Tag: need

  • Why K-12 educators need data literacy, not just data

    Why K-12 educators need data literacy, not just data

    Key points:

    Walk into any data meeting at a K-12 school today, and you’ll likely see a familiar scene: educators huddled around printed reports, highlighters in hand, trying to make sense of student data spread across multiple dashboards. If you’ve ever left one of these meetings feeling mentally exhausted without clear next steps, you’re not alone. The problem isn’t that we lack data in education, but rather that most dashboards show us the past–not the path ahead. It’s like trying to drive while only looking in the rearview mirror.

    The education sector sits on massive amounts of student data, yet most schools lack data maturity. They’ve committed to using data and may even have systems that centralize records. But they haven’t embraced what’s possible when we move from having data to using it well; from describing what happened to predicting what’s likely to happen if nothing changes.

    We have dashboards–now what?

    Every district has dashboards. We can see attendance rates, assessment scores, and demographic breakdowns. These tools tell us what happened, which is useful–but increasingly insufficient for the challenges facing K-12 schools. By the time we’re reacting to chronic absenteeism or declining grades, we’re already behind. And, when does an educator have time to sit down, pull up multiple dashboards, and interpret what they say about each student?

    The power of any data dashboard isn’t in the dashboard itself. It’s in the conversations that happen around it. This is where data literacy becomes essential, and it goes far beyond simply reading a chart or calculating an average.

    Data literacy means asking better questions and approaching data with curiosity. It requires recognizing that the answers we get are entirely driven by the questions we ask. A teacher who asks, “Which students failed the last assessment?” will get very different insights than one who asks, “Which students showed growth but still haven’t reached proficiency, and what patterns exist among them?”

    We must also acknowledge the emotional dimension of data in schools. Some educators have been burned when data was used punitively instead of for improvement. That resistance is understandable, but not sustainable. The solution isn’t to check professional expertise at the door. It’s to approach data with both curiosity and courage, questioning it in healthy ways while embracing it as a tool for problem-solving.

    From descriptive to predictive: What’s possible

    Let’s distinguish between types of analytics. Descriptive analytics tell us what happened: Jorge was absent 15 days last semester. Diagnostic analytics tell us why: Jorge lives in a household without reliable transportation, and his absences cluster on Mondays and Fridays.

    Now we get to the game-changers: predictive and prescriptive analytics. Predictive analytics use historical patterns to forecast what’s likely to happen: Based on current trends, Jorge is at 80 percent risk of chronic absenteeism by year’s end. Prescriptive analytics go further by helping the educator understand what they should do to intervene. If we connect Jorge’s family with transportation support and assign a mentor for weekly check-ins, we can likely reduce his absence risk by 60 percent.

    The technology to do this already exists. Machine learning can identify patterns across thousands of student records that would take humans months to discern. AI can surface early warning signs before problems become crises. These tools amplify teacher judgment, serving up insights and allowing educators to focus their expertise where it matters most.

    The cultural shift required

    Before any school rushes to adopt the next analytics tool, it’s worth pausing to ask: What actually happens when someone uses data in their daily work?

    Data use is deeply human. It’s about noticing patterns, interpreting meaning, and deciding what to do next. That process looks different for every educator, and it’s shaped by the environment in which they work: how much time they have to meet with colleagues, how easily they can access the right data, and whether the culture encourages curiosity or compliance.

    Technology can surface patterns, but culture determines whether those patterns lead to action. The same dashboard can spark collaboration in one school and defensiveness in another. That’s why new tools require attention to governance, trust, and professional learning–not just software configuration.

    At the end of the day, the goal isn’t simply to use data more often, but to use it more effectively.

    Moving toward this future requires a fundamental shift in how we think about data: from a compliance exercise to a strategic asset. The most resilient schools in the coming years will have cultures where data is pervasive, shared transparently, and accessible in near real-time to the people who need it. Think of it as an instructional co-pilot rather than a monkey on the back.

    This means moving away from data locked in the central office, requiring a 10-step approval process to access. Instead, imagine a decentralized approach where a fifth-grade team can instantly generate insights about their students’ reading growth, or where a high school counselor can identify seniors at risk of not graduating with enough time to intervene.

    This kind of data democratization requires significant change management. It demands training, clear protocols, and trust. But the payoff is educators empowered to make daily decisions grounded in timely, relevant information.

    Turning data into wisdom

    Data has been part of education from the very beginning. Attendance records, report cards, and gradebooks have always informed teaching. What’s different now is the volume of data available and the sophistication of tools to analyze it. K-12 educators don’t need to become data scientists, but they do need to become data literate: curious, critical consumers of information who can ask powerful questions and interpret results within the rich context of their professional expertise.

