Category: story

  • What happens after the U.S. Department of Education is dissolved?

    What happens after the U.S. Department of Education is dissolved?

    eSchool News is counting down the 10 most-read stories of 2025. Story #1 focuses on the Trump Administration’s goal of dismantling the U.S. Department of Education.

    Key points:

    In light of Donald Trump assuming a second presidential term in 2025, conversations concerning dismantling the United States Department of Education have resurfaced. Supporters argue that federal involvement in education undermines state authority, while critics fear that removing the federal role could exacerbate inequities and hinder national progress. To evaluate the proposal, it is crucial to examine the federal and state roles in education, the historical and constitutional context, and the potential benefits and challenges of such a shift.

    The federal role in education

    The United States Constitution does not explicitly grant the federal government authority over education. As Lunenberg et al. (2012) noted, “Education is not a function specifically delegated to the federal government” (p. 327). Instead, under the Tenth Amendment, powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states (McCarthy et al., 2019). This leaves education primarily under state jurisdiction, with federal involvement historically limited to indirect support rather than direct control.

    The United States Department of Education was established in 1979. It is responsible for overseeing federal funding for schools, enforcing federal laws in education, and ensuring equal access for students across the country.  Furthermore, it has played a significant role through legislation such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and its successors: NCLB (No Child Left Behind) and ESSA (the Every Student Succeeds Act). These laws link federal funding to specific requirements, which aim to address inequities in education. Currently, federal contributions account for approximately 8 percent of funding for elementary and secondary education, with the remaining 92 percent coming from state and local sources (“The Federal Role,” 2017).

    The role of state and local control in education

    Education policy and administration have traditionally been state functions. States determine funding formulas, establish teacher certification requirements, and oversee curricula through their departments and boards of education (Lynch, 2016). Governors and state legislatures allocate funds, which are often distributed to schools based on enrollment, need, or specific programs (Lunenberg et al., 2012).

    Local school boards also play a critical role, managing day-to-day operations and responding to community needs. This decentralized structure reflects a longstanding belief that local authorities are better positioned to address the diverse needs of their communities. However, it has also led to significant disparities between states and districts in terms of funding, resources, and student outcomes.

    Dismantling the United States Department of Education 

    One of the most compelling arguments for dismantling the United States Department of Education lies in the principle of localized control. Critics argue that education is best managed by state and local governments because they are closer to the specific needs of their communities. Localized governance could allow schools to tailor their policies, curriculum, and resource allocation in ways that best fit the unique demographics of their regions. For example, schools in rural areas may have vastly different needs than those in urban centers, which is why local authorities are likely better equipped to address these disparities without the interference of federal oversight.

    The concern extends beyond general education. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which is enforced by the United States Department of Education, mandates that students with disabilities receive free and appropriate public education (FAPE) along with necessary services and accommodations. Similarly, the department oversees federal programs that support English Language Learner (ELL) students by helping schools provide tailored instruction and resources to students who are not native English speakers. Without federal oversight, it is possible that these programs could lose funding or be inconsistently applied across states, causing vulnerable populations to be without critical support.

    Advocates of dismantling the United States Department of Education also point to the financial burden of maintaining a federal agency. They argue that billions of dollars allocated to the department could be redirected to state education budgets, thereby allowing for more impactful initiatives at the forefront. By eliminating bureaucratic layers, states could potentially deliver education funding more efficiently, thereby focusing resources directly on teachers, classrooms, and students.

    Another critical function of the United States Department of Education is establishing and enforcing national education standards. Programs such as NCLB and ESSA aim to hold schools accountable for student performance and ensure consistency across states (albeit, there are arguments those programs have led to a culture of “teaching to the test” and have stifled creativity in the classroom), but allowing states and local districts to have greater freedom to design their own standards and assessments may fostering innovation while also leading to the quality of education varying dramatically from state to state and can cause challenges for students in transient populations due to a lack of cohesion disrupting their education and limiting their opportunities.

    Keeping the United States Department of Education 

    Dismantling the United States Department of Education raises significant concerns about equity. The department plays a crucial role in addressing disparities in funding education, as well as in funding access. Federal programs (i.e., Title I, free meals, counseling, after-school programs, etc.) provide additional resources to schools serving high numbers of low-income students, many of which are located in inner-city areas. Without the United States Department of Education, these programs might be eliminated or left to the discretion of states that have historically struggled to prioritize funding for underserved communities.

    Inner-city urban schools often face unique challenges (i.e., overcrowding, insufficient funding, higher rates of poverty among students, etc.). Many of these schools also serve disproportionately high numbers of students with disabilities and ELL students, thereby making federal support even more vital. The United States Department of Education enforces civil rights protections that ensures that all students (including vulnerable subgroups) receive equitable treatment. Dismantling the department could weaken these safeguards, thereby leaving marginalized communities more vulnerable to neglect. Therefore, the loss of federal oversight is a serious concern for public education. Historically, states have not always allocated resources equitably, and urban school districts have often been underfunded compared to their suburban counterparts. Federal intervention has been essential in addressing these disparities. Without it, inner-city schools may struggle to maintain even basic standards of education, thereby exacerbating poverty and inequality.

    All schools (not just inner-city schools) will be adversely impacted by dismantling the United States Department of Education. Federal funding supports Advanced Placement (AP) courses, STEM initiatives, and dual-enrollment opportunities. Dismantling the United States Department of Education could lead to inconsistencies in college admissions processes because states might adopt different graduation requirements and assessments. This lack of standardization could complicate admissions for students applying to out-of-state or prestigious universities. Furthermore, the United States Department of Education funds research initiatives that lead to the development of new teaching methods, technologies, and curricula. These innovations often benefit all schools, but without federal support, such research might stagnate leaving schools without access to cutting-edge educational resources.

    Conclusion

    In conclusion, the debate pertaining to dismantling the United States Department of Education has taken on new urgency under the Trump administration in 2025. While advocates of dismantling the department argue for greater local control and efficiency, the critics highlight the potential risks to equity and access.  As the nation grapples with this issue, it is essential to prioritize the needs of students (and communities). The ultimate goal must be to create a more equitable and effective education system that serves all students regardless of their background or zip code.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • DEI in education: Pros and cons

    DEI in education: Pros and cons

    eSchool News is counting down the 10 most-read stories of 2025. Story #6 focuses on DEI in education.

    Key points:

    Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives have become integral to educational institutions across the United States. DEI aims to foster environments where all students can thrive regardless of their backgrounds. The programs are designed to address systemic inequalities, promote representation, and create inclusive spaces for learning. However, as DEI becomes more prevalent, it also faces scrutiny and debate regarding its effectiveness, implementation, and impact on educational outcomes.

    One of the main advantages of DEI in education is the promotion of a more inclusive and representative curriculum. Students gain a broader understanding of the world by integrating diverse perspectives into course materials. This enhances critical thinking and empathy. Furthermore, the approach prepares students to navigate and contribute to our increasingly globalized society. Moreover, exposure to diverse viewpoints encourages students to challenge their assumptions and develop a more nuanced perspective on complex issues.

    DEI initiatives also contribute to improved academic outcomes by fostering a sense of belongingness amongst students. When students see themselves reflected in their educators and curricula, they are more likely to feel valued and supported. This leads to increased engagement and motivation. This sense of inclusion can result in higher retention and graduation rates (particularly among historically marginalized groups). Furthermore, diverse learning environments encourage collaboration and communication skills because students learn to work effectively with peers from different backgrounds.

    In addition to benefiting students, DEI programs can enhance faculty satisfaction and retention. Institutions that prioritize diversity in hiring and promotion practices create more equitable workplaces. This can lead to increased job satisfaction among faculty members. Mentorship programs and professional development opportunities focused on DEI can also support faculty in creating inclusive classroom environments, which further benefits students.

    Despite these benefits, DEI initiatives are not without challenges. One significant concern is the potential for resistance and backlash from individuals who perceive DEI efforts as a threat to traditional values (in other words, a form of reverse discrimination). This resistance can manifest in various ways (opposition to DEI policies, legal challenges, and political pressure). Such opposition can hinder the implementation and effectiveness of DEI programs, thereby creating a contentious atmosphere within educational institutions.

    Another challenge is the difficulty in measuring the success of DEI initiatives. Without clear metrics, it can be challenging to assess the impact of these programs on student outcomes, faculty satisfaction, or institutional culture. The lack of quantifiable data can lead to skepticism about the efficiency of DEI efforts, thus resulting in reduced support or funding for such programs. Additionally, the absence of standardized definitions and goals for DEI can lead to inconsistent implementation across institutions.

    Resource allocation is also a critical issue in the execution of DEI initiatives. Implementing comprehensive DEI programs often requires significant financial investment (funding for specialized staff, training, and support services). In times of budget constraints, institutions may struggle to prioritize DEI efforts. This may lead to inadequate support for students and faculty. Without sufficient resources, DEI programs may fail to achieve their intended outcomes thus further fueling criticism and skepticism.

    The potential for tokenism is another concern associated with DEI initiatives. When institutions focus on meeting diversity quotas without fostering genuine inclusion, individuals from underrepresented groups may feel marginalized or exploited. Tokenism may undermine the goals of DEI by creating superficial diversity that does not translate into meaningful change or equity. To avoid this, institutions must commit to creating inclusive environments where all individuals feel valued and empowered to contribute fully.

    Furthermore, DEI programs can sometimes inadvertently reinforce stereotypes or create division among student populations. For example, emphasizing differences without promoting commonalities may lead to increased social fragmentation or feelings of isolation among certain groups. Educators must carefully balance the celebration of diversity with the promotion of unity and shared values to foster cohesive learning communities.

    In summary, DEI initiatives in education offer numerous benefits, but these programs also face significant challenges. To maximize the positive impact of DEI efforts, educational institutions must commit to thoughtful, well-resourced, and inclusive implementation strategies that promote genuine equity and inclusion for all members.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Edtech teaching strategies that support sustainability

    Edtech teaching strategies that support sustainability

    eSchool News is counting down the 10 most-read stories of 2025. Story #7 focuses on sustainability in edtech.

    Key points:

    Educational technology, or edtech, has reshaped how educators teach, offering opportunities to create more sustainable and impactful learning environments.

    Using edtech in teaching, educators and school leaders can reduce environmental impact while enhancing student engagement and creativity. The key is recognizing how to effectively leverage edtech learning strategies, from digitized lesson plans to virtual collaboration, and keeping an open mind while embracing new instructional methods.

    Rethinking teaching methods in the digital age

    Teaching methods have undergone significant transformation with the rise of educational technology. Traditional classroom settings are evolving, integrating tools and techniques that prioritize active participation and collaboration.

    Here are three edtech learning strategies:

    • The flipped classroom model reverses the typical teaching structure. Instead of delivering lectures in class and assigning homework, teachers provide pre-recorded lessons or materials for students to review at home. Classroom time is then used for hands-on activities, group discussions, or problem-solving tasks.
    • Gamification is another method gaining traction. By incorporating game-like elements such as point systems, leaderboards, and challenges into lesson plans, teachers can motivate students and make learning more interactive. Platforms like Kahoot and Classcraft encourage participation while reducing paper-based activities.
    • Collaborative online tools, such as Google Workspace for Education, also play a critical role in modern classrooms. They enable students to work together on projects in real time, eliminating the need for printed resources. These tools enhance teamwork and streamline the sharing of information in eco-friendly ways.

    Sustainability and innovation in education

    Have you ever wondered how much paper schools use? There are approximately 100,000 schools in this country that consume about 32 billion sheets of paper yearly. On a local level, the average school uses 2,000 sheets daily–that comes out to $16,000 a year. Think about what else that money could be used for in your school.

    Here are ways that edtech can reduce reliance on physical materials:

    • Digital textbooks minimize the need for printed books and reduce waste. Through e-readers, students access a vast library of resources without carrying heavy, paper-based textbooks.
    • Virtual labs provide another example of sustainable education. These labs allow students to conduct experiments in a simulated environment, eliminating the need for disposable materials or expensive lab setups. These applications offer interactive simulations that are cost-effective and eco-conscious.
    • Schools can also adopt learning management systems to centralize course materials, assignments, and feedback. By using these platforms, teachers can cut down on printed handouts and encourage digital submissions, further reducing paper usage.

    Additionally, edtech platforms are beginning to incorporate budget-friendly tools designed with sustainability in mind; some of these resources are free. For instance, apps that monitor energy consumption or carbon footprints in school operations can educate students about environmental stewardship while encouraging sustainable practices in their own lives.

    Supporting teachers in the shift to edtech

    Transitioning to edtech can be a challenging yet rewarding experience for educators. By streamlining administrative tasks and enhancing lesson delivery, technology empowers teachers to focus on what matters most: engaging students.

    Circling back to having an open mind–while many teachers are eager to adopt edtech learning strategies, others might struggle more with technology. You need to expect this and be prepared to offer continuous support. Professional development opportunities are essential to ease the adoption of edtech. Schools can offer workshops and training sessions to help teachers feel confident with new tools. For instance, hosting peer-led sessions where educators share best practices fosters a collaborative approach to learning and implementation.

    Another way to support teachers is by providing access to online resources that offer lesson plans, tutorials, and templates. Encouraging experimentation and flexibility in teaching methods can also lead to better integration of technology. By allowing teachers to adapt tools to their unique classroom needs, schools can foster an environment where innovation thrives.

    If you’re concerned about bumps on this road, remember teachers have common traits that align with edtech. Good teachers are organized, flexible, have communication skills, and are open-minded. Encourage a team approach that’s motivating and leverages their love of learning.

    Bringing sustainability and enhanced learning to classrooms

    The integration of edtech learning strategies into classrooms brings sustainability and enhanced learning experiences to the forefront. By reducing reliance on physical materials and introducing eco-friendly tools, schools can significantly lower their environmental impact. At the same time, teachers gain access to methods that inspire creativity and collaboration among students.

    There’s also this: Edtech learning strategies are constantly evolving, so you’ll want to stay on top of these trends. While many of those focus on learning strategies, others are more about emergency response, safety, and data management,

    Investing in modern technologies and supporting teachers through training and resources ensures the success of these initiatives. By embracing edtech learning strategies, educators and administrators can create classrooms that are not only effective but also sustainable–a win for students, teachers, and the planet.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)



    Source link

  • What we lose when AI replaces teachers

    What we lose when AI replaces teachers

    eSchool News is counting down the 10 most-read stories of 2025. Story #8 focuses on the debate around teachers vs. AI.

    Key points:

    A colleague of ours recently attended an AI training where the opening slide featured a list of all the ways AI can revolutionize our classrooms. Grading was listed at the top. Sure, AI can grade papers in mere seconds, but should it?

    As one of our students, Jane, stated: “It has a rubric and can quantify it. It has benchmarks. But that is not what actually goes into writing.” Our students recognize that AI cannot replace the empathy and deep understanding that recognizes the growth, effort, and development of their voice. What concerns us most about grading our students’ written work with AI is the transformation of their audience from human to robot.

    If we teach our students throughout their writing lives that what the grading robot says matters most, then we are teaching them that their audience doesn’t matter. As Wyatt, another student, put it: “If you can use AI to grade me, I can use AI to write.” NCTE, in its position statements for Generative AI, reminds us that writing is a human act, not a mechanical one. Reducing it to automated scores undermines its value and teaches students, like Wyatt and Jane, that the only time we write is for a grade. That is a future of teaching writing we hope to never see.

    We need to pause when tech companies tout AI as the grader of student writing. This isn’t a question of capability. AI can score essays. It can be calibrated to rubrics. It can, as Jane said, provide students with encouragement and feedback specific to their developing skills. And we have no doubt it has the potential to make a teacher’s grading life easier. But just because we can outsource some educational functions to technology doesn’t mean we should.

    It is bad enough how many students already see their teacher as their only audience. Or worse, when students are writing for teachers who see their written work strictly through the lens of a rubric, their audience is limited to the rubric. Even those options are better than writing for a bot. Instead, let’s question how often our students write to a broader audience of their peers, parents, community, or a panel of judges for a writing contest. We need to reengage with writing as a process and implement AI as a guide or aide rather than a judge with the last word on an essay score.

    Our best foot forward is to put AI in its place. The use of AI in the writing process is better served in the developing stages of writing. AI is excellent as a guide for brainstorming. It can help in a variety of ways when a student is struggling and looking for five alternatives to their current ending or an idea for a metaphor. And if you or your students like AI’s grading feature, they can paste their work into a bot for feedback prior to handing it in as a final draft.

    We need to recognize that there are grave consequences if we let a bot do all the grading. As teachers, we should recognize bot grading for what it is: automated education. We can and should leave the promises of hundreds of essays graded in an hour for the standardized test providers. Our classrooms are alive with people who have stories to tell, arguments to make, and research to conduct. We see our students beyond the raw data of their work. We recognize that the poem our student has written for their sick grandparent might be a little flawed, but it matters a whole lot to the person writing it and to the person they are writing it for. We see the excitement or determination in our students’ eyes when they’ve chosen a research topic that is important to them. They want their cause to be known and understood by others, not processed and graded by a bot.

    The adoption of AI into education should be conducted with caution. Many educators are experimenting with using AI tools in thoughtful and student-centered ways. In a recent article, David Cutler describes his experience using an AI-assisted platform to provide feedback on his students’ essays. While Cutler found the tool surprisingly accurate and helpful, the true value lies in the feedback being used as part of the revision process. As this article reinforces, the role of a teacher is not just to grade, but to support and guide learning. When used intentionally (and we emphasize, as in-process feedback) AI can enhance that learning, but the final word, and the relationship behind it, must still come from a human being.

    When we hand over grading to AI, we risk handing over something much bigger–our students’ belief that their words matter and deserve an audience. Our students don’t write to impress a rubric, they write to be heard. And when we replace the reader with a robot, we risk teaching our students that their voices only matter to the machine. We need to let AI support the writing process, not define the product. Let it offer ideas, not deliver grades. When we use it at the right moments and for the right reasons, it can make us better teachers and help our students grow. But let’s never confuse efficiency with empathy. Or algorithms with understanding.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Chronic absenteeism could derail K-12 education

    Chronic absenteeism could derail K-12 education

    eSchool News is counting down the 10 most-read stories of 2025. Story #9 focuses on chronic absenteeism.

    Key points:

    The biggest problem in education is that kids aren’t showing up to school. Last year, 26 percent of students missed a month of class or more, leading to dramatic declines in academic performance. Chronic absenteeism accounted for 27 percent of the drop in math scores and 45 percent of the decline in reading scores from 2019 to 2022. Students who are chronically absent are 7x more likely to drop out before graduating, and while state and district leaders are scrambling for solutions, kids are falling further behind.

    Why chronic absenteeism is hard to solve

    In 2019, only 13 percent of students in the U.S. were chronically absent. Typically, these students missed school because of significant personal reasons–long-term illness, gang involvement, clinical depression, working jobs to support their families, lacking transportation, drug use, unplanned pregnancy, etc.–that aren’t easily fixed.

    However, since the pandemic, the rate of chronic absenteeism has doubled from 13 percent to 26 percent.

    The change is cultural. For the last hundred years, it was drilled into the American psyche that “school is important.” A great effort was made to provide bussing to any child who lived too far to walk, and the expectation was that every child should come to school every day. Cutting class was sure to land you in the principal’s office or potentially even lead to police showing up at your door.

    During the Covid-19 pandemic, this narrative flipped. As parents began working from home, their kids sat beside them. With lectures recorded and assignments posted online, attending class began to feel optional. When school doors reopened, many families didn’t fully come back. Common excuses like being tired, missing the bus, or simply not feeling like going were validated and excused rather than admonished. While students who skip school were once seen as delinquent, for many families it has become culturally acceptable–almost even expected–for kids to stay home whenever they or their parents want.

    Overwhelmed by the drastic rise in absenteeism, school staff are unable to revert cultural norms about attendance. And it’s not their fault.

    The root of the problem

    Each student’s situation is unique. Some students may struggle with reliable transportation, while others skip certain classes they don’t like, and others still are disengaged with school entirely. Without knowing why students are missing school, staff cannot make progress addressing the root cause of chronic absenteeism.

    Today, nearly 75 percent of student absences are “unexplained,” meaning that no authorized parent called or emailed the school to say where their children are and why they aren’t in class. This lack of clarity makes it impossible for schools to offer personalized solutions and keep students engaged. Unexplained absences only deepen the disconnect and limit schools’ ability to tackle absenteeism effectively.

    Knowing why students are missing school is critical, but also very difficult to uncover. At a high school of 2,000 students with 85 percent average daily attendance, 225 students will be absent each day without providing any explanation. In an ideal world, schools would speak with every parent to find out the reason their child wasn’t in class–but schools can’t possibly make 225 additional phone calls without 3-5 additional staff. Instead, they rely on robocalls and absence letters, and those methods don’t work nearly well enough.

    Normalize attendance again: It takes a village

    Improving attendance is about more than just allocating additional resources. It’s about shifting the mindset and fostering a culture that prioritizes presence. This starts with schools and communities making attendance a shared responsibility, not just a policy.

    First, schools must take the initiative to understand why students are missing school. Whether through modern AI-driven attendance systems or with more traditional methods like phone calls, understanding the root causes is critical to addressing the issue.

    Next, categorize and recognize patterns. Small adjustments can have big impacts. One district noticed that students who were 0.9 miles away from school were much more likely to not show up because their bussing policy was for families living 1 mile away from school or further. By changing their policy, they saw a surge in attendance. Similarly, pinpointing specific classes that students are skipping can help tailor interventions, whether through teacher engagement or offering additional support.

    Lastly, schools should focus resources on students facing the most severe challenges. These students often require personalized solutions, such as home visits for unresponsive parents or help with transportation. Targeted efforts like these create a direct impact on reducing absenteeism and improving overall attendance.

    When communities unite to make school attendance a priority, students receive the support they need to succeed. Tackling chronic absenteeism is not an easy task, but with focused effort and a culture of engagement, we can reverse this troubling trend and give students the foundation they deserve for future success.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • An educator’s top tips to integrate AI into the classroom

    An educator’s top tips to integrate AI into the classroom

    eSchool News is counting down the 10 most-read stories of 2025. Story #10 focuses on teaching strategies around AI.

    Key points:

    In the last year, we’ve seen an extraordinary push toward integrating artificial intelligence in classrooms. Among educators, that trend has evoked responses from optimism to opposition. “Will AI replace educators?” “Can it really help kids?” “Is it safe?” Just a few years ago, these questions were unthinkable, and now they’re in every K-12 school, hanging in the air.

    Given the pace at which AI technologies are changing, there’s a lot still to be determined, and I won’t pretend to have all the answers. But as a school counselor in Kansas who has been using SchoolAI to support students for years, I’ve seen that AI absolutely can help kids and is safe when supervised. At this point, I think it’s much more likely to help us do our jobs better than to produce any other outcome. I’ve discovered that if you implement AI thoughtfully, it empowers students to explore their futures, stay on track for graduation, learn new skills, and even improve their mental health.

    Full disclosure: I have something adjacent to a tech background. I worked for a web development marketing firm before moving into education. However, I want to emphasize that you don’t have to be an expert to use AI effectively. Success is rooted in curiosity, trial and error, and commitment to student well-being. Above all, I would urge educators to remember that AI isn’t about replacing us. It allows us to extend our reach to students and our capacity to cater to individual needs, especially when shorthanded.

    Let me show you what that looks like.

    Building emotional resilience

    Students today face enormous emotional pressures. And with national student-to-counselor ratios at nearly double the recommended 250-to-1, school staff can’t always be there right when students need us.

    That’s why I created a chatbot named Pickles (based on my dog at home, whom the kids love but who is too rambunctious to come to school with me). This emotional support bot gives my students a way to process small problems like feeling left out at recess or arguing with a friend. It doesn’t replace my role, but it does help triage students so I can give immediate attention to those facing the most urgent challenges.

    Speaking of which, AI has revealed some issues I might’ve otherwise missed. One fourth grader, who didn’t want to talk to me directly, opened up to the chatbot about her parents’ divorce. Because I was able to review her conversation, I knew to follow up with her. In another case, a shy fifth grader who struggled to maintain conversations learned to initiate dialogue with her peers using chatbot-guided social scripts. After practicing over spring break, she returned more confident and socially fluent.

    Aside from giving students real-time assistance, these tools offer me critical visibility and failsafes while I’m running around trying to do 10 things at once.

    Personalized career exploration and academic support

    One of my core responsibilities as a counselor is helping students think about their futures. Often, the goals they bring to me are undeveloped (as you would expect—they’re in elementary school, after all): They say, “I’m going to be a lawyer,” or “I’m going to be a doctor.” In the past, I would point them toward resources I thought would help, and that was usually the end of it. But I always wanted them to reflect more deeply about their options.

    So, I started using an AI chatbot to open up that conversation. Instead of jumping to a job title, students are prompted to answer what they’re interested in and why. The results have been fascinating—and inspiring. In a discussion with one student recently, I was trying to help her find careers that would suit her love of travel. After we plugged in her strengths and interests, the chatbot suggested cultural journalism, which she was instantly excited about. She started journaling and blogging that same night. She’s in sixth grade.

    What makes this process especially powerful is that it challenges biases. By the end of elementary school, many kids have already internalized what careers they think they can or can’t pursue–often based on race, gender, or socioeconomic status. AI can disrupt that. It doesn’t know what a student looks like or where they’re from. It just responds to their curiosity. These tools surface career options for kids–like esports management or environmental engineering–that I might not be able to come up with in the moment. It’s making me a better counselor and keeping me apprised of workforce trends, all while encouraging my students to dream bigger and in more detail.

    Along with career decisions, AI helps students make better academic decisions, especially in virtual school environments where requirements vary district to district. I recently worked with a virtual school to create an AI-powered tool that helps students identify which classes they need for graduation. It even links them to district-specific resources and state education departments to guide their planning. These kinds of tools lighten the load of general advising questions for school counselors and allow us to spend more time supporting students one on one.

    My advice to educators: Try it

    We tell our students that failure is part of learning. So why should we be afraid to try something new? When I started using AI, I made mistakes. But AI doesn’t have to be perfect to be powerful. Around the globe, AI school assistants are already springing up and serving an ever-wider range of use cases.

    I recommend educators start small. Use a trusted platform. And most importantly, stay human. AI should never replace the relationships at the heart of education. But if used wisely, it can extend your reach, personalize your impact, and unlock your students’ potential.

    We have to prepare our students for a world that’s changing fast–maybe faster than ever. I, for one, am glad I have AI by my side to help them get there.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (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

  • I asked students why they go to school–this answer changed how I design campuses

    I asked students why they go to school–this answer changed how I design campuses

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

    At first, the question seemed simple: “Why do we go to school?”

    I had asked it many times before, in many different districts. I’m a planner and designer specializing in K-12 school projects, and as part of a community-driven design process, we invite students to dream with us and help shape the spaces where they’ll learn, grow, and make sense of the world.

    In February of 2023, I was leading a visioning workshop with a group of middle schoolers in Southern California. Their energy was vibrant, their curiosity sharp. We began with a simple activity: Students answered a series of prompts, each one building on the last.

    “We go to school because …”

    “We need to learn because …”

    “We want to be successful because …”

    As the conversation deepened, so did their responses. One student wrote, “We want to get further in life.” Another added, “We need to help our families.” And then came the line that stopped me in my tracks: “We go to school because we want future generations to look up to us.”

    I’ve worked with a lot of middle schoolers. They’re funny, unfiltered, and often far more insightful than adults give them credit for. But this answer felt different. It wasn’t about homework, or college, or even a dream job. It was about legacy. At that moment, I realized I wasn’t just asking kids to talk about school. I was asking them to articulate their hopes for the world and their role in shaping it.

    As a designer, I came prepared to talk about flexible furniture, natural light, and outdoor learning spaces. The students approached the conversation through the lens of purpose, identity, and intergenerational impact. They reminded me that school isn’t just a place to pass through — it’s a place to imagine who you might become and how you might leave the world better than you found it.

    I’ve now led dozens of school visioning sessions, no two being alike. In most cases, adults are the ones at the table: district leaders, architects, engineers, and community members. Their perspectives are important, of course. But when we exclude students from shaping the environments they spend most days in, we send an implicit message that this place is not really theirs to shape.

    However, when we do invite them in, the difference is immediate. Students are not only willing participants, they’re often the most honest and imaginative contributors in the room. They see past the buzzwords like 21st-century learning, flexible furniture, student-centered design, and collaborative zones, and talk about what actually matters: where they feel safe, where they feel seen, where they can be themselves.

    During that workshop when the student spoke about legacy, other young participants asked for more flexible learning spaces, places to move around and collaborate, better food, outdoor classrooms, and quiet areas for mental health breaks. One asked for sign language classes to better communicate with her hard-of-hearing best friend. Another asked for furniture that can move from inside to outside. These aren’t requests that tend to show up on state-issued planning checklists, which are more likely to focus on square footage, capacity, and code compliance, but they reflect an extraordinary level of thought about access, well-being, and inclusion.

    The lesson: When we take students seriously, we get more than better design. We get better schools.

    There’s a popular saying in architecture: Form follows function. But in school design, I’d argue that form should follow voice. If we want to build learning environments that support joy, connection, and growth, we need to start by asking students what those things look and feel like to them — and then believe them.

    Listening isn’t a checkbox. It’s a practice. And it has to start early, not once construction drawings are finalized, but when goals and priorities are still being devised. That’s when student input can shift the direction of a plan, not just decorate it.

    It’s also not just about asking the right questions, but being open to answers we didn’t expect. When a student says, “Why do the adults always get the rooms with windows?” — as one did in another workshop I led — that’s not a complaint. That’s a lesson in power dynamics, spatial equity, and the unspoken messages our buildings send.

    Since that day, about a year and a half ago, when I heard, “We want future generations to look up to us,” I’ve carried that line with me into every planning session. It’s a reminder that students aren’t just users of school space. They’re stewards of something bigger than themselves.

    So if you’re a school leader, a planner, a teacher, or a policymaker, invite students in early. Make space for their voices, not just as a formality but as a source of wisdom. Ask questions that go beyond what color the walls should be. And don’t be surprised when the answers you get are deeper than you imagined. Be willing to let their vision shift yours.

    Because when we design with students, not just for them, we create schools that don’t just house learning. We create schools that help define what learning is for. And if we do it right, maybe one day, future generations will look up to today’s students not just because of what they learned, but because of the spaces they helped shape.

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

    For more news on district and school management, visit eSN’s Educational Leadership hub.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • NAEP scores for class of 2024 show major declines, with fewer students college ready

    NAEP scores for class of 2024 show major declines, with fewer students college ready

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

    Students from the class of 2024 had historically low scores on a major national test administered just months before they graduated.

    Results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, released September 9, show scores for 12th graders declined in math and reading for all but the highest performing students, as well as widening gaps between high and low performers in math. More than half of these students reported being accepted into a four-year college, but the test results indicate that many of them are not academically prepared for college, officials said.

    “This means these students are taking their next steps in life with fewer skills and less knowledge in core academics than their predecessors a decade ago, and this is happening at a time when rapid advancements in technology and society demand more of future workers and citizens, not less,” said Lesley Muldoon, executive director of the National Assessment Governing Board. “We have seen progress before on NAEP, including greater percentages of students meeting the NAEP proficient level. We cannot lose sight of what is possible when we use valuable data like NAEP to drive change and improve learning in U.S. schools.”

    These results reflect similar trends seen in fourth and eighth grade NAEP results released in January, as well as eighth grade science results also released Tuesday.

    In a statement, Education Secretary Linda McMahon said the results show that federal involvement has not improved education, and that states should take more control.

    “If America is going to remain globally competitive, students must be able to read proficiently, think critically, and graduate equipped to solve complex problems,” she said. “We owe it to them to do better.”

    The students who took this test were in eighth grade in March of 2020 and experienced a highly disrupted freshman year of high school because of the pandemic. Those who went to college would now be entering their sophomore year.

    Roughly 19,300 students took the math test and 24,300 students took the reading test between January and March of 2024.

    The math test measures students’ knowledge in four areas: number properties and operations; measurement and geometry; data analysis, statistics, and probability; and algebra. The average score was the lowest it has been since 2005, and 45% of students scored below the NAEP Basic level, even as fewer students scored at NAEP Proficient or above.

    NAEP Proficient typically represents a higher bar than grade-level proficiency as measured on state- and district-level standardized tests. A student scoring in the proficient range might be able to pick the correct algebraic formula for a particular scenario or solve a two-dimensional geometric problem. A student scoring at the basic level likely would be able to determine probability from a simple table or find the population of an area when given the population density.

    Only students in the 90th percentile — the highest achieving students — didn’t see a decline, and the gap between high- and low-performing students in math was higher than on all previous assessments.

    This gap between high and low performers appeared before the pandemic, but has widened in most grade levels and subject areas since. The causes are not entirely clear but might reflect changes in how schools approach teaching as well as challenges outside the classroom.

    Testing officials estimate that 33% of students from the class of 2024 were ready for college-level math, down from 37% in 2019, even as more students said they intended to go to college.

    In reading, students similarly posted lower average scores than on any previous assessment, with only the highest performing students not seeing a decline.

    The reading test measures students’ comprehension of both literary and informational texts and requires students to interpret texts and demonstrate critical thinking skills, as well as understand the plain meaning of the words.

    A student scoring at the basic level likely would understand the purpose of a persuasive essay, for example, or the reaction of a potential audience, while a students scoring at the proficient level would be able to describe why the author made certain rhetorical choices.

    Roughly 32% of students scored below NAEP Basic, 12 percentage points higher than students in 1992, while fewer students scored above NAEP Proficient. An estimated 35% of students were ready for college-level work, down from 37% in 2019.

    In a survey attached to the test, students in 2024 were more likely to report having missed three or more days of school in the previous month than their counterparts in 2019. Students who miss more school typically score lower on NAEP and other tests. Higher performing students were more likely to say they missed no days of school in the previous month.

    Students in 2024 were less likely to report taking pre-calculus, though the rates of students taking both calculus and algebra II were similar in 2019 and 2024. Students reported less confidence in their math abilities than their 2019 counterparts, though students in 2024 were actually less likely to say they didn’t enjoy math.

    Students also reported lower confidence in their reading abilities. At the same time, higher percentages of students than in 2024 reported that their teachers asked them to do more sophisticated tasks, such as identifying evidence in a piece of persuasive writing, and fewer students reported a low interest in reading.

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

    For more news on national assessments, visit eSN’s Innovative Teaching hub.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • In training educators to use AI, we must not outsource the foundational work of teaching

    In training educators to use AI, we must not outsource the foundational work of teaching

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

    I was conferencing with a group of students when I heard the excitement building across my third grade classroom. A boy at the back table had been working on his catapult project for over an hour through our science lesson, into recess, and now during personalized learning time. I watched him adjust the wooden arm for what felt like the 20th time, measure another launch distance, and scribble numbers on his increasingly messy data sheet.

    “The longer arm launches farther!” he announced to no one in particular, his voice carrying the matter-of-fact tone of someone who had just uncovered a truth about the universe. I felt that familiar teacher thrill, not because I had successfully delivered a physics lesson, but because I hadn’t taught him anything at all.

    Last year, all of my students chose a topic they wanted to explore and pursued a personal learning project about it. This particular student had discovered the relationship between lever arm length and projectile distance entirely through his own experiments, which involved mathematics, physics, history, and data visualization.

    Other students drifted over to try his longer-armed design, and soon, a cluster of 8-year-olds were debating trajectory angles and comparing medieval siege engines to ancient Chinese catapults.

    They were doing exactly what I dream of as an educator: learning because they wanted to know, not because they had to perform.

    Then, just recently, I read about the American Federation of Teachers’ new $23 million partnership with Microsoft, OpenAI, and Anthropic to train educators how to use AI “wisely, safely and ethically.” The training sessions would teach them how to generate lesson plans and “microwave” routine communications with artificial intelligence.

    My heart sank.

    As an elementary teacher who also conducts independent research on the intersection of AI and education, and writes the ‘Algorithmic Mind’ column about it for Psychology Today, I live in the uncomfortable space between what technology promises and what children actually need. Yes, I use AI, but only for administrative work like drafting parent newsletters, organizing student data, and filling out required curriculum planning documents. It saves me hours on repetitive tasks that have nothing to do with teaching.

    I’m all for showing educators how to use AI to cut down on rote work. But I fear the AFT’s $23 million initiative isn’t about administrative efficiency. According to their press release, they’re training teachers to use AI for “instructional planning” and as a “thought partner” for teaching decisions. One featured teacher describes using AI tools to help her communicate “in the right voice” when she’s burned out. Another says AI can assist with “late-night lesson planning.”

    That sounds more like outsourcing the foundational work of teaching.

    Watching my student discover physics principles through intrinsic curiosity reminded me why this matters so much. When we start relying on AI to plan our lessons and find our teaching voice, we’re replacing human judgment with algorithmic thinking at the very moment students need us most. We’re prioritizing the product of teaching over the process of learning.

    Most teachers I talk to share similar concerns about AI. They focus on cheating and plagiarism. They worry about students outsourcing their thinking and how to assess learning when they can’t tell if students actually understand anything. The uncomfortable truth is that students have always found ways to avoid genuine thinking when we value products over process. I used SparkNotes. Others used Google. Now, students use ChatGPT.

    The problem is not technology; it’s that we continue prioritizing finished products over messy learning processes. And as long as education rewards predetermined answers over curiosity, students will find shortcuts.

    That’s why teachers need professional development that moves in the opposite direction. They need PD that helps them facilitate genuine inquiry and human connection; foster classrooms where confusion is valued as a precursor to understanding; and develop in students an intrinsic motivation.

    When I think about that boy measuring launch distances with handmade tools, I realize he was demonstrating the distinctly human capacity to ask questions that only he wanted to address. He didn’t need me to structure his investigation or discovery. He needed the freedom to explore, materials to experiment with, and time to pursue his curiosity wherever it led.

    The learning happened not because I efficiently delivered content, but because I stepped back and trusted his natural drive to understand.

    Children don’t need teachers who can generate lesson plans faster or give AI-generated feedback, but educators who can inspire questions, model intellectual courage, and create communities where wonder thrives and real-world problems are solved.

    The future belongs to those who can combine computational tools with human wisdom, ethics, and creativity. But this requires us to maintain the cognitive independence to guide AI systems rather than becoming dependent on them.

    Every time I watch my students make unexpected connections, I’m reminded that the most important learning happens in the spaces between subjects, in the questions that emerge from genuine curiosity, in the collaborative thinking that builds knowledge through relationships. We can’t microwave that. And we shouldn’t try.

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

    For more news on AI in education, visit eSN’s Digital Learning hub.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link