Author Archives: Stephen Seyfer

Will AI Be a Repeat of Cellphone Mistakes?

Posted on by
Reply

Cellphones are educational tools. Educators completely missed the cellphone boat; it sailed without us. We stood on the dock and railed against everything the cellphone represented and closed our eyes to the rest of the world who sailed into using cellphones in daily living. Teachers, especially, never understood the opportunities for using cellphones as teaching and learning tools and they lost by not planning for that adventure.

Public education had no vision for harnessing the use of cellphones in the classroom. Our age-old response to children and cellphones was to prohibit what we could not control. Just like chewing gum in the 1950s. Now, I fear, it is déjà vu time for missing the boat on AI.

Artificial Intelligence is public education’s current test. Will we harness it as a teaching and learning tool or once again bay at the moon and prohibit it? The difference today is that AI does not care if we are on board, it has a mind of its own.

What do we know?

The tide of laws and regulations prohibiting the use of cellphones in classrooms, if not school, is growing. Classroom teachers could not adapt the power of pocket computing and communicating from the real world into educational practices. With their mouths agape, they experienced what any savvy person could have told them. “The more you tell children what they cannot do, the more they will do it.” And, with cellphones, children saw the hypocrisy and the missed opportunity clearly for what it was – a refusal to adapt.

Sadly, the real issue with cellphones in school is not the games and texting students do. The real issue is us.

First, our teacher-student relationships and daily instruction were less compelling than a cellphone screen. Instead of rising to the instructional design challenge and making daily instruction more engaging, we banned cellphones and taught like we always had taught and children disengaged,

Second, we did not make the cellphone a teaching and learning tool, like a tablet or laptop, and productively incorporate it into school life. As an observer, I saw children in classrooms where teachers have strong connections with children and engaging lesson plans. There, children never think about taking a cellphone from their pocket. They wanted and appreciated strong, personalized instruction. I also saw children in classrooms with weaker connections and instruction where children walked into class with cellphones in hand and once seated, gave their teacher little or minimal attention. Their screen was more engaging and more personal. The sad story is cellphones are considered more powerful than our pedagogy and quality connections with children, so we ban them.

The real world is no in school.

A smartphone is a real-world powerhouse. It is an instant information resource, learning apps device, and communicator. It is real world applications that are personified and we know it.

I sat in an audience at a Wisconsin Association of School Boards convention amongst several thousand delegates. Up and down my row of seats, board members and administrators watched and listened to the speakers with their cellphones in their hands. Some took notes on their phones. Some took pictures of presentation visual information. Some dived into a search for information on something the speaker said. Others texted their colleagues and friends during the session. Several played games. More people had cellphones in their hand than they did not. And that was in 2018. The people who would make rules banning cellphones in school used them in their learning experience.

More to the point, children in all decades of schooling heard this from a teacher. “Look it up. Find the facts. Learn what others have written about it.” Decades ago, we paged through encyclopedias and card catalogs and guides to periodical literature. Today, outside of school, children use their cellphones to Google or AI or ask Siri. Children still need to find facts, examine different perspectives, and weigh opinions. However, in school, children can only use approved devices with Internet filters. How foolish! How controlling! Our policies treat cellphones like our policies treated chewing gum in the 60s and 70s. And we wonder why there were so many dried kernels of gum stuck to the undersides of desks and tables.

Banning cellphones in school is all about control not better teaching and learning.

The AI boat can sail without us.

The real question for educators and AI is this – We can harness AI as a teaching and learning tool or AI will replace us as teaching and learning professionals. With AI, even classrooms may be optional.

Sarah Schwartz reported on students at Percy Julian Middle School (Oak Park, Ill) in the April 20, 2026, edition of Education Week. This is necessary reading to inform educators and school boards about the AI boat and its passenger list.

https://www.edweek.org/technology/a-group-of-students-took-a-deep-dive-into-ai-heres-what-they-told-teachers/2026/04

We must clap loudly for a middle school teacher and his students, and a school and its administration for engaging in their study of AI use at their school. They did what we all should do. Study and use AI apps, field test them on our school and community, and learn how to use AI productively for teaching and learning. At the same time, we will learn that AI also presents dangers that must be understood by all. In some ed reporting, the teacher and students seem stiff and opaque. Schwartz relates the experiences of an inquisitive teacher and group of students and what they learned. You will like these people and their story.