    The schools that harness their data effectively will be able to identify struggling students earlier, personalize interventions more effectively, and use educator time more strategically. But this future requires us to move beyond the dashboard and invest in the human capacity to transform data into wisdom. That transformation starts with data literacy, and it starts now.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • How professional learning transformed our teachers

    How professional learning transformed our teachers

    Key points:

    When you walk into a math classroom in Charleston County School District, you can feel the difference. Students aren’t just memorizing steps–they’re reasoning through problems, explaining their thinking, and debating solutions with their peers. Teachers aren’t rushing to cover content, because their clear understanding of students’ natural learning progressions allows them to spend more time exploring the why behind the math.

    This cultural shift didn’t come from adopting a new curriculum or collecting more data. Instead, we transformed math education by investing deeply in our educators through OGAP (The Ongoing Assessment Project) professional learning–an approach that has reshaped not only instruction, but the confidence and professional identity of our teachers.

    Why we needed a change

    Charleston County serves more than 50,000 students across more than 80 schools. For years, math achievement saw small gains, but not the leaps we hoped for. Our teachers were dedicated, and we had high-quality instructional materials, but something was missing.

    The gap wasn’t our teacher’s effort. It was their insight–understanding the content they taught flexibly and deeply.

    Too often, instruction focused on procedures rather than understanding. Teachers could identify whether a student got a problem right or wrong, but not always why they responded the way they did. To truly help students grow, we needed a way to uncover their thinking and guide next steps more intentionally.

    What makes this professional learning different

    Unlike traditional PD that delivers a set of strategies to “try on Monday,” this learning model takes educators deep into how students develop mathematical ideas over time.

    Across four intensive days, teachers explore research-based learning progressions in additive, multiplicative, fractional, and proportional reasoning. They examine real student work to understand how misconceptions form and what those misconceptions reveal about a learner’s thought process. It is also focused on expanding and deepening teachers’ understanding of the content they teach so they are more flexible in their thinking. Teachers appreciate that the training isn’t abstract; it’s rooted in everyday classroom realities, making it immediately meaningful.

    Instead of sorting responses into right and wrong, teachers ask a more powerful question: What does this show me about how the student is reasoning?

    That shift changes everything. Teachers leave with:

    • A stronger grasp of content
    • The ability to recognize error patterns
    • Insight into students’ conceptual gaps
    • Renewed confidence in their instructional decisions

    The power of understanding the “why”

    Our district uses conceptual math curricula, including Eureka Math², Reveal Math, and Math Nation. These “HQIM” programs emphasize reasoning, discourse, and models–exactly the kind of instruction our students need.

    But conceptual materials only work when teachers understand the purpose behind them.

    Before this professional learning, teachers sometimes felt unsure about lesson sequencing and the lesson intent, including cognitive complexity. Now, they understand why lessons appear in a specific order and how models support deeper understanding. It’s common to hear teachers say: “Oh, now I get why it’s written that way!” They are also much more likely to engage deeply with the mathematical models in the programs when they understand the math education research behind the learning progressions that curriculum developers use to design the content.

    That insight helps them stay committed to conceptual instruction even when students struggle, shifting the focus from “Did they get it?” to “How are they thinking about it?”

    Transforming district culture

    The changes go far beyond individual classrooms.

    We run multiple sessions of this professional learning each year, and they fill within days. Teachers return to their PLCs energized, bringing exit tickets, student work, and new questions to analyze together.

    We also invite instructional coaches and principals to attend. This builds a shared professional language and strengthens communication across the system. The consistency it creates is particularly powerful for new teachers who are still building confidence in their instructional decision-making.

    The result?

    • Teachers now invite feedback.
    • Coaches feel like instructional partners, not evaluators.
    • Everyone is rowing in the same direction.

    This shared understanding has become one of the most transformative parts of our district’s math journey.

    Results we can see

    In the past five years, Charleston County’s math scores have climbed roughly 10 percentage points. But the most meaningful growth is happening inside classrooms:

    • Students are reasoning more deeply.
    • Teachers demonstrate stronger content knowledge and efficacy in using math models.
    • PLC conversations focus on evidence of student thinking.
    • Instruction is more intentional and responsive.

    Teachers are also the first to tell you whether PD is worth their time…and our teachers are asking for more. Many return to complete a second or third strand, and sometimes all four. We even have educators take the same strand more than once just to pick up on something they may have missed the first time. The desire to deepen their expertise shows just how impactful this learning has been. Participants also find it powerful to engage in a room where the collective experience spans multiple grade levels. This structure supports our goal of strengthening vertical alignment across the district.

