Category: practices

  • Scaling structured literacy with implementation science

    Scaling structured literacy with implementation science

    When districts adopt evidence-based practices like Structured Literacy, it’s often with a surge of excitement and momentum. Yet the real challenge lies not in the initial adoption, but in sustaining and scaling these practices to create lasting instructional change. That’s the point at which implementation science enters the picture. It offers a practical, research-backed framework to help district leaders move from one-time initiatives to systemwide transformation.

    Defining the “how” of implementation

    Implementation science is the study of methods and strategies that support the systematic uptake of evidence-based practices. In the context of literacy, it provides a roadmap for translating the science of reading, based on decades of cognitive research, into day-to-day instructional routines.

    Without this roadmap, even the most well-intentioned literacy reforms struggle to take root. Strong ideas alone are not enough; educators need clear structures, ongoing support, and the ability to adapt while maintaining fidelity to the research. Implementation science brings order to change management and helps schools move from isolated professional learning sessions to sustainable, embedded practices.

    Common missteps and how to avoid them

    One of the most common misconceptions among school systems is that simply purchasing high-quality instructional materials or delivering gold-standard professional learning, like Lexia LETRS, is enough. While these are essential components, they’re only part of the equation. What’s often missing is a focus on aligned leadership, strategic coaching, data-informed decisions, and systemwide coordination.

    Another frequent misstep is viewing Structured Literacy as a rigid, one-size-fits-all approach. In reality, it is a set of adaptable practices rooted in the foundational elements of reading: Phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Effective implementation requires both structure and flexibility, guided by tools like the Active Implementation Formula or NIRN’s Hexagon Tool.

    District leaders must also rethink their approach to leadership. Instructional change doesn’t happen in a vacuum or stay confined to the classroom. Leaders at every level–from building principals to regional directors–need to be equipped not just as managers, but as implementation champions.

    Overcoming initiative fatigue

    Initiative fatigue is real. Educators are weary of the pendulum swings that often characterize educational reform. What’s new today may feel like a rebranded version of yesterday’s trend. Implementation science helps mitigate this fatigue by building clear, supportive structures that promote consistency over time.

    Fragmented professional learning is another barrier. Educators need more than one-off workshops–they need coherent, job-embedded coaching and opportunities to reflect, revise, and grow. Coaching plays a pivotal role here. It serves as the bridge between theory and practice, offering modeling, feedback, and emotional support that help educators build confidence and capacity.

    Building sustainable systems

    Sustainability starts with readiness. Before launching a Structured Literacy initiative, district leaders should assess their systems. Do they have the right people, processes, and tools in place? Have they clearly defined roles and responsibilities for everyone involved, from classroom teachers to district office staff?

    Implementation teams are essential. These cross-functional groups help drive the work forward, break down silos, and ensure alignment across departments. Successful districts also make implementation part of their onboarding process, so new staff are immersed in the district’s instructional vision from day one.

    Flexibility is important, too. No two schools or communities are the same. A rural elementary school might need different pacing or grouping strategies than a large urban middle school. Implementation science supports this kind of contextual adaptation without compromising core instructional principles.

    Measuring progress beyond test scores

    While student outcomes are the ultimate goal, they’re not the only metric that matters. Districts should also track implementation fidelity, educator engagement, and coaching effectiveness. Are teachers confident in delivering instruction? Are they seeing shifts in their students’ engagement and performance? Are systems in place to sustain these changes even when staff turnover occurs?

    Dashboards, coaching logs, survey tools, and walkthroughs can all help paint a clearer picture. These tools also help identify bottlenecks and areas in need of adjustment, fostering a culture of continuous improvement.

    Equity at the center

    Implementation science also ensures that Structured Literacy practices are delivered equitably. This means all students, regardless of language, ability, or zip code, receive high-quality, evidence-based instruction.