I appreciated one student’s comment. During their all-staff reporting session, she saw doubting teachers with frowns. There will be teachers who refuse to get on the boat or get aboard reluctantly. Such is life. The real winner in this story is Percy Julian Middle School. The AI boat will not sail without them, and they are better prepared for the adventure.

The Big Duh!

We missed and still are missing teaching and learning opportunities with cellphones. We continue to separate the real world from the classroom. Shame on us. However, the Titanic taught us that large ships do not change course easily or without peril, and schools are large institutions like ocean liners. I wonder how a school with prohibitions against cellphones in school can rationalize and navigate children into a future where AI is used to teach and learn.

AI is a different game. I work in a teacher licensing preparation program, and we already are envisioning classrooms without human teachers. Truth be told, we already have a total online teacher prep program – no face time with a teacher for our adult learners. We build and teach curriculum with AI, and our licensing candidates learn using AI. The same real world-in-the-school can be created for children.

Or we can watch others treat AI like chewing gum and cellphones and try to control children in classrooms.

We Get Lower Achievement Because We Accept Lower Achievement

Posted on by
Reply

Given time and effort, we can teach every child to be proficient in reading and mathematics. In truth, with time and effort we can teach any child to be proficient in any subject. This is a true and correct statement of teaching and learning.

You can define proficiency as reading and solving math problems at grade level for elementary age children or as achieving a standardized score on reading and math assessments. These are not unreachable goals nor impossible tasks, if ensuring proficient reading and math abilities are as highly valued as we say they are. But they are not that highly valued – if they were, we would achieve them. Children in American schools are not proficient because we accept and even expect lower academic skills from 50% of our children.

The problem is not the students in school who are not meeting our achievement goals. They meet the farcical achievement levels we accept. They repeatedly score below their prescribed proficiency levels and repeatedly are advanced in grade levels. I am not advocating retention of any child, because we can teach students to meet higher learning goals. If we choose to do so.

The problem is not our goal for every child to be college or career ready. This is the banner headline goal for Wisconsin public schools, and it is a solid, high ground goal for public education. We can teach all students to be college and career ready. The problem is that we, the State of Wisconsin, and its hundreds of school districts, say one thing and accept far less. Most Wisconsin students are not proficient by any measure in reading or math. And we accept this. If we did not, the results would be different.

The problem is our hypocrisy.

What do we know?

If reading and math proficiencies are our gold standards for educational quality, we are failing.

A search of data says this – “Based on spring 2025 results, Wisconsin student performance showed slight gains, with 47.7% of students proficient or better in English Language Arts (ELA) and 48.6% in mathematics.”  The data has been saying the same things for years. Less than half of all students are proficient in reading and math.

What does this really mean? Student assessment data are grouped into four categories: Developing, Approaching, Meeting, and Advanced. Students in the Meeting and Advanced categories achieved scores at or above the target for proficient skills. Students in the Developing and Approaching categories are not proficient; some are far below the proficient level.

In real terms, 52.3% of students are not proficient in reading and 51.4% of students are not proficient in math. We can use softer words to describe the results, but softer words do not change the true meaning. Today, by our own measures, we do not make Wisconsin or any other state’s graduates’ college and career ready.

What should we know about this?

The word “readiness” is a misnomer. A high school graduate thinks readiness is acceptance by a college or being hired into a career apprenticeship or job. I am accepted = I am ready. Readiness is not the status of entry. Readiness is the ability to succeed in college or in a career. Our children are victims of standardized assessments and intransigent institutional standards. Instead of archaic and uninformative statements of proficiency, we must give children real school achievements targets. Like these –

  • College ready means the cognitive and emotional abilities needed for a 75% anticipation of earning a C grade as a minimum in college level courses.
  • Career ready means the cognitive and emotional abilities to successfully apply learned skills necessary for an adult career.

To be cognitively ready for success in college, a student must be able to –

  • Independently read and understand high-school level and introductory college level texts. These are complex and complicated texts and documents.
  • Analyze, evaluate, and synthesize multiple sources into coherent written and oral arguments (papers).
  • Use personal, collegiate vocabulary in all subjects.
  • As a beginning point, master Algebra 2 problems, quadratic functions, polynomials, basic trigonometry, and an ability to interpret statistics, and
  • Make sense of a messy, real-world problem and translate it into a mathematical equation.