    Prioritizing professional learning that works

    When professional learning builds teacher expertise rather than compliance, everything changes. This approach doesn’t tell teachers what to teach; it helps them understand how students learn.

    And once teachers gain that insight, classrooms shift. Conversations deepen. Confidence grows. Students stop memorizing math and start truly understanding it.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Reimagining teacher preparation to include student mental health supports

    Reimagining teacher preparation to include student mental health supports

    Key points:

    Teacher preparation programs have long emphasized curriculum, instruction, and assessment. However, they often fall short in one critical area: social-emotional and mental health needs of students.

    We work daily with students whose academic success is inseparable from their psychological well-being. Nonetheless, we witness new educators wishing they were trained in not just behavior management, but, nowadays, the non-academic needs of children. If preservice programs are going to meet the demands of today’s classrooms, they must include deeper coursework in counseling, psychology, and trauma-informed teaching practices.

    Students today are carrying heavier emotional burdens than ever before. Anxiety, bullying, depression, grief, trauma exposure (including complex trauma), and chronic stress are unfortunately quite common. The fallout rarely appears in uniform, typical, or recognizable ways. Instead, it shows up as behaviors teachers must interpret and address (i.e., withdrawal, defiance, irritability, avoidance, conflict, aggression and violence, or inconsistent work).

    Without formal training, it is easy to label these actions as simple “misbehaviors” instead of asking why. However, seasoned educators and mental health professionals know that behaviors (including misbehaviors) are a means of communication, and understanding the root cause of a student’s actions is essential to creating a supportive and effective classroom.

    Oftentimes, adults fall into a pattern of describing misbehaviors by children as “manipulative” as opposed to a need not being met. As such, adults (including educators) need to shift their mindsets. This belief is supported by research. Jean Piaget reminds us that children’s cognitive and emotional regulation skills are still developing and naturally are imperfect. Lev Vygotsky reminds us that learning and behavior are shaped by the quality of a child’s social interactions, including with the adults (such as teachers) in their lives. Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy further reinforces that psychological safety and belonging must be met before meaningful learning or self-control can occur, and teachers need to initiate psychological safety.

    Traditional classroom management training is often sparse in traditional preservice teacher training. It often emphasizes rules, procedures, and consequences. They absolutely matter, but the reality is far more nuanced. Behavior management and behavior recognition are not the same. A student who shuts down may be experiencing anxiety. A child who blurts out or becomes agitated may be reacting to trauma triggers in the environment. A student who frequently acts out may be seeking connection or stability in the only way they know how. Trauma-informed teaching (rooted in predictability, emotional safety, de-escalation, and relationship-building) is not just helpful, but is foundational in modern schools. Yet, many new teachers enter the profession with little to no formal preparation in these practices.

    The teacher shortage only heightens this need. Potential educators are often intimidated not by teaching content, but by the emotional and behavioral demands that they feel unprepared to address. Meanwhile, experienced teachers often cite burnout stemming from managing complex behaviors without adequate support. Courses focused on child development, counseling skills, and trauma-informed pedagogy would significantly improve both teacher confidence and retention. It would also be beneficial if subject-area experts (such as the counseling or clinical psychology departments of the higher education institution) taught these courses.

    Of note, we are not suggesting that teachers become counselors. School counselors, social workers, psychologists, and psychometrists play essential and irreplaceable roles. However, teachers are the first adults to observe subtle shifts in their students’ behaviors or emotional well-being. Oftentimes, traditional behavior management techniques and strategies can make matters worse in situations where trauma is the root cause of the behavior. When teachers are trained in the fundamentals of trauma-informed practice and creating emotionally safe learning environments, they can respond skillfully. They can collaborate with or refer students to clinical mental-health professionals for more intensive support.

    Teacher preparation programs must evolve to reflect the emotional realities of today’s classrooms. Embedding several clinically grounded courses in counseling, psychology, and trauma-informed teaching (taught by certified and/or practicing mental-health professionals) would transform the way novice educators understand and support their students. This would also allow for more studies and research to take place on the effectiveness of various psychologically saturated teaching practices, accounting for the ever-changing psychosocial atmosphere. Students deserve teachers who can see beyond behaviors and understand the rationale beneath it. Being aware of behavior management techniques (which is often pretty minimal as teacher-prep programs stand now) is quite different than understanding behaviors. Teachers deserve to be equipped with both academic and emotional tools to help every learner thrive.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • What school leaders need to know

    What school leaders need to know

    Key points:

    Special education is at a breaking point. Across the country, more children than ever are being referred for evaluations to determine whether they qualify for special education services. But there aren’t enough school psychologists or specialists on staff to help schools meet the demand, leaving some families with lengthy wait times for answers and children missing critical support. 