    For multilingual learners, this includes embedding explicit vocabulary instruction, oral language development, and culturally responsive scaffolding. For students with disabilities, Structured Literacy provides a clear and accessible pathway that often improves outcomes significantly. The key is to start with universal design principles and build from there, customizing without compromising.

    The role of leadership

    Finally, none of this is possible without strong leadership. Implementation must be treated as a leadership competency, not a technical task to be delegated. Leaders must shield initiatives from political noise, articulate a long-term vision, and foster psychological safety so that staff can try, fail, learn, and grow.

    As we’ve seen in states like Mississippi and South Carolina, real gains come from enduring efforts, not quick fixes. Implementation science helps district leaders make that shift–from momentum to endurance, from isolated success to systemic change.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Preserving critical thinking amid AI adoption

    Preserving critical thinking amid AI adoption

    Key points:

    AI is now at the center of almost every conversation in education technology. It is reshaping how we create content, build assessments, and support learners. The opportunities are enormous. But one quiet risk keeps growing in the background: losing our habit of critical thinking.

    I see this risk not as a theory but as something I have felt myself.

    The moment I almost outsourced my judgment

    A few months ago, I was working on a complex proposal for a client. Pressed for time, I asked an AI tool to draft an analysis of their competitive landscape. The output looked polished and convincing. It was tempting to accept it and move on.

    Then I forced myself to pause. I began questioning the sources behind the statements and found a key market shift the model had missed entirely. If I had skipped that short pause, the proposal would have gone out with a blind spot that mattered to the client.

    That moment reminded me that AI is fast and useful, but the responsibility for real thinking is still mine. It also showed me how easily convenience can chip away at judgment.

    AI as a thinking partner

    The most powerful way to use AI is to treat it as a partner that widens the field of ideas while leaving the final call to us. AI can collect data in seconds, sketch multiple paths forward, and expose us to perspectives we might never consider on our own.

    In my own work at Magic EdTech, for example, our teams have used AI to quickly analyze thousands of pages of curriculum to flag accessibility issues. The model surfaces patterns and anomalies that would take a human team weeks to find. Yet the real insight comes when we bring educators and designers together to ask why those patterns matter and how they affect real classrooms. AI sets the table, but we still cook the meal.

    There is a subtle but critical difference between using AI to replace thinking and using it to stretch thinking. Replacement narrows our skills over time. Stretching builds new mental flexibility. The partner model forces us to ask better questions, weigh trade-offs, and make calls that only human judgment can resolve.

    Habits to keep your edge

    Protecting critical thinking is not about avoiding AI. It is about building habits that keep our minds active when AI is everywhere.

    Here are three I find valuable:

    1. Name the fragile assumption
    Each time you receive AI output, ask: What is one assumption here that could be wrong? Spend a few minutes digging into that. It forces you to reenter the problem space instead of just editing machine text.

    2. Run the reverse test
    Before you adopt an AI-generated idea, imagine the opposite. If the model suggests that adaptive learning is the key to engagement, ask: What if it is not? Exploring the counter-argument often reveals gaps and deeper insights.

    3. Slow the first draft
    It is tempting to let AI draft emails, reports, or code and just sign off. Instead, start with a rough human outline first. Even if it is just bullet points, you anchor the work in your own reasoning and use the model to enrich–not originate–your thinking.

    These small practices keep the human at the center of the process and turn AI into a gym for the mind rather than a crutch.

    Why this matters for education

    For those of us in education technology, the stakes are unusually high. The tools we build help shape how students learn and how teachers teach. If we let critical thinking atrophy inside our companies, we risk passing that weakness to the very people we serve.

    Students will increasingly use AI for research, writing, and even tutoring. If the adults designing their digital classrooms accept machine answers without question, we send the message that surface-level synthesis is enough. We would be teaching efficiency at the cost of depth.