To be cognitively ready to apply skills in an adult career, a student must be able to –

  • Follow multi-step complex instructions, safety protocols, technical diagrams. Career-based reading in technical careers often is more complex and complicated than general courses in college.
  • Navigate digital resources to expediently find specific data.
  • Communicate in writing and orally with clarity, as lack of clarity can cause safety and work errors.
  • Master applications of ratios, proportions, and spatial reasoning – tolerances matter.
  • Accurately interpret charts, spreadsheets, and data and communicate this with others.
  • Master fractions, decimals, and basic algebra and geometry.

These are the academic achievements that matter for a high school graduate to predict success in college and a career. Instead of a test score or a grade point average, colleges, universities, and technical colleges should use acceptance tests, like placement tests, to verify an applicant’s likelihood of success. Placement tests are used selectively today – make them universal acceptance tests.

Apprenticeships in skilled trades and should require real-time applied knowledge tests. A highly successful home builder friend tells me, “For example, I hand an applicant a 2 x 4 and pencil and give them an applied math question of measurement, angle, and dimension. They need to make a sketch. Then, I check their assumptions, figures, and diagrams. They need not be 100% correct but demonstrate an understanding of building basics. We will refine their accuracy if they know what they what to do.”

Colleges, universities, technical schools and trades need to define college and career readiness not public schools.

Improve the expectations to improve student achievements.

Many worry that students will fail to meet new requirements, so they are reluctant to make new requirements. Hogwash! Experience tells us that children adapt to new school requirements. School boards have been adding requirements for years and students have adapted to each addition. However, adding new requirements has not improved academic achievement, it only makes schoolwork denser.

The real “new” that is needed to improve student achievement is labeling and teaching to the new descriptors of college and career readiness.

What to do.

  1. Stop soft selling the lack of proficient achievement. Drop the categories of “developing” and “approaching.” Relabel them as one – “Not proficient.” Then, counsel each non-proficient student on how to achieve proficiency. Today we expect children to self-identify their own remedies. That is more hogwash! We are teachers, so teach them.
  2. Strengthen “learn to read, read to learn” instruction in PK-4 with mastery teaching techniques. And create a “learn the math, do math to learn” mantra for mathematics.
  3. Reduce the current number of academic assignments and insist that all students succeed at every assignment. Spend more time teaching children to understand and plan how to successfully complete every assignment. Today “how to” is a mystery to most children.
  4. Stop accepting holes in student learning. Today, teachers begin the next lesson regardless of students who were not successful in the prior lesson. The 80% Rule leaves holes in student understanding and skills. Use more mastery teaching strategies in PK-4 to ensure every student is at grade level reading in reading and math. Use multi-tiered interventions in regular education to ensure that every student ends each unit of instruction successfully.
  5. Stop issuing less than proficient grades on student assignments and tests. Use an A, B, I grade system. Stop using C, D, and F grades. Every student whose assignments are less than a B grade is incomplete, and all incomplete grades must be improved to a B grade or better. Stop i

Successful student learning begets more successful student learning. Make these changes in the PK-4 grades and sustain these new practices through subject instruction in grades 5-12. Being below grade level can be habitual for a student. Do not let that habit start. Once students are meeting grade level success, do not let them fall below grade level.

The Big Duh!

No child starts school with the desire to be less than successful. All children look to their teacher with the anticipation of “I can do this.” As soon as we start accepting less than successful from a child, we say to that child “Less than successful is okay for you.” This is wrong. We create a learned habit of unproficiency. When we stop accepting less than successful schoolwork, children will need to be successful every day. We must mean what we say when we say, “Every child will be college and career ready” and begin meaning that in PK.

Teachers And Co-Conspiratorial Smiles

Posted on by
Reply

Inside every child lives a teacher pleaser. From pre-school through graduation children are in a student/teacher relationship with their instructors in which “making a teacher happy or satisfied or pleased with me” is a focal motivation/reward of each day. Children sitting in a class with other students often compete for their teacher’s smile. With maturity, a child learns that teacher smiles associated with school-based achievements are earned smiles. Teachers give feedback to children in many ways, but “I am smiling for you and with you” is the simplest yet most rewarding of all. This is true even for the senior-sliding 12th graders. Sincere smiles work wonders!