    The growing gap between need and capacity has inspired districts to get creative. One of the most debated solutions? Remote psychoeducational testing, or conducting evaluations virtually rather than face-to-face. 

    Can a remote evaluation accurately capture what a child needs? Will the results hold up if challenged in a legal dispute? Is remote assessment equivalent to in-person? 

    As a school psychologist and educational consultant, I hear these questions every week. And now, thanks to research and data released this summer, I can answer with confidence: Remote psychoeducational testing can produce equivalent results to traditional in-person assessment. 

    What the research shows

    In July 2025, a large-scale national study compared in-person and remote administration of the Woodcock-Johnson V Tests of Cognitive Abilities and Achievement (WJ V), the latest version of one of the most widely-used and comprehensive assessment systems for evaluating students’ intellectual abilities, academic achievement, and oral language skills. Using a matched case-control design with 300 participants and 44 licensed school psychologists from across the U.S., the study found no statistically or practically significant difference in student scores between in-person and remote formats. 

    In other words: When conducted with fidelity, remote WJ V testing produces equivalent results to traditional in-person assessment.

    This study builds on nearly a decade of prior research that also found score equivalency for remote administrations of the most widely used evaluations including WJ IV COG and ACH, RIAS-2, and WISC-V assessments, respectively. 

    The findings of the newest study are as important as they are urgent. They show remote testing isn’t just a novelty–it’s a practical, scalable solution that is rooted in evidence. 

    Why it matters now

    School psychology has been facing a workforce shortage for over a decade. A 2014 national study predicted this crunch, and today districts are relying on contracting agencies and remote service providers to stay afloat. At the same time, referrals for evaluations are climbing, driven by pandemic-related learning loss, growing behavioral challenges, and increased awareness of neurodiversity. 

    The result: More children and families waiting longer for answers, while school psychologists are facing mounting caseloads and experiencing burnout. 

    Remote testing offers a way out of this cycle and embraces changes. It allows districts to bring in licensed psychologists from outside their area, without relocating staff or asking families to travel. It helps schools move through backlogs more efficiently, ensuring students get the services they need sooner. And it gives on-site staff space to do the broader preventative work that too often gets sidelined. Additionally, it offers a way to support those students who are choosing alternate educational settings, such as virtual schools. 

    Addressing the concerns

    Skepticism remains, and that’s healthy. Leaders wonder: Will a hearing officer accept remote scores in a due process case? Are students disadvantaged by the digital format? Can we trust the results to guide placement and services?

    These are valid questions, but research shows that when remote testing is done right, the results are valid and reliable. 

    Key phrase: Done right. Remote assessment isn’t just a Zoom call with a stopwatch. In the most recent study, the setup included specific safeguards:

    • Touchscreen laptops with screens 13” or larger; 
    • A secure platform with embedded digital materials;
    • Dual cameras to capture the student’s face and workspace;
    • A guided proctor in-room with the student; and
    • Standardized examiner and proctor training protocols.

    This carefully structured environment replicates traditional testing conditions as closely as possible. All four of the existing equivalency studies utilized the Presence Platform, as it already meets with established criteria.

    When those fidelity conditions are met, the results hold up. Findings showed p-values above .05 and effect sizes below .03 across all tested subtests, indicating statistical equivalence. This means schools can confidently use WJ V scores from remote testing, provided the setup adheres to best practices.

    What district leaders can do

    For remote testing to succeed, schools need to take a thoughtful, structured approach. Here are three steps districts can take now.

    1. Vet providers carefully. Ask about their platform, equipment, training, and how they align with published research standards. 
    2. Clarify device requirements. Ensure schools have the right technology in place before testing begins.
    3. Build clear policies. Set district-wide expectations for how remote testing should be conducted so everyone–staff and contractors alike–are on the same page. 

    A path forward

    Remote assessment won’t solve every challenge in special education, but it can close one critical gap: timely, accurate evaluations. For students in rural districts, schools with unfilled psychologist positions, virtual school settings, or families tired of waiting for answers, it can be a lifeline.

    The research is clear. Remote psychoeducational testing works when we treat it with the same care and rigor as in-person assessment. The opportunity now is to use this tool strategically–not as a last resort, but as part of a smarter, more sustainable approach to serving students. 

    At its best, remote testing is not a compromise; it’s a path toward expanded access and stronger support for the students who need it most.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • AI use is on the rise, but is guidance keeping pace?

    AI use is on the rise, but is guidance keeping pace?

    Key points:

    The rapid rise of generative AI has turned classrooms into a real-time experiment in technology use. Students are using AI to complete assignments, while teachers are leveraging it to design lessons, streamline grading, and manage administrative tasks.

