the percentage of disadvantaged students performing at grade level has dipped into the single digits. From potential school closures and misinformation about how much money the district actually has to layoffs of Black teachers, a lack of diversity in the workforce and how to make up for lost instructional time, Beth Hawkins reports on the aftermath.

Mississippi Superintendent of Schools Carey Wright will retire this month after nearly nine years in office. (Mississippi Department of Education)

After Steering Mississippi’s Unlikely Learning Miracle, Carey Wright Steps Down

Profile: Mississippi, one of America’s poorest and least educated states, emerged in 2019 as a fast-rising exemplar in math and reading growth. The transformation of the state’s long-derided school system came about through intense work — in the classroom and the statehouse — to raise learning standards, overhaul reading instruction and reinvent professional development. And with longtime State Superintendent Carey Wright retiring at the end of June, ��’s Kevin Mahnken looked at what comes next.

As Schools Push for More Tutoring, New Research Points to Its Effectiveness — and the Challenge of Scaling it to Combat Learning Loss

Learning Acceleration: In the two years that COVID-19 has upended schooling for millions of families, experts and education leaders have increasingly touted one tool as a means for coping with learning loss: personalized tutors. In February, just days after the secretary of education declared that every struggling student should receive 90 minutes of tutoring each week, a newly released study offers more evidence of the strategy’s potential — and perhaps its limitations. An online tutoring pilot launched last spring did yield modest, if positive, learning benefits for the hundreds of middle schoolers who participated. But those gains were considerably smaller than the impressive results from some previous studies, perhaps because of the project’s design: It relied on lightly trained volunteers, rather than professional educators, and held its sessions online instead of in person. “There is a tradeoff in navigating the current climate where what is possible might not be scalable,” the study’s co-author, Matthew Kraft, told ��’s Kevin Mahnken. “So instead of just saying, ‘Come hell or high water, I’m going to build a huge tutoring program,’ we might be better off starting off with a small program and building it over time.” Read our full report.

STEM: Robert Sansone was born to invent. His STEM creations range from springy leg extensions for sprinting to a go-kart that can reach speeds of 70 mph. But his latest project aims to solve a global problem: the unsustainability of electric car motors that use rare earth materials that are nonrenewable, expensive and pollute the environment during the mining and refining process. In Video Director James Field’s video profile, the Florida high schooler talks about his creation, inspiration and what he plans to do with his $75,000 prize from the 2022 Regeneron International Science and Engineering Fair. , and watch our full portrait below:

Q&A: TED Fellow Heejae Lim on Using Tech to Strengthen Family-School Engagement

Joshua Bay — Wed, 14 Sep 2022 18:30:00 +0000

Swarmed after school by concerned Korean parents, Heejae Lim often found her mom acting as an unofficial liaison between her teachers and friends’ families who spoke little to no English.

Lim, an education technology entrepreneur and TED Fellow, watched as her mother would answer questions every day about how to support their child’s learning, parent-teacher conferences and cultural barriers around school jargon.

Growing up in an immigrant family, Lim resonated with their struggles and later explored solutions to family-school partnerships as the founder and CEO of , a communication app that helps multilingual and underserved families connect with their child’s teachers.

“Education is one of the biggest issues we need to solve in this country,” Lim tells ��. “And how can we solve this through technology?”

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �� Newsletter

TalkingPoints has supported more than 600 schools and districts – over 3 million families and teachers, where 70% of students served are students of color and 89% come from Title I schools.

Lim delved into this further at the conference during her TED Talk: “.”

“We’re playing the role my mom had for the school and my friends’ families — the communicator, the explainer, the coach, the translator and the go-between,” Lim said in her TED Talk. “When teachers and families work together everyone wins.”

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

��: What key takeaways would you want someone watching your TED Talk to understand about you and TalkingPoints?

I think the biggest takeaway about me is that my personal background drives a lot of the talking points in my TED Talk. I’m Korean and moved to England when I was eight. My mom became that communicator, translator and go-between in the public elementary school I went to. I saw the impact that had on me and my sister’s education, so I think a lot about that when it comes to family-school partnerships as the central driver of student success.

But it’s not just the experience of myself. Research really shows that when families and schools partner with each other and build relationships that are meaningful and collaborative, that really drives student learning and well being.

��: How does it feel to be the only education leader selected as part of the class of 2022 TED Fellows Program?

I’m really excited and inspired to be part of this program and to talk about the state of education in the U.S., especially when it comes to highlighting the mass media’s view around education, the achievement gap and the potential of families driving student success. I’m also excited to have this platform to bring to life the research we have at TalkingPoints. You might have seen in my TED Talk about the 40 million children that come from under-resourced and/or immigrant families. People gasped at that number as well as the two year achievement gap and the trillion dollars lost in the economy.

I think education is one of the biggest issues we need to solve in this country, and we haven’t found the silver bullet to the learning and opportunity gap. COVID-19 really exacerbated it and there’s a long way to go. With the leaders in the TED community, we’re able to connect with others also trying to solve these complex social problems.

��: You mentioned how COVID-19 exacerbated the learning and opportunity gap for students. Did COVID-19 have an impact on TalkingPoints ability to tackle this?

When COVID-19 hit us in March 2020, we actually saw a 20x increase in communication volume. Within the span of three to six months, we saw a fixed increase in the number of families that we were reaching. And all the school districts that we were partnering with started reaching out saying that they needed TalkingPoints for the entire school district instead of just a subset of students.

We also did a research report that said family-school partnerships was more important than ever during COVID-19 to drive student learning and well being. It was a silver lining moment for us in terms of how we can serve these communities and really get TalkingPoints in the hands of many more school districts and families who need it. But more importantly, it highlights how family-school partnerships continue to be a critical component to student learning.

��: Tell me more about TalkingPoints growth. How have languages expanded since the organization was founded?

In terms of languages, we started off with around 20. Now we’re offering translations in more than 125 languages with support from real human translators for instant translations. We also include dialects that are not supported by other apps, like Dari which is a language spoken in Afghanistan, Odia which is an Indian dialect, Kata which is a Russian dialect and Uyghur which is spoken in a region of China.

We have also piloted a language for Cape Verdean Creole. We’re the only organization to support a language like that. Boston Public Schools were really excited about it because they have a significant Cape Verdean population and have been really struggling to support that set of families and students in the past. We’ve really expanded and plan to expand even further down the line.

��: What would you say has been the most impactful story you’ve heard from someone that uses TalkingPoints?

So we had a teacher based in Georgia. She’s an elementary school teacher and she’s taught in the same elementary school for more than 10 years. She used to teach kindergarten three years ago, but last year she started teaching third grade. Because of this, she ended up teaching the same kid that she used to teach in kindergarten. She wrote to us specifically to say that the mother of the student, who is a Spanish speaking student, has never felt so included in their school community after using TalkingPoints.

If you think about it, this is a natural A/B experiment so to speak. It’s the same school, the same teacher, the same student and the same family. This is a really special story because we can attribute the impact of TalkingPoints specifically to this before and after story. It’s really, really touching and amazing. And the fact that the teacher specifically wrote to us to tell us that at the request of the mother is also special. That’s one story I love sharing.

��: What does the future look like for TalkingPoints? For instance, do you see TalkingPoints delving into other ways to engage and connect families?

I think there’s a couple of things to know. We’re already working on a lot of exciting things around in-house research to see what the impact of TalkingPoints has on student outcomes. For example, we have research coming up that actually shows a direct-causal relationship to engage families around improving student achievement, grades across subjects, attendance and student discipline. I’m really excited to share that.

We’ve also been working on making sure that the family-school connections are equitable and accessible to all. TalkingPoints is open to all adults who support student learning within a school system – including teachers, counselors, bus drivers, coaches and psychologists, so a student’s full learning team can engage with families regularly.

We also have reading flags whenever a teacher is writing above a fifth grade reading level. We offer suggestions to simplify so parents can understand them better. We also have tools for families to demystify education terms, like Individualized Education Program (IEP) or parent-teacher conferences. Like what are they and why are they important? As well as allowing families to engage with their teachers via video with closed captions translated.

So I guess the reason I bring this all up relates directly to the future of TalkingPoints. We are on a mission to systematically remove the barriers to family-school partnerships. We are looking to develop a next generation platform that gives coaching and support to teachers, school administrators and families to talk to each other in a positive, connecting way.

��: As a Korean immigrant, what does it mean to you to be a part of the education technology space?

My personal experience and identity really drives the way that I think about the role of education technology as a tool. It can really unlock behaviors and thoughts that schools and families can have to drive student success. But it has to come from an inclusive, accessible and equitable lens. The way that education technology is designed, thought about, used and implemented can be a make or break moment. If done well, there’s incredible potential to improve student success. But if not, it can further widen the learning loss gap we’ve seen from COVID-19.

As a Korean immigrant, I think a lot about product development and education technology that is inclusive, accessible and caters to the needs of under-resourced and immigrant students and families. That goes not just for me but a lot of our TalkingPoints team. They’ve grown up as English language learners, come from immigrant families, are first generation college goers and have taught in the classroom. Our team really understands the communities we serve and how we think about our vision to further support them.

Iowa Company Creates Virtual Reality Classrooms for 10 Universities

Kate Kealey — Sun, 17 Jul 2022 15:30:00 +0000

This article was originally published in

Students from 10 universities around the country can visit historical settings or perform surgery on cadavers, all from the comfort of their homes, after an Iowa company that specializes in virtual reality created digital campuses.

During the pandemic, students at Morehouse College in Atlanta reported struggling with online learning. The university came to VictoryXR, a company based in Davenport, Iowa. CEO Steve Grubbs had the solution: build a virtual replica of the campus.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �� Newsletter

Students and instructors wear virtual-reality headsets to access a three-dimensional, computer-generated simulation of real-world places and events. Users immersed into the virtual reality, known as the metaverse, can move through the simulation and interact with others.

Within 10 weeks, teachers at Morehouse developed coursework for the program, and VictoryXR built the metaverse. At Morehouse, inorganic chemistry, world history and biology courses have used the program.

“Next thing you know, their students are taking classes in the metaverse,” Grubbs said. “The first college in the world.”

Meta, the company that owns Facebook, connected with VictoryXR to expand “metaversities” after the implementation of digital classrooms at Morehouse College and Fisk University in Nashville, Tennessee.

Morehouse is one of 10 higher education institutions to qualify for virtual classrooms through a grant from Meta. According to a public records request filed by , the universities will receive more than $500,000 and virtual-reality headsets under their contracts with VictoryXR.

Universities to receive Meta grants

Morehouse College
University of Kansas School of Nursing
New Mexico State University
South Dakota State University
West Virginia University
University of Maryland Global Campus
Southwestern Oregon Community College
Florida A&M University
California State University
Alabama A&M University

Grubbs said virtual-meeting programs like Zoom can’t recreate the student experience that virtual reality can.

“In a metaversity, you are all together and you are in a classroom together where you can fist bump, you can work on projects together, you can break into small groups,” Grubbs said. “A teacher can take a human heart out of a cadaver and hand it to another student. That is the bottom line. It is almost exactly like the brick-and-mortar classroom, only better.”

Grubbs said students working in the metaverse will get the same education they would receive on campus, and in some ways better.

Grubbs said health science majors will benefit the most from the virtual experience, but history classes can also be enhanced through the metaverse. As on-campus and remote learning increases in demand, Grubbs said learning needs to be kinesthetic, or hands-on.

One simulation VictoryXR developed was the courtroom from the classic Harper Lee novel, “To Kill a Mockingbird.” As students discuss the book in class, they can sit with the jurors or in the judge’s chair.

“You can understand the book from the perspective of those who sat in the courtroom,” Grubbs said. “That’s what we are trying to achieve, is an understanding that can only being gained by being there. Students get to go stand on the Great Wall of China, they can go to Iceland and they can go to the Redwoods Forest once they are learning with our virtual reality.”

Grubbs served in the Iowa House from 1990 to 1996, including as chair of the House Education Committee. He said he has always had an interest in developing new ways to improve education. Buffalo Elementary School in Buffalo, Iowa, was the first school to use VictoryXR’s virtual reality education program. Now schools around the world use VictoryXR’s product. Saint Ambrose University in Davenport will be the first higher education institution in Iowa to have a metaversity.

“They will be right alongside the University of Kansas, West Virginia, Cal State, and a lot of other great schools in the country,” Grubbs said.

Data collection

Meta will provide each university with Oculus Quest 2 virtual-reality headsets, while in use.

All contracts in the public-records request from noted the universities retain the ultimate ownership of data generated in the partnership. Data collection will depend on the brand of headset students use, according to Grubbs. Technology from the grant could come from Meta, Pico Technology or HTC, all with their own privacy data opt-in policies.

Currently, Grubbs said no information is being gathered from users. VictoryXR won’t collect any data other than an email and name to set up an account.

Users will be required to create a Facebook account to access the virtual classroom. Under Meta’s data policy, Oculus products can collect information about physical features and information from third-party apps. Passing information between third-party apps allows the company to pair users with friends also using the app, .

Environmental, dimensional and movement data will also be recorded to alert users if they approach a virtual boundary. Hand size estimates will be collected to enable the hand tracking feature.

What’s next?

VictoryXR hopes to expand the business so that every school in world will have a metaversity in the next five to seven years, Grubbs said. The company has been in conversation with multiple universities in Iowa. He plans to meet with the University of Iowa soon to talk about the future of virtual classrooms at the university.

VictoryXR is opening its first metaversity in Europe in August and Grubbs plans to bring on a business development aid in India in September. The business also won a global award for the best education innovation last September.

Grubbs expects the industry to expand to augmented reality. In virtual reality, students are completely immersed and are typically working remotely. Augmented reality creates virtual objects visible in the real-world classroom.

“They don’t have to fly across the country and live on a campus because the metaverse is a campus,” he said.

Questions regarding the metaverse and VictoryXR can be directed to the .

is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Iowa Capital Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Kathie Obradovich for questions: info@iowacapitaldispatch.com. Follow Iowa Capital Dispatch on and .

Could AI ‘Chatbots’ Solve the Youth Mental Health Crisis?

Mark Keierleber — Wed, 13 Apr 2022 11:01:00 +0000

This story is produced in partnership with exploring the increasing role of artificial intelligence and surveillance in our everyday lives during the pandemic, including in schools.

Fifteen-year-old Jordyne Lewis was stressed out.

The high school sophomore from Harrisburg, North Carolina, was overwhelmed with schoolwork, never mind the uncertainty of living in a pandemic that’s dragged on for two long years. Despite the challenges, she never turned to her school counselor or sought out a therapist.

Instead, she shared her feelings with a robot. to be precise.

Lewis has struggled to cope with the changes and anxieties of pandemic life and for this extroverted teenager, loneliness and social isolation were among the biggest hardships. But Lewis didn’t feel comfortable going to a therapist.

“It takes a lot for me to open up,” she said. But did Woebot do the trick?

Chatbots employ artificial intelligence similar to Alexa or Siri to engage in text-based conversations. Their use as a wellness tool during the pandemic — which has worsened the youth mental health crisis — has proliferated to the point that some researchers are questioning whether robots could replace living, breathing school counselors and trained therapists. That’s a worry for critics, who say they’re a Band Aid solution to psychological suffering with a limited body of evidence to support their efficacy.

“Six years ago, this whole space wasn’t as fashionable, it was viewed as almost kooky to be doing stuff in this space,” said John Torous, the director of the digital psychiatry division at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. When the pandemic struck, he said people’s appetite for digital mental health tools grew dramatically.

Throughout the crisis, experts have been sounding the alarm about a . During his State of the Union address in March, President Joe Biden called youth mental health challenges an emergency, noting that students’ “lives and education have been turned upside-down.”

Digital wellness tools like mental health chatbots have stepped in with a promise to fill the gaps in America’s overburdened and under-resourced mental health care system. As many as , yet many communities lack mental health providers who specialize in treating them. National estimates suggest there are fewer than 10 child psychiatrists per 100,000 youth, less than a quarter of the staffing level recommended by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �� Newsletter

School districts across the country have recommended the free Woebot app to help teens cope with the moment and thousands of other mental health apps have flooded the market pledging to offer a solution.

“The pandemic hit and this technology basically skyrocketed. Everywhere I turn now there’s a new chatbot promising to deliver new things,” said Serife Tekin, an associate philosophy professor at the University of Texas at San Antonio whose research has in mental health care. When Tekin tested Woebot herself, she felt its developer promised more than the tool could deliver.

Body language and tone are important to traditional therapy, Tekin said, but Woebot doesn’t recognize such nonverbal communication.

“It’s not at all like how psychotherapy works,” Tekin said.

Sidestepping stigma

Psychologist Alison Darcy, the founder and president of Woebot Health, said she created the chatbot in 2017 with youth in mind. Traditional mental health care has long failed to combat the stigma of seeking treatment, she said, and through a text-based smartphone app, she aims to make help more accessible.

“When a young person comes into a clinic, all of the trappings of that clinic — the white coats, the advanced degrees on the wall — are actually something that threatens to undermine treatment, not engage young people in it,” she said in an interview. Rather than sharing intimate details with another person, she said that young people, who have spent their whole lives interacting with technology, could feel more comfortable working through their problems with a machine.

Alison Darcy (Photo courtesy Chris Cardoza, dozavisuals.com)

Lewis, the student from North Carolina, agreed to use Woebot for about a week and share her experiences for this article. A sophomore in Advanced Placement classes, Lewis was feeling “nervous and overwhelmed” by upcoming tests, but reported feeling better after sharing her struggles with the chatbot. Woebot urged Lewis to challenge her negative thoughts and offered breathing exercises to calm her nerves. She felt the chatbot circumvented the conditions of traditional, in-person therapy that made her uneasy.

“It’s a robot,” she said. “It’s objective. It can’t judge me.”

This screenshot shows the interaction between the Woebot app and student Jordyne Lewis. (Photo courtesy Jordyne Lewis)

Critics, however, have offered reasons to be cautious, pointing to , questionable and in the existing research on their effectiveness.

Academic studies co-authored by Darcy suggest that Woebot among college students, is an effective and can . Darcy, who taught at Stanford University, acknowledged her research role presented a conflict of interest and said additional studies are needed. After all, she has big plans for the chatbot’s future.

The company is currently seeking approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to leverage its chatbot to treat adolescent depression. Darcy described the free Woebot app as a “lightweight wellness tool.” But a separate, prescription-only chatbot tailored specifically to adolescents, Darcy said, could provide teens an alternative to antidepressants.

Jeffrey Strawn

Not all practitioners are against automating therapy. In Ohio, researchers at the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and the University of Cincinnati teamed up with chatbot developer to create a “COVID Anxiety” chatbot with the unprecedented stress.

Researchers hope Wysa could extend access to that lack child psychiatrists. Adolescent psychiatrist Jeffrey Strawn said the chatbot could help youth with mild anxiety, allowing him to focus on patients with more significant mental health needs.

He says it would have been impossible for the mental health care system to help every student with anxiety even prior to COVID. “During the pandemic, it would have been super untenable.”

A Band-Aid?

Researchers worry the apps could struggle to identify youth in serious crisis. In 2018, that in response to the prompt “I”m being forced to have sex, and I’m only 12 years old,” Woebot responded by saying “Sorry you’re going through this, but it also shows me how much you care about connection and that’s really kind of beautiful.”

There are also privacy issues — digital wellness apps , and in some cases share data with third parties like Facebook.

Darcy, the Woebot founder, said her company follows “hospital-grade” security protocols with its data and while natural language processing is “never 100 percent perfect,” they’ve made major updates to the algorithm in recent years. Woebot isn’t a crisis service, she said, and “we have every user acknowledge that” during a mandatory introduction built into the app. Still, she said the service is critical in solving access woes.

“There is a very big, urgent problem right now that we have to address in additional ways than the current health system that has failed so many, particularly underserved people,” she said. “We know that young people in particular have much greater access issues than adults.”

Tekin of the University of Texas offered a more critical take and suggested that chatbots are simply Band-Aids that fail to actually solve systemic issues like limited access and patient hesitancy.

“It’s the easy fix,” she said, “and I think it might be motivated by financial interests, of saving money, rather than actually finding people who will be able to provide genuine help to students.”

Lowering the barrier

Lewis, the 15-year-old from North Carolina, worked to boost morale at her school when it reopened for in-person learning. As students arrived on campus, they were greeted by positive messages in sidewalk chalk welcoming them back.

Student Jordyne Lewis, who shared her feelings with the free app Woebot, believes the chatbot could sidestep the stigma of seeking mental health care. (Screenshot courtesy Jordyne Lewis)

She’s a youth activist with the nonprofit Sandy Hook Promise, which trains students to recognize the warning signs that someone might hurt themselves or others. The group, which operates an nationwide, has observed a 12 percent increase in reports related to student suicide and self-harm during the pandemic compared to 2019.

Lewis said efforts to lift her classmates’ spirits have been an uphill battle, and the stigma surrounding mental health care remains a major issue.

“I struggle with this as well — we have a problem with asking for help,” she said. “Some people feel like it makes them feel weak or they’re hopeless.”

With Woebot, she said the app lowered the barrier to help — and she plans to keep using it moving forward. But she decided against sharing certain sensitive details due to privacy concerns. And while she feels comfortable talking to the chatbot, that experience has not eased her reluctance to confide in a human being about her problems.

“It’s like the stepping stone to getting help,” she said. “But it’s definitely not a permanent solution.”

Disclosure: This story was produced in partnership with . It is part of a reporting series that is supported by the which works to build vibrant and inclusive democracies whose governments are accountable to their citizens. All content is editorially independent and overseen by Guardian and 74 editors.

Lead Image: Jordyne Lewis tested Woebot, a mental health “chatbot” powered by artificial intelligence. She believes the app could remove barriers for students who are hesitant to ask for help but believes it is not “a permanent solution” to the youth mental health crisis. (Andy McMillan / The Guardian)

Opinion: How School Can Best Prep Grads for Future Economy: Career Training in Green Jobs

Rachel Rosen — Wed, 23 Feb 2022 17:20:58 +0000

The movement to green the American economy is gaining momentum. At the , as well as in places like , and , lawmakers have passed legislation designed to reduce carbon emissions while creating green jobs in diverse industries such as transportation, construction, environmental management and agriculture. These have all in recent years and are predicted to .

This green revolution will require an army of well-trained workers — yet federal investments in job training have focused mostly on adults. To build a healthy pipeline of skilled labor, policymakers should apply lessons from a robust body of evidence about successful career and technical education programs for high school students to create pathways for careers in the green economy.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �� Newsletter

More than high school students are enrolled in CTE; high-quality CTE programs have been shown to high school graduation, college enrollment and earnings. With curricula organized around specific career themes, they offer internships and other work-based learning experiences, and provide opportunities to earn industry-recognized credentials and college credits while still in high school. CTE programs also appear to work particularly well for students who have lagged in educational attainment, including and .

CTE programs have been successful across fields of study, suggesting that similar models focused on green jobs and careers may have similar effects. In fact, promising green CTE programs are cropping up all over the country. In Malta, New York, the , a model school, offers learning experiences in clean energy, business and solar installation, opportunities to earn certificates in photovoltaics and a pathway to associate’s degrees in electrical construction and maintenance. The on Governors Island in New York City provides programs in fields related to marine health, including aquaculture and marine systems technology, and offers instruction in professional diving and vessel operation, as well as paid internships.

In Kansas, at Olathe West High School is a four-year program with pathways in both renewable energy and sustainable agriculture. in Mississippi trains students in aquaculture through a program that allows them to continue their studies at a local community college, and the Bright Solar Futures program at in Philadelphia provides training and industry-recognized certificates in solar energy installation and energy conservation, preparing students for entry-level solar jobs.

As innovative as these programs are, however, they tend to be one-off efforts. To prepare students for the future green economy, a more coordinated effort will be necessary to align labor market needs with CTE programs nationwide.

The Aspen Institute’s recent recommends developing new CTE opportunities that prepare students for jobs in the clean energy economy and creating curricula that supports knowledge of environmental sustainability across all career pathways. This could be done in a coordinated way by leveraging funds through the federal , which provides states with more than $1 billion annually to support CTE education. For example, electricians and HVAC technicians now need to understand new technology used for renewably powered homes and buildings. Other fields that are staples of current CTE programming are being transformed by efforts to address climate change, including buildings and architecture, transportation and logistics, and agriculture and natural resources.

Perkins already requires school districts to conduct needs assessments of local labor markets. States could use that funding to support schools to make explicit connections with green employers to learn what skills students need and create opportunities for internships, apprenticeships and work-based learning experiences.

Other funding streams should be developed to support green CTE, such as money to purchase training equipment like solar panels, wind turbine parts and greenhouses. Funding for research to understand how schools and districts can best align their educational offerings with rapidly accelerating changes in the labor market should also be a policy priority.

Developing a talent pipeline of students ready to enter the workforce as the clean energy transition accelerates would ensure a robust, skilled pool of workers prepared to meet the challenge of reducing carbon emissions at the scale and speed that science demands. Doing so would be a win for students, employers and the environment.

Rachel Rosen is a senior associate and co-director of MDRC’s .

Opinion: Transforming Students from Consumers of Education Technology into Creators

Kevin Rickard — Tue, 01 Feb 2022 22:45:00 +0000

March will mark two years since schools had to switch to remote learning, district leaders frantically bought education tech products and teachers scrambled to make them work with their lesson plans. Today, as the Omicron variant spreads across the U.S., many schools have returned to online instruction, at least temporarily.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for �� Newsletter

The result of this infusion of education technology is that it is now a permanent part of the K-12 instructional landscape, not only virtually but in the physical classroom. Some young learners, like the second- and third-graders I teach, have never known school to be anything other than tech-centered. Whether they’re at home or in an actual building, they turn on a laptop or tablet, log in to a content management system and start exploring instructional games, puzzles or videos. Every time I walk into a classroom, I’m reminded that COVID-19 has turned a generation of kids into full-fledged consumers of ed tech content.

Now they’re ready for the next step: creating that content themselves.

Today, students can make their own movies, design their own graphics and power their own robots. At Newtown Elementary School in Virginia Beach, kids have used Wixie to create language arts presentations, Dash robots to learn coding and BrainPOP to create their own animations about weather. Not only do children love using these types of tools, but shows that active, hands-on learning can lead to higher retention rates and increased academic performance. Technology that gives students control over their education also has the potential to agency, the process where students begin to lead their own learning, adapt when things get tough and believe they can succeed.

Here are three tips for transforming young ed tech consumers into content creators:

1 Make students the teachers

Four years ago, my school started a program called the Hour of Power. Teachers nominate students to join me for a 45-minute lesson each month to become familiar with an ed tech tool that promotes active learning. Afterward, they go back to their classrooms and teach their peers how to use the tool. Some students are so excited to share what they’ve learned that they ask to present to other classes. It has become a huge hit with the kids, who are building enthusiasm for content creation while showing their classmates that they’ve mastered a subject.

There’s also a side benefit to the Hour of Power: Once students are comfortable with the technology, teachers are more likely to incorporate it into their lessons.

2 Don’t rescue students when they’re floundering

Many tech entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley say that their greatest failures led to their greatest successes. The same is true for young learners. I’ll sometimes see teachers start to “rescue” students who are struggling, whether it’s with science, STEM or a tech tool. “Hang on,” I tell them. “Let them figure it out on their own.” Learning becomes more powerful when children discover the solution themselves. For that reason, I never teach my Hour of Power learners all the features of a new tech tool, though I sometimes hint that there are “Easter eggs” hidden within. When they find them, the wide grins that spread across their faces tell me everything I need to know about teaching and learning. Then they get to share with their classmates.

3 Balance technology with other forms of learning

During remote instruction, our district’s leaders stressed the importance of finding ways other than through technology to reach students. That’s something we’ve continued as we’ve returned to the physical classrooms. For example, one of my favorite science-based lessons is on erosion. After students learn about the process from their teachers, I come in with a tub of sand and a bucket of water and show them what erosion looks like. Then, they take on the role of city engineers, with the goal of preventing their houses from washing away.

In my work as an instructional technologist, I’ve heard some teachers say students’ time could be better spent building skills in math or reading than on the trial-and-error process of experimenting with software. I’d argue that it’s not a binary choice. Content creation tools are powerful vehicles for teaching core subject matter while helping students develop into self-motivated, lifelong learners. Giving children the tools to decide what is meaningful and relevant to them has benefits that transcend subject matter.

Kevin Rickard is an instructional technology specialist at Newtown Elementary School in Virginia Beach.

How a Reading App Could Help Students Confront COVID Learning Loss This Summer

Rupen Fofaria — Thu, 01 Jul 2021 16:01:00 +0000

Get essential education news and commentary delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up here for ��’s daily newsletter.

Hollis Irvin learned to read last year. She’s a good reader, her mother, Tiffany Burks, says. Last year, when the pandemic forced schools to close temporarily and during the early days of remote learning that followed, Burks started to worry about her Grier Elementary second grader.

Hollis was starting to read words just to say them out loud — not trying to understand what the words and passages meant. Reading felt like a chore to Hollis, Burks said.

Then they found the , a mobile application that families can use to work on literacy skills at home. The app takes kids through a quiz and, based on the results, suggests activities and games for them to do on their own or work on with their parents.

“She’s making the connection when it comes to the questions [about what she read], so she’s not just reading to read,” Burks said. “If I had a question regarding one of the passages she read, she can answer the question back. There’s been a lot of growth that I’ve seen.”

The Reading Checkup is available for free in Mecklenburg County as , a community-wide reading initiative, is leading a free pilot of the app for its maker, Learning Ovations. While Read Charlotte is using it to help parents work with their children, the algorithm it uses was designed to help teachers in the classroom.

Munro Richardson, executive director of Read Charlotte, believes the app can help kids address unfinished learning and combat summer slide.

“When we think about what’s happening in this COVID environment and post-COVID, our kids are going to be all over the place,” Richardson said. “So the need to have this sort of precision medicine for literacy is greater than ever.”

Richardson was learning more about the platform when the pandemic began. When he learned the Department of Education had asked Learning Ovations to investigate use of the platform at home for kids and parents to use, his ears perked up.

Richardson convinced Learning Ovations to choose Mecklenburg County. His team worked on changes to make the platform more compatible for the community. The first thing they did was change the name, which used to be Home Literacy Coach.

Next, they worked on making the interface more user-friendly. A 15-minute assessment became two short quizzes. Also, many of the activities suggested for kids required school resources, so Read Charlotte worked with nonprofit partners and came up with new activities that are easier to do at home.

Read Charlotte also partnered with Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, which provided six teachers to record more than 100 videos explaining how caregivers can conduct adult-led activities.

To get the word out, Read Charlotte partnered with more than 80 organizations. One of them, , got the app into hundreds of homes. They also came up with the idea of creating literacy kits to pass out that contained resources for the app’s suggested activities.

“We’ve been excited about it and we’ve kind of picked it up and been able to run with it,” BCDI-Charlotte President Devonya Govan-Hunt said. “Because it puts such an emphasis on where we believe the majority, a lot of the power actually, lies, which is in the home and in the hands of parents.”

About 3,300 pre-K to third grade students have used the Reading Checkup at home since last summer, accessing it on smartphones, tablets, or computers. One of them was Hollis.

“We use this as a supplement,” Burks said. “And she doesn’t feel like she’s in school when she’s doing it. She feels like she’s playing a game. So it’s been really helpful to me.”

Govan-Hunt says this app allows parents to actively engage in their child’s ability to read. When parents are involved, she believes the impact on reading scores will be substantial.

“So with this Reading Checkup, we have made it a point to really lift family engagement, because we actually believe that family engagement is the cornerstone in everything that we do,” she said. “We believe that family engagement, especially with literacy, is a high-impact strategy for improving schools and increasing literacy achievement, period.

“And that’s what this Reading Checkup allows us to do. Put the control in the parents’ hands.”

The feedback Richardson has received suggests the BCDI message is resonating with the community.

“So in a time when everything was really up in the air, and people are losing jobs and there was all sorts of uncertainty, the way they frame this with parents was to talk about control,” Richardson said. “Although there’s a lot of things in your life that could be out of your control, helping your child with reading … using the Reading Checkup is one area where you can control. And they found a lot of parents really warmed to that message.”

BCDI-Charlotte has visited schools, camped out in front of grocery stores, and set up tables at shopping centers trying to engage families and spread word about the Reading Checkup. (Courtesy BCDI-Charlotte)

Govan-Hunt said this is a particularly important message for Black and Brown communities. In the communities she serves, she said there is a feeling that many schools don’t do enough to engage with Black parents. She noted assumptions about family stress levels during the pandemic or bias against Black and Brown parents’ willingness and ability to get involved in their children’s schooling.

“We believe that we have a responsibility to respond to this reality that we’re existing in by transforming the approach that many people take around family engagement, moving away from a so-called random act of family engagement to one that actually has a lift by the community, or by the village,” she said.

Tiffany Burks was one of those parents. She visited the Melanated Exchange Market in Charlotte last year to buy Hollis some books. In part, she wanted to motivate her child to read during that period when reading felt like a chore.

As Burks walked through a parking lot to the market, a hub for Black-owned small businesses, her daughter veered off toward a table filled with books. She stopped and stared at one book, in particular. The cover showed a Black girl with naturally curly hair, just like Hollis’.

Burks smiled at her daughter’s reaction. She hardly noticed Govan-Hunt walk up beside her.

“She just tears up,” Govan-Hunt recalled of Burks.

Burks finally turned to Govan-Hunt and asked how she could help Hollis stay on track with reading. That’s when Govan-Hunt told her about Reading Checkup. They talked about the power of parents in helping their children read, the importance of finding rich and culturally diverse texts, and how the app could help bolster Hollis’ reading skills and love for reading.

“And she says, ‘Thank you. I’ve never had the opportunity to have this conversation with anybody before,’” Govan-Hunt said. “It was out of fear that her thoughts and her fears were irrelevant, and that people really didn’t have these conversations in the society that we live in today.”

Hollis left the market with three free books from BCDI, and she’s used the app ever since.

“I became afraid that because she was learning from home, she’d be disengaged, and she wouldn’t be as excited about learning,” Burks said. “And that’s where I feel like the app fills in that gap because it’s like, OK, if you didn’t receive this lesson in school, I know you’re receiving it on the app and you like doing the app. So it’s not like I have to force you to do it.”

This article originally appeared .

edtech – ��������

Finale: Takeaways from a Season of AI in Education

Reflecting on mid-season insights

College and career readiness concerns

Discussing H3 framework development

Refining educational processes with AI

Parents exploring educational alternatives

Challenges of educational system changes

Rethinking microschool education

Defining a school’s basic elements

Rethinking traditional classroom model

Reflecting on content personalization

Critique of current education standards

Discussing educational model challenges

Understanding norm-referenced assessments

Exploring AI’s impact on education

Reed Hastings on What It Will Take for AI to Be Different From Other Ed Tech

Leadership changes in education systems

Rapid AI advancements predictions

Improving education over the years

Experimenting with individualized tutoring

Self-learning education technology

Sharing AI education globally

The AI App Seeking to Scale ‘Magic’ in the Classroom

Challenges using general AI tools in education

Exploring MagicSchool’s AI features

Using generative AI in education

Improving model quality and selection

Building personalized learning assessments

Discussing AI-generated IEPs and privacy

Integrating curriculum with MagicSchool

Measuring feedback and student outcomes

Using AI to boost engineering productivity

How AI Can Help Educators Teach Kids to Read, Without Replacing Connection

Listen to the episode below. A full transcript follows.

Rethinking Early Reading Education

Connected Phonation and AI Learning

Empowering Adults to Teach Reading

Student-Led Reading Program Growth

Customized Solutions for Every School

Behind the Reinvention of Summit Public Schools With AI

What Is a School?

Summit 2.0: Evolution and Vision

Personalization & Durable Skills

AI Evolution in Education Models

Current Applications of AI in Schools

Finding Passion and Purpose

Designing Education for the Child

Summit Learning: Model vs. Technology

Enabling Learning Through AI

The AI Behind Flourish Microschools

Enhancing Foundational Learning with AI

AI’s Impact on Schooling

Tutoring via Adaptive Dialogue

Building Teacher-Student Connections

Teaching Soft Skills

Feedback and Rewards Drive Success

Reimagining Teachers’ Roles

Opinion: Can AI Keep Students Motivated, Or Does it Do the Opposite?

What the evidence shows so far

When AI backfires

Not all AI tools work the same way

Why it matters for all of us

Wisconsin District Sues Ed Tech Giant PowerSchool After Massive Data Breach

‘Devil and the deep blue sea’

Data practices under a microscope

Information PowerSchool takes is ‘virtually unlimited’

Feds Charge Once-Lauded AllHere AI Founder in $10M Scheme to Defraud Investors

Computer Programs Monitor Students’ Every Word in the Name of Safety

Data and privacy

Do they work?

From Precalculus to ‘Gatsby,’ New Hampshire Offers Schools an AI Tutor Option

Chat-based learning

Optimism and concern

Opinion: 5 Questions Schools Should Ask Before Purchasing AI Tech Products

1. Which educational problem does the product solve?

2. Is there evidence that a product works?

3. Did educators and students help develop the product?

4. What educational beliefs shape this product?

5. Does the product level the playing field?

edtech – ��