What kind of smile do you have?

I ask this because children know the difference in adult smiles. Consider these four.

  • I am just smiling.
  • I am smiling at you.
  • I am smiling for you.
  • I am smiling with you.

The first is a loser, the second says little, and the second and third are winners.

Smiling by itself is just smiling. Our human physiology makes smiling easier than frowning, so why not smile. Or said differently, smiling comes naturally. And smiling in the presence of children comes easily. Yet, a smile that is on the mouth and jaw line only and never lights up the eyes is just that, a biologic. On the other hand, a smile that lights up the eyes, raises the cheeks, crinkles the skin, and that even moves the ears is psychological. It is stimulus-response personified. Children learn to know the difference between deadpan smiles and real grins, because they see it in the adults in their world. Children know their teachers’ smiles.

Children in school are in the presence of adults all day. Bus drivers, crossing guards, hall monitors, custodians, food servers, librarians, teacher aides, teachers, counselors, and principals. These folks do not smile all the time. A lot of the work and the stuff they attend to during a school day does not call for a biological smile or psychological. And many smiles are just a reaction to something they find humorous.

“Smiling at you” is non-contextual. It is a pasted-on expression children see all the time. It is the face of an older aunt who has no time for children but is trapped in a family get together as she sits with children on either side of her. It is the face of salespeople in a store who want customers to feel welcome. It is impersonal. Is Washington smiling on Mt. Rushmore? Is he smiling at us?

“Smiling for you” is how teachers invest in children. This is not whole class or group smile, but one that is just for you. The teacher knows it and you know it. It is special.

This smile is not about the teacher; it is about you. “I smile because of who you are and for what you have done and for how you are learning.” In this context, when a child sees a teacher smiling for them, the reward/motivation to keep trying, to do more, and to do it better escalates. A child who shares her math problem and solution with her classmates and gets a teacher’s smile will volunteer to do it again.

Consider all the times a teacher, coach, or director gave you a smile that said, “this one is for you.” You hoped someone at home will ask you, “How was school today” and you will tell them about getting a teacher’s smile. It feels good to tell someone about the time a teacher smiled for you.

And finally, “Smiling with you” is a co-conspiratorial glow. Teachers teach, coaches coach, and directors direct so that children will learn. Most of the time, learning is transitional and immediately leads to the next teaching, or coaching, or directing. Now and again, there is a pause. It need not be a ceremony but just long enough for a teacher and a child to stop, pay attention to something of significance that a teacher/coach/director and child have done. And smile.

The child knows that the teacher knows what and how the child is feeling at that precise time and that the child achieved that special feeling because of the teacher’s teaching. It is a look between two people that transcend words. I see co-smiling when children reach supernal moments in school. A child who masters a musical piece and performs it well because of personalized instruction. A child who uses learned technique to create an art piece that makes others stop for a second and deeper look. A child who struggled with fractions and with teacher help can achieve a perfect test score. These smiles happen all the time, but they are so personal to the child and teacher the rest of us may not notice.

I like the co-conspiratorial wording. Teaching and learning are a very personal transaction between two people.

Good teachers teach children; best teachers connect with children.

Being a lifelong schoolaphile (I make up the word), I can remember the name and instructional mannerisms of every teacher I had Kindergarten thru PhD. And across more than fifty years of schoolwork, I remember the work of hundreds of teachers and know them by name and instructional manner. As a person responsible for the quality of educational outcomes, I learned that any teacher could learn and demonstrate subject content and instructional pedagogy, but no teacher can learn to like children in school if they do not do so innately. Can it be that some teachers, deep in their personality, do not like children? Oh, yes.

I liked art as an elementary and middle school student and learned a great deal about conceptualization, perspective, color and shading, shape, and form. My teacher was a veteran who had taught the parents of many of my classmates, and every generation had the same feeling about our teacher. She was a good teacher, but she was a cold one. A petite woman, she was energetic around the classroom, often looking over our shoulders and commenting on our work. But she never connected. I still have things I created in hanging on a wall and sitting on bookshelves – I was pleased with what I learned to do but never met a “smile for you” or a “a smile with you.”