    According to new national survey data from RAND, AI use among both students and educators has grown sharply–by more than 15 percentage points in just the past one to two years. Yet, training and policy have not kept pace. Schools and districts are still developing professional development, student guidance, and clear usage policies to manage this shift.

    As a result, educators, students, and parents are navigating both opportunities and concerns. Students worry about being falsely accused of cheating, and many families fear that increased reliance on AI could undermine students’ critical thinking skills.

    Key findings:

    During the 2024-2025 school year, AI saw rapid growth.

    AI use in schools surged during the 2024-2025 academic year. By 2025, more than half of students (54 percent) and core subject teachers (53 percent) were using AI for schoolwork or instruction–up more than 15 points from just a year or two earlier. High school students were the most frequent users, and AI adoption among teachers climbed steadily from elementary to high school.

    While students and parents express significant concern about the potential downsides of AI, school district leaders are far less worried.

    Sixty-one percent of parents, 48 percent of middle school students, and 55 percent of high school students believe that increased use of AI could harm students’ critical-thinking skills, compared with just 22 percent of district leaders. Additionally, half of students said they worry about being falsely accused of using AI to cheat.

    Training and policy development have not kept pace with AI use in schools.

    By spring 2025, only 35 percent of district leaders said their schools provide students with training on how to use AI. Meanwhile, more than 80 percent of students reported that their teachers had not explicitly taught them how to use AI for schoolwork. Policy guidance also remains limited–just 45 percent of principals said their schools or districts have policies on AI use, and only 34 percent of teachers reported policies specifically addressing academic integrity and AI.

    The report offers recommendations around AI use and guidance:

    As AI technology continues to evolve, trusted sources–particularly state education agencies–should provide consistent, regularly updated guidance on effective AI policies and training. This guidance should help educators and students understand how to use AI as a complement to learning, not a replacement for it.

    District and school leaders should clearly define what constitutes responsible AI use versus academic dishonesty and communicate these expectations to both teachers and students. In the near term, educators and students urgently need clarity on what qualifies as cheating with AI.

    Elementary schools should also be included in this effort. Nearly half of elementary teachers are already experimenting with AI, and these early years are when students build foundational skills and habits. Providing age-appropriate, coherent instruction about AI at this stage can reduce misuse and confusion as students progress through school and as AI capabilities expand.

    Ultimately, district leaders should develop comprehensive AI policies and training programs that equip teachers and students to use AI productively and ethically across grade levels.

    Laura Ascione
    Latest posts by Laura Ascione (see all)

    Source link

  • Solving the staffing crisis is key to the Science of Reading movement

    Solving the staffing crisis is key to the Science of Reading movement

    Key points:

    As someone who’s dedicated my career to advancing the Science of Reading movement, I’ve seen firsthand what it takes to help every child become a strong, fluent reader. We’ve made incredible strides in shifting the conversation toward evidence-based instruction, but I know we’re at a critical inflection point. While we–obviously–continue our work helping schools and districts adopt SOR, there’s an issue that stands in the way of real, sustained, progress: the staffing crisis and leadership churn that are leaving our educators overwhelmed and skeptical toward “change.” Without addressing these deeper structural issues, we risk stalling the momentum we’ve worked so hard to build.

    The hidden costs of constant turnover

    The data on teacher and leader turnover is bleak, and I’ve seen how it undermines the long-term commitment needed for any meaningful change. Consider this: Roughly 1 in 6 teachers won’t return to the same classroom next year, and nearly half of new teachers leave within their first five years. This constant churn is a massive financial burden on districts, costing an estimated $20,000 per teacher to recruit, hire, and onboard. But the real cost is the human one. Every time a new leader or teacher steps in, the hard-won progress on a literacy initiative can be jeopardized.

    I’ve watched districts spend years building momentum for the Science of Reading, providing extensive training and resources, only to see a new superintendent or principal arrive with a new set of priorities. This “leader wobble” can pull the rug out from under an initiative mid-stream. It’s especially frustrating when a new leader decides a program has had “plenty of professional learning” without taking the time to audit its impact. This lack of continuity completely disrupts the 3-5 years it takes for an initiative to truly take hold, especially because new teachers often arrive with a knowledge gap, as only about one-quarter of teacher preparation programs teach the Science of Reading. We can’t build on a foundation that’s constantly shifting.

    Overwhelmed by “initiative fatigue”

    I know what it feels like to have too much on your plate. Teachers, already juggling countless instructional materials, often see each new program not as a solution but as one more thing to learn, implement, and manage. Instead of excitement, there’s skepticism–this is initiative fatigue, and it can stall real progress. I’ve seen it firsthand; one large district I worked with rolled out new reading, math, and phonics resources all at once.