    By contrast, if we model careful reasoning and thoughtful use of AI, we can help the next generation see these tools for what they are: accelerators of understanding, not replacements for it. AI can help us scale accessibility, personalize instruction, and analyze learning data in ways that were impossible before. But its highest value appears only when it meets human curiosity and judgment.

    Building a culture of shared judgment

    This is not just an individual challenge. Teams need to build rituals that honor slow thinking in a fast AI environment. Another practice is rotating the role of “critical friend” in meetings. One person’s task is to challenge the group’s AI-assisted conclusions and ask what could go wrong. This simple habit trains everyone to keep their reasoning sharp.

    Next time you lean on AI for a key piece of work, pause before you accept the answer. Write down two decisions in that task that only a human can make. It might be about context, ethics, or simple gut judgment. Then share those reflections with your team. Over time this will create a culture where AI supports wisdom rather than diluting it.

    The real promise of AI is not that it will think for us, but that it will free us to think at a higher level.

    The danger is that we may forget to climb.

    The future of education and the integrity of our own work depend on remaining climbers. Let the machines speed the climb, but never let them choose the summit.

    Laura Ascione
    Latest posts by Laura Ascione (see all)

    Source link

  • Plenty of schools have no-zeroes policies. And most teachers hate it, a new survey finds

    Plenty of schools have no-zeroes policies. And most teachers hate it, a new survey finds

    This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters.

    About one in four teachers say their schools don’t give students zeroes. And nearly all of them hate it.

    The collection of practices known as equitable grading, which includes not giving students zeroes, not taking off points for lateness, and letting students retake tests, has spread in the aftermath of the pandemic. But it wasn’t known how widespread the practices were.

    A new nationally representative survey released Wednesday finds equitable grading practices are fairly common, though nowhere near universal. More than half of K-12 teachers said their school or district used at least one equitable grading practice.

    The most common practice — and the one that drew the most heated opposition in the fall 2024 survey — is not giving students zeroes for missing assignments or failed tests. Just over a quarter of teachers said their school or district has a no-zeroes policy.

    Around 3 in 10 teachers said their school or district allowed students to retake tests without penalty, and a similar share said they did not deduct points when students turned in work late. About 1 in 10 teachers said they were not permitted to factor class participation or homework into students’ final grades.

    Only 6% of teachers said their school used four or more equitable grading practices.

    That was surprising to Adam Tyner, who co-authored the new report for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a conservative think tank, in partnership with the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization. He expected more schools would be following a “whole package” of grading reforms supported by advocates like former teacher and education consultant Joe Feldman, who wrote the influential book “Grading for Equity.”

    “It’s not like this has swept the country,” said Tyner, who has studied grading practices. He argues that some policies meant to create equity lead to grade inflation and don’t benefit students.

    The findings come as many schools are rethinking what students should have to do to get a high school diploma, and how much emphasis should be put on grades. At the same time, many schools continue to struggle with student disengagement and historically high rates of absenteeism following the pandemic. As a result, they’re trying to hold students accountable for their work without making it impossible to catch up on missed assignments.

    Though ideas about how to grade students more fairly predate the pandemic, several large districts started rethinking their grading practices following that disruption, as more students struggled to meet strict deadlines or do their homework.

    Proponents of equitable grading say it’s important for students to be able to show what they know over time, and that just a few zeroes averaged into a grade can make it difficult for students to ever catch up. When students don’t see a path to passing a class, it can make them less motivated or stop trying altogether.

    Still, some teachers have pushed back, arguing that no-zeroes policies can hurt student motivation, too.

    That showed up in the recent survey.

    Eight in 10 teachers said giving students partial credit for assignments they didn’t turn in was harmful to student engagement. Opposition to no-zeroes policies came from teachers of various racial backgrounds, experience levels, and who worked with different demographics of students.

    No-zeroes policies can take various forms but often mean that the lowest possible grade is a 50 on a 100-point scale. Some schools use software that will automatically convert lower grades to a 50, one teacher wrote on the survey.

    Schools that enrolled mostly students of color were more likely to have no-zeroes policies, the survey found. And middle schools were more likely than high schools and elementary schools to have no-zeroes policies, no-late-penalty policies, and retake policies.

    Researchers weren’t sure why those policies popped up more in middle schools.

    But Katherine Holden, a former middle school principal in Oregon’s Ashland School District who trains school districts on equitable grading practices, has some guesses.

    High schools may be more worried that changing their grading practices will make it harder for students to get into college, Holden said — a misconception in her eyes. And districts may see middle schoolers as especially likely to benefit from things like clear grading rubrics and multiple chances to show what they know, as they are still developing their organization and time-management skills.

    In the open-ended section of the survey, several teachers expressed concerns that no-zeroes policies were unfair and contributed to low student motivation.

    “Students are now doing below-average work or no work at all and are walking out with a C or B,” one teacher told researchers.

    “Most teachers can’t stand the ‘gifty fifty,’” said another.

    More than half of teachers said letting students turn in work late without any penalty was harmful to student engagement.

    “[The policy] removes the incentive for students to ever turn work in on time, and then it becomes difficult to pass back graded work because of cheating,” one teacher said.

    But teachers were more evenly divided on whether allowing students to retake tests was harmful or not.

    “Allowing retakes without penalty encourages a growth mindset, but it also promotes avoidance and procrastination,” one teacher said.

    Another said teachers end up grading almost every assignment more than once because students have no reason to give their best effort the first time.

    The report’s authors recommend getting rid of blanket policies in favor of letting individual teachers make those calls. Research has shown that other grading reforms, such as grading written assignments anonymously or using grading rubrics, can reduce bias.

    Still, teachers don’t agree on the best approach to grading. In the survey, 58% of teachers said it was more important to have clear schoolwide policies to ensure fair student grading — though the question didn’t indicate what that policy should look like — while the rest preferred using their professional judgment.

    “There are ways to combat bias, there are ways to make grading more fair, and we’re not against any of that,” Tyner said. “What we’re really concerned about is when we’re lowering standards, or lowering expectations. … Accountability is always a balancing act.”

    Nicole Paxton, the principal of Mountain Vista Community School, a K-8 school in Colorado’s Harrison School District 2, has seen that balancing act in action.

    Her district adopted a policy a few years ago that requires teachers to grade students on a 50-100 scale. Students get at least a 50% if they turn in work, but they get a “missing” grade if they don’t do the assignment. Middle and high schoolers are allowed to make up missing or incomplete assignments. But it has to be done within the same quarter, and teachers can deduct up to 10% for late assignments.

    Paxton thinks the policy was the right move for her district. She says she’s seen it motivate kids who are struggling to keep trying, when before they stopped doing their work because they didn’t think they could ever bounce back from a few zeroes.

    “As adults, in the real world, we get to show what we know and learn in our careers,” Paxton said. “And I think that kids are able to do that in our building, too.”

    Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.

    For more news on classroom trends, visit eSN’s Innovative Teaching hub.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Strengthening family engagement to support the science of reading

    Strengthening family engagement to support the science of reading

    Key points:

    While most teachers are eager to implement the science of reading, many lack the time and tools to connect these practices to home-based support, according to a new national survey from Lexia, a Cambium Learning Group brand.

    The 2025 Back-to-School Teacher Survey, with input from more than 1,500 K–12 educators nationwide, points to an opportunity for district leaders to work in concert with teachers to provide families with the science of reading-based literacy resources they need to support student reading success.

    Key insights from the survey include:

    • 60 percent of teachers are either fully trained or interested in learning more about the science of reading
    • Only 15 percent currently provide parents with structured, evidence-based literacy activities
    • 79 percent of teachers cite time constraints and parents’ work schedules as top barriers to family engagement
    • Just 10 percent report that their schools offer comprehensive family literacy programs
    • Teachers overwhelmingly want in-person workshops and video tutorials to help parents support reading at home

    “Teachers know that parental involvement can accelerate literacy and they’re eager for ways to strengthen those connections,” said Lexia President Nick Gaehde. “This data highlights how districts can continue to build on momentum in this new school year by offering scalable, multilingual, and flexible family engagement strategies that align with the science of reading.”

    Teachers also called for:

    • Better technology tools for consistent school-to-home communication
    • Greater multilingual support to serve diverse communities
    • Professional learning that includes family engagement training

    Gaehde concluded, “Lexia’s survey reflects the continued national emphasis on Structured Literacy and shows that equipping families is essential to driving lasting student outcomes. At Lexia we’re committed to partnering with districts and teachers to strengthen the school-to-home connection. By giving educators practical tools and data-driven insights, we help teachers and families work together–ensuring every child has the literacy support they need to thrive.”

    The complete findings are available in a new report, From Classroom to Living Room: Exploring Parental Involvement in K–12 Literacy. District leaders can also download the accompanying infographic, “What District Leaders Need To Know: 5 Key Findings About Family Engagement and Literacy,” which highlights the most pressing data points and strategic opportunities for improving school-to-home literacy connections.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Empowering school staff with emergency response protocols

    Empowering school staff with emergency response protocols

    Key points:

    Safety response protocols are foundational to creating a culture of safety in schools. District leaders should adopt and implement response protocols that cover all types of emergencies. Schools should have building-level response protocols and protocols for incidents when first responders are needed. These practices are critical to keeping the community safe during emergencies.

    When staff members are empowered to participate in emergency planning and response, their sense of safety is improved. Unfortunately, many staff members do not feel safe at school.

    Thirty percent of K-12 staff think about their physical safety when at work every day, and 74 percent of K-12 staff said they do not feel supported by their employer to handle emergency situations at work.

    Staff disempowerment is a “central problem” when it comes to district emergency planning, said Dr. Gabriella Durán Blakey, superintendent of Albuquerque Public Schools: “What does safety mean for educators to really be able to feel safe in their classroom, to impact student achievement, the well-being of students? And how does that anxiety play with how the students feel in the classroom?”

    School leaders should implement response protocols that empower staff to understand and participate in emergency response using a two-tiered system of emergency response:

    • A building-level emergency planning and response team should develop an Emergency Operations Plan, which includes an emergency response protocol
    • Administrators should adopt protocols to follow when they need first responders to intervene

    For guidance on crafting emergency response protocols and plans, click here.

    Laura Ascione
    Latest posts by Laura Ascione (see all)

    Source link

  • CoSN State Chapters Grow With Additions of MACE and CoSNE

    CoSN State Chapters Grow With Additions of MACE and CoSNE

    Washington, D.C.– CoSN today announced that the Mid-America Association for Computers in Education ( MACE) and the Nebraska Chapter of the Consortium for School Networking ( CoSNE) have been approved by the CoSN Board of Directors as official State Chapters. CoSN State Chapters play a crucial role in advancing the organization’s mission at the local level. These chapters provide a platform for education technology leaders to collaborate, share best practices and advocate for innovative solutions in their regions. Through networking events, professional development opportunities and policy influence, CoSN State Chapters empower members to drive impactful change in their school districts.

    MACE is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to advancing educational technology by fostering collaboration, sharing best practices and supporting educators in the effective use of technology. The organization works to enhance education through responsible use of hardware and software, engage with industry partners to establish technical standards, and connect professionals in the field.   CoSNE was established by the Nebraska Association of Technology Administrators ( NATA), along with a group of Nebraska K-12 chief technology officers, chief information officers and technology directors in smaller districts/regions — or not previously associated with NATA. CoSNE is advancing the focus on policy advocacy, professional development, and engagement with state and national entities to advance educational technology leadership and best practices for every K-12 technology leader across Nebraska.