I compare her with another art teacher, an elfin man whose baggy slacks, long-sleeve shirts and vests were his signature look. He had a smile that could melt a glacier. It began in his eyes, rose in his cheeks, and lifted a grin to ear-to-ear. He never knew just how golden his “smiling for/with you” because it was his natural personality. The child in him never got in the way of his connecting with the child in each child.

The other side of his story was the hundreds of students who warmed with his smile for them. And the scores of young artists who created wonderful works that conveyed their inspiration, learned techniques, and mastered artistry. He conspired with them in their learning and they will know him forever.

The Big Dug!

Know your smiles and use them to benefit children. If you are not a smiler, not everyone is, consider changing professions. If you are a smiler, build your capacity to smile for children like the cheerleader they need and smile with children like the conspirator you want to be. Children in school deserve teachers who like them, want the best for them, and can cause them to learn.

It Is Time to Emulate Others

Posted on by
Reply

Adapt or die. A simple and elegant either/or statement of a problematic state of being. The act of adapting may be voluntary or involuntary, but the need for change is dire. If not, death or literal fading toward obscurity and non-existence will ensue. Such is life.

We use this phrase in many contexts to give urgency to a necessary change. There is no human death, but the symbolism works. Here is one that strikes at the heart of education. American public education is the proverbial mile-wide river that carries a lot of water but has no depth. Our educational system is tasked by legislation and local mandates to achieve a wide expanse of outcomes, but because there are so many tasks our achievements are exceptionally shallow. And without significant depth of achievement, public education is dying of 1,000 cuts of complaint. There is no deep cut channel in American public education to give it an enduring and inarguable purpose.

We need to define the purpose and mission of public education so that our clearly written educational goals for all children are meaningfully understood and assessed and our achievements can stand on the merits of their accomplishment.

Reconsider the problem.

We have tunnel vision in assessing and valuing American public education. We have so many things to do, but we are accountable for only two outcomes – annual reading and math achievement. The Wisconsin statewide school report card system also lists graduation, attendance, and discipline rates and disparities of achievement based on gender and exceptionalities. However, in Wisconsin, as well as every other state, only reading and math achievement matter. And the data for reading and math are not good.

Sadly, the data align with the systems that create them. Our data accurately tell us that reading and math abilities in our students have declined and continue to decline. These are documented facts, because we prioritize and use single data points to assess and label the quality of American education. Thus, we pre-ordain our tunnel vision, fixate on narrowed data points, and bemoan education based on our fixations. Ugh!

It is totally exasperating to public school educators who watch children learn and grow in the arts, music, languages, and technical education curricula. We see children engaged and learning in science, literature, and the social studies. Gyms and auditoriums are packed with students, parents, and community members supporting student performances in athletics and the arts. There are a great many successes in our schools, yet it is the doldrums of reading and math data that form our conclusions about public schools in America.

Our chain link of education systems/assessments/data/conclusions about education are not working so break the chain link.

Adapt new models for American public education.

There are other models of education we should be considering. Today they are competitors and we cannot match the education/assessments/data/outcomes of their schooling. Instead of holding to our non-competitive model, we must learn from them.

Who are they? Singapore and Finland. Although our educational media have described, praised, and then criticized education in Singapore and Finland, we have done little to learn from them. It is time we do. I will generalize about their salient differences from our system. My analysis continues to use math as a curricular example.

  • Educational design.

Singapore is a meritocracy with an emphasis on performance. All students are educated equitably until national assessments begin to sort those with high achievement potential. High potential students continue with a rigorous, academic training and average to low potential students begin career training. A small nation without abundant natural resources, Singapore’s educational system creates human talents that have become their national resource. Education in Singapore is highly centralized, driven from the top down. Their purpose is to find talents in students and optimize talent development for all.

Finland emphasizes social equity, trust, and no stress. All students receive the same, equitable education everywhere. Educational goals are nationalized but delivered locally; teachers not government are responsible for ensuring educational quality. All children are taught to achieve the same high level curricular standards. There are no national/state assessments until the high school (16-year-olds). The Finns place a unique trust in teachers to assess and deliver quality education; they localize education controls. Their purpose is to create generations of well-educated, socially conscious citizens.

American public education is decentralized and regulated by state legislation – we have 50 individual state systems of public education. We define education at the state level and give local control to school boards that create their own priorities based upon local needs and values. Each school has its own mission statement, purpose, and lists of educational goals, but few hold these as their non-negotiable “North Star.” Public education has evolved into educational options with ill-defined standards of excellence. Federal and state governments provide legitimacy and funding to non-public schools as educational alternatives under Parent Choice initiatives. Our purpose is to create literate young adults ready for college and careers and citizenship.

  • Teachers

In Singapore, teachers are recruited from the top 5% of their high achieving students. Teaching performances are rewarded with bonuses, a continuation of their merits system. Curriculum is dictated by the Ministry of Education (MOE). Teachers participate in a career advancement track administered by their government. Teaching is a valued profession.

In Finland, teachers are required to hold master’s degrees in education. Teaching is a prestigious profession, equal to law and medicine. They are experts in assessing student learning and instructional design and have individual autonomy over their teaching.

American teachers meet their respective state licensing requirements. The federal government no longer classifies teaching as a profession and due to diminished public esteem, low annual income, and increasing job responsibilities there is a national shortage of people who want to be classroom teachers. A significant and growing number of classrooms are taught by people who are not trained as teachers.

  • Assessment systems.

Singapore uses a summative assessment that clearly measures and make decisions on what each student has learned. The MOE supervises all assessments.

Finland’s teachers use formative assessments to guide instruction. Teachers develop their own assessments and use data to individualize student learning and growth.

America’s annual high stakes state assessments are evaluative. We rank students and schools based upon their performance on state assessments. Government threatens underperforming schools to improve or lose federal and state funding. We use assessment data to discard and adopt curricular programs.

  • Mathematics

In Singapore mathematics instruction emphasizes mathematical reasoning, modeling, and real-world problem solving. More importantly, the curriculum builds deep conceptual understanding not memorization. Singapore students chronically top the international test takers.

In Finland teachers assess students on learning processes, problem-solving abilities, collaboration, and application of mathematics. Finland’s students chronically top international test takers. Students often work on a single problem for a full week. Add to this, Finland has ranked as the world’s happiest country for eight years in a row (2025).

American mathematics instruction emphasizes problem solving and finding right answers. Students often are assigned a dozen or more problems to solve every night as homework. Students compete with each other and seldom collaborate to solve problems. We focus on the right answers to math problems do not teach mathematical thinking or logic, although high achieving students may intuit these.

What to do?

Singapore and Finland excel in educating their children because they have clear compasses to keep their education system on track. Singapore’s centralized, rigorous, merits-based system is fundamentally different from Finland’s localized, teacher-driven, low stress, socializing system, yet each is a world-class leader in educational excellence because they do not deviate from their well-defined educational goals.

In comparison, we know that American public education will not be centralized and driven by a federal department. Our Constitution says public education is a state’s issue and each state’s politics will form its educational commitments. Because there is no national direction, we do not have a meaningful national purpose. Additionally, there is no consensus among states as to purpose or urgency. Each state treats public education as a status quo issue – it gets attention only when there are problems and or political advantage to addressing a particular issue.

However, we can

  1. From Finland, ensure educational equity for all children regardless of school district, or neighborhood. All children can be taught to achieve our standards of proficiency. Family socio-economic status should not predetermine learning success.
  2. From Finland and Singapore, teach thinking and best solution problem-solving. Our history of rewarding the efficiency of correct answers not their logic and rationale leave more than 50% of all students undereducated. We need to teach for deep understanding not rote recitation.
  3. From Finland, teach collaboration instead of independent competition, an industrial era model that fails us today. Our traditions of competition make socio-economic backgrounds of children even more pronounced. Collaboration is a learned skill set and we need to teach it.
  4. From Finland and Singapore, require classroom teachers to be highly trained experts in pedagogy and assessment instead of being minimally prepared in subject areas. Requiring a deeper professional preparation and continuing education reclaims a professional status for every teacher.
  5. From Finland, teach less curriculum but teach it so that all children master what they are taught. Every course and grade level currently is overloaded with stuff to be taught and learned. Teaching less will allow children to master the learning of more.
  6. From Finland and Singapore, define our descriptors of educational excellence and hold them as our North Stars. End the use of reading and math as our only data points. Use descriptors of high performance in every school program as expectations for educational achievements. Art, music, social studies, science, world language, technical education, et al equally define the quality of our educational systems. If American education continues to provide broad educational programs of academic, activities, arts, and athletics, then teach to, recognize, and celebrate excellence in each of these.

The Big Duh!

There was a time when America’s public education system was a model the world emulated. However, that time has passed. America’s future will not be improved by recreating our past but in our capacity to create a new future. There are systems that are excelling in educating their youth to be productive adults and contribute to the future of their communities and nation. These nations have become beacons for our emulation. We must adapt or die.

The Art of Teaching Requires Teachers

Posted on by
Reply

The other day I asked three AI vendors, ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude, to produce a drill and practice routine including assessments to teach punctuation rules to 5th thru 8th grade students. The product needed to be progressive by assessing students’ initial knowledge and use of punctuation, prescribing drill and practice based on assessment data, assessing change in student knowledge and application, and prescribing subsequent drill and practice until each student achieved 90% or better on an assessment. I asked each AI to apply Vygotsky’s zone of proximal learning theory to this request.

Voila! I have three valid and workable drill and practice routines. These routines are pedagogically sound and will cause measurable student learning. However, something is missing.

I then asked each AI to prepare a rationale explaining to children why punctuation rules are important for them to know and use in their written communications.

Voila, again! But each AI product read like dry toast without any butter or preserves.

What do we know?

If “a spoon full of sugar makes the medicine go down,” providing students with meaning and context makes a lesson learnable. We have many homilies for this. “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink” seems most apt. AI can present a student with a sound strategy for learning, but it comes up short in providing the necessary meaningful context for learning that a teacher can provide. AI is masterful in the science of teaching but fails in the art of teaching.

Instructional theory tells us that motivation to learn is essential for learning to succeed. Additionally, when a child understands purpose, functionality, and the future value of what they learn, they are motivated to engage with instruction. Thank you, Madeline Hunter.

As I read and reread the AI explanation in my student-like mind, I find no spark, no sense of urgency in engaging in what AI can teach me. The explanations are clearly written; personal and insightful connections are the issue. As I read these routines, I imagine AI is a robot standing in front of the classroom teaching me the rules and applications of punctuation. I imagine a school-casual-dressed humanoid speaking with good midwestern diction. I imagine taking notes and sketching an organizer of the quiz-drill and practice-quiz scenario and still I am not motivated to engage beyond knowing this is a required school assignment.

What to do.

I am missing human connection; a teacher who knows me and my learning needs, strengths and deficits and can make me see “me” in the assignment. Teachers do this all the time. This is what I imagine my teacher saying.

“Remember when I asked each of you to write a short story, just four or five paragraphs, about your favorite summer vacation. Each of you wrote of your wonderful summer memories. Well, I am going to give these writings back to you, only I will give your story to another classmate.

When you read your classmate’s vacation story notice that I have removed all the punctuation. There are no capital letters, no periods, no commas, no question marks, and no apostrophes. The sentences all run together because there is no punctuation. Oh, you say to me, “I cannot read this. It is all one long sentence.” You are correct.

Punctuation helps us to make sense of what we write. Your job is to punctuate the story I give you. Oh, I hear you. We have not studied all the punctuation rules. Well, after I see how well you do your job of punctuating, I will give the class some drill and practice exercises to teach and reinforce your knowledge and use of punctuation in your writing. After a bit of the drill and practice routine, I will give you a quiz to check on your learning and improvements. In two weeks, each of you will know, understand, and be able to use these five punctuations to communicate effectively in your writing. In another month we will study other punctuations.

I am anxious to see how well you do on this assignment.”

As she walked around handing out stories to punctuate, she quietly said to, “You wrote a wonderful story. Punctuation will help everyone to read it.” I noted she spoke personally and quietly to every classmate.

We are engaged.

The Big Duh!

We have known forever that effective instruction involves both the science and the art of teaching. Professional educators are trained in pedagogy and use theory-based strategies to cause children to learn. Effective educators also are masters in the art of teaching.  They intuitively connect students to new learning with purpose and context, and personalization that places a student actively inside the lesson not as a passive completer of the lesson. The art of teaching is the heart of causing learning.