    To prevent this, we need to follow the principle of “pull weeds to plant flowers.” Being critical, informed consumers of resources means choosing flowers (materials) that are:

    • Supported by high-quality, third-party research
    • Aligned across all tiers of instruction
    • Versatile enough to meet varied student needs
    • Teacher-friendly, with clear guidance and instructional dialogue
    • Culturally relevant, reflecting the diverse backgrounds of students

    Now, even when a resource meets these standards, adoption shouldn’t be additive. Teachers can’t layer new tools on top of old ones. To see real change, old resources must be replaced with better ones. Educators need solutions that provide a unified, research-backed framework across all tiers, giving teachers clarity, support, and a path to sustainable student progress.

    Building a stable environment for sustained change

    So, how do we create the stable environment needed to support our educators? It starts with leadership that is in it for the long game. We need to mitigate turnover by using data to understand why teachers are leaving and then acting on that feedback. Strengthening mentorship, clarifying career pathways, and improving school culture are all crucial steps.

    Beyond just retaining staff, leaders must foster a culture of sustained commitment. It’s not enough to have a few “islands of excellence” where a handful of teachers are getting great results.

    We need system-wide adoption. This requires strong leaders to balance support and accountability. I’ve seen how collaborative teams, engaged in problem-solving and data-based decision-making, can transform a school. When teachers see students as “our students” and not just “my students,” shared ownership grows.

    A leader’s job is to protect and sustain this vision, making sure the essential supports–like collaborative planning time, ongoing professional development, and in-classroom coaching–are in place. But sustaining change goes beyond daily management; it requires building deep capacity so the work continues even if leadership shifts. This means hiring, training, and retaining strong educators, investing in future leaders, and ensuring committed advocates are part of the implementation team. It also requires creating a detailed, actionable roadmap, with budgets clearly allocated and accountability measures established, so that any initiative isn’t just a short-term priority but a long-term promise. By embedding these structures, leaders can secure continuity, maintain momentum, and ensure that every step forward in literacy translates into lasting gains for students.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Students must intentionally develop durable skills to thrive in an AI-dominated world

    Students must intentionally develop durable skills to thrive in an AI-dominated world

    Key points:

    As AI increasingly automates technical tasks across industries, students’ long-term career success will rely less on technical skills alone and more on durable skills or professional skills, often referred to as soft skills. These include empathy, resilience, collaboration, and ethical reasoning–skills that machines can’t replicate.

    This critical need is outlined in Future-Proofing Students: Professional Skills in the Age of AI, a new report from Acuity Insights. Drawing on a broad body of academic and market research, the report provides an analysis of how institutions can better prepare students with the professional skills most critical in an AI-driven world.

    Key findings from the report:

    • 75 percent of long-term job success is attributed to professional skills, not technical expertise.
    • Over 25 percent of executives say they won’t hire recent graduates due to lack of durable skills.
    • COVID-19 disrupted professional skill development, leaving many students underprepared for collaboration, communication, and professional norms.
    • Eight essential durable skills must be intentionally developed for students to thrive in an AI-driven workplace.

    “Technical skills may open the door, but it’s human skills like empathy and resilience that endure over time and lead to a fruitful and rewarding career,” says Matt Holland, CEO at Acuity Insights. “As AI reshapes the workforce, it has become critical for higher education to take the lead in preparing students with these skills that will define their long-term success.”

    The eight critical durable skills include:

    • Empathy
    • Teamwork
    • Communication
    • Motivation
    • Resilience
    • Ethical reasoning
    • Problem solving
    • Self-awareness

    These competencies don’t expire with technology–they grow stronger over time, helping graduates adapt, lead, and thrive in an AI-driven world.

    The report also outlines practical strategies for institutions, including assessing non-academic skills at admissions using Situational Judgment Tests (SJTs), and shares recommendations on embedding professional skills development throughout curricula and forming partnerships that bridge AI literacy with interpersonal and ethical reasoning.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Preparing for a new era of teaching and learning

    Preparing for a new era of teaching and learning

    Key points:

    When I first started experimenting with AI in my classroom, I saw the same thing repeatedly from students. They treated it like Google. Ask a question, get an answer, move on. It didn’t take long to realize that if my students only engage with AI this way, they miss the bigger opportunity to use AI as a partner in thinking. AI isn’t a magic answer machine. It’s a tool for creativity and problem-solving. The challenge for us as educators is to rethink how we prepare students for the world they’re entering and to use AI with curiosity and fidelity.

    Moving from curiosity to fluency

    In my district, I wear two hats: history teacher and instructional coach. That combination gives me the space to test ideas in the classroom and support colleagues as they try new tools. What I’ve learned is that AI fluency requires far more than knowing how to log into a platform. Students need to learn how to question outputs, verify information and use results as a springboard for deeper inquiry.

    I often remind them, “You never trust your source. You always verify and compare.” If students accept every AI response at face value, they’re not building the critical habits they’ll need in college or in the workforce.

    To make this concrete, I teach my students the RISEN framework: Role, Instructions, Steps, Examples, Narrowing. It helps them craft better prompts and think about the kind of response they want. Instead of typing “explain photosynthesis,” they might ask, “Act as a biologist explaining photosynthesis to a tenth grader. Use three steps with an analogy, then provide a short quiz at the end.” Suddenly, the interaction becomes purposeful, structured and reflective of real learning.

    AI as a catalyst for equity and personalization

    Growing up, I was lucky. My mom was college educated and sat with me to go over almost every paper I wrote. She gave me feedback that helped to sharpen my writing and build my confidence. Many of my students don’t have that luxury. For these learners, AI can be the academic coach they might not otherwise have.

    That doesn’t mean AI replaces human connection. Nothing can. But it can provide feedback, ask guiding questions, and provide examples that give students a sounding board and thought partner. It’s one more way to move closer to providing personalized support for learners based on need.

    Of course, equity cuts both ways. If only some students have access to AI or if we use it without considering its bias, we risk widening the very gaps we hope to close. That’s why it’s our job as educators to model ethical and critical use, not just the mechanics.

    Shifting how we assess learning

    One of the biggest shifts I’ve made is rethinking how I assess students. If I only grade the final product, I’m essentially inviting them to use AI as a shortcut. Instead, I focus on the process: How did they engage with the tool? How did they verify and cross-reference results? How did they revise their work based on what they learned? What framework guided their inquiry? In this way, AI becomes part of their learning journey rather than just an endpoint.

    I’ve asked students to run the same question through multiple AI platforms and then compare the outputs. What were the differences? Which response feels most accurate or useful? What assumptions might be at play? These conversations push students to defend their thinking and use AI critically, not passively.

    Navigating privacy and policy

    Another responsibility we carry as educators is protecting our students. Data privacy is a serious concern. In my school, we use a “walled garden” version of AI so that student data doesn’t get used for training. Even with those safeguards in place, I remind colleagues never to enter identifiable student information into a tool.

    Policies will continue to evolve, but for day-to-day activities and planning, teachers need to model caution and responsibility. Students are taking our lead.

    Professional growth for a changing profession

    The truth of the matter is most of us have not been professionally trained to do this. My teacher preparation program certainly did not include modules on prompt engineering or data ethics. That means professional development in this space is a must.

    I’ve grown the most in my AI fluency by working alongside other educators who are experimenting, sharing stories, and comparing notes. AI is moving fast. No one has all the answers. But we can build confidence together by trying, reflecting, and adjusting through shared experience and lessons learned. That’s exactly what we’re doing in the Lead for Learners network. It’s a space where educators from across the country connect, learn and support one another in navigating change.

    For educators who feel hesitant, I’d say this: You don’t need to be an expert to start. Pick one tool, test it in one lesson, and talk openly with your students about what you’re learning. They’ll respect your honesty and join you in the process.

    Preparing students for what’s next

    AI is not going away. Whether we’re ready or not, it’s going to shape how our students live and work. That gives us a responsibility not just to keep pace with technology but to prepare young people for what’s ahead. The latest futures forecast reminds us that imagining possibilities is just as important as responding to immediate shifts.

    We need to understand both how AI is already reshaping education delivery and how new waves of change will remain on the horizon as tools grow more sophisticated and widespread.

    I want my students to leave my classroom with the ability to question, create, and collaborate using AI. I want them to see it not as a shortcut but as a tool for thinking more deeply and expressing themselves more fully. And I want them to watch me modeling those same habits: curiosity, caution, creativity, and ethical decision-making. Because if we don’t show them what responsible use looks like, who will?

    The future of education won’t be defined by whether we allow AI into our classrooms. It will be defined by how we teach with it, how we teach about it, and how we prepare our students to thrive in a world where it’s everywhere.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Teaching math the way the brain learns changes everything

    Teaching math the way the brain learns changes everything

    Key points:

    Far too many students enter math class expecting to fail. For them, math isn’t just a subject–it’s a source of anxiety that chips away at their confidence and makes them question their abilities. A growing conversation around math phobia is bringing this crisis into focus. A recent article, for example, unpacked the damage caused by the belief that “I’m just not a math person” and argued that traditional math instruction often leaves even bright, capable students feeling defeated.

    When a single subject holds such sway over not just academic outcomes but a student’s sense of self and future potential, we can’t afford to treat this as business as usual. It’s not enough to explore why this is happening. We need to focus on how to fix it. And I believe the answer lies in rethinking how we teach math, aligning instruction with the way the brain actually learns.

    Context first, then content

    A key shortcoming of traditional math curriculum–and a major contributor to students’ fear of math–is the lack of meaningful context. Our brains rely on context to make sense of new information, yet math is often taught in isolation from how we naturally learn. The fix isn’t simply throwing in more “real-world” examples. What students truly need is context, and visual examples are one of the best ways to get there. When math concepts are presented visually, students can better grasp the structure of a problem and follow the logic behind each step, building deeper understanding and confidence along the way.

    In traditional math instruction, students are often taught a new concept by being shown a procedure and then practicing it repeatedly in hopes that understanding will eventually follow. But this approach is backward. Our brains don’t learn that way, especially when it comes to math. Students need context first. Without existing schemas to draw from, they struggle to make sense of new ideas. Providing context helps them build the mental frameworks necessary for real understanding.

    Why visual-first context matters

    Visual-first context gives students the tools they need to truly understand math. A curriculum built around visual-first exploration allows students to have an interactive experience–poking and prodding at a problem, testing ideas, observing patterns, and discovering solutions. From there, students develop procedures organically, leading to a deeper, more complete understanding. Using visual-first curriculum activates multiple parts of the brain, creating a deeper, lasting understanding. Shifting to a math curriculum that prioritizes introducing new concepts through a visual context makes math more approachable and accessible by aligning with how the brain naturally learns.

    To overcome “math phobia,” we also need to rethink the heavy emphasis on memorization in today’s math instruction. Too often, students can solve problems not because they understand the underlying concepts, but because they’ve memorized a set of steps. This approach limits growth and deeper learning. Memorization of the right answers does not lead to understanding, but understanding can lead to the right answers.

    Take, for example, a third grader learning their times tables. The third grader can memorize the answers to each square on the times table along with its coordinating multipliers, but that doesn’t mean they understand multiplication. If, instead, they grasp how multiplication works–what it means–they can figure out the times tables on their own. The reverse isn’t true. Without conceptual understanding, students are limited to recall, which puts them at a disadvantage when trying to build off previous knowledge.

    Learning from other subjects

    To design a math curriculum that aligns with how the brain naturally learns new information, we can take cues from how other subjects are taught. In English, for example, students don’t start by memorizing grammar rules in isolation–they’re first exposed to those rules within the context of stories. Imagine asking a student to take a grammar quiz before they’ve ever read a sentence–that would seem absurd. Yet in math, we often expect students to master procedures before they’ve had any meaningful exposure to the concepts behind them.

    Most other subjects are built around context. Students gain background knowledge before being expected to apply what they’ve learned. By giving students a story or a visual context for the mind to process–breaking it down and making connections–students can approach problems like a puzzle or game, instead of a dreaded exercise. Math can do the same. By adopting the contextual strategies used in other subjects, math instruction can become more intuitive and engaging, moving beyond the traditional textbook filled with equations.

    Math doesn’t have to be a source of fear–it can be a source of joy, curiosity, and confidence. But only if we design it the way the brain learns: with visuals first, understanding at the center, and every student in mind. By using approaches that provide visual-first context, students can engage with math in a way that mirrors how the brain naturally learns. This shift in learning makes math more approachable and accessible for all learners.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • 10 reasons to upgrade to Windows 11 ASAP

    10 reasons to upgrade to Windows 11 ASAP

    K-12 IT leaders are under pressure from all sides–rising cyberattacks, the end of Windows 10 support, and the need for powerful new learning tools.

    The good news: Windows 11 on Lenovo devices delivers more than an upgrade–it’s a smarter, safer foundation for digital learning in the age of AI.

    Delaying the move means greater risk, higher costs, and missed opportunities. With proven ROI, cutting-edge protection, and tools that empower both teachers and students, the case for Windows 11 is clear.

    There are 10 compelling reasons your district should make the move today.

    1. Harness AI-powered educational innovation with Copilot
    Windows 11 integrates Microsoft Copilot AI capabilities that transform teaching
    and learning. Teachers can leverage AI for lesson planning, content creation, and
    administrative tasks, while students benefit from enhanced collaboration tools
    and accessibility features.

    2. Combat the explosive rise in school cyberattacks
    The statistics are alarming: K-12 ransomware attacks increased 92 percent between 2022 and 2023, with human-operated ransomware attacks surging over 200 percent globally, according to the 2024 State of Ransomware in Education.

    3. Combat the explosive rise in school cyberattacks
    Time is critically short. Windows 10 support ended in October 2025, leaving schools running unsupported systems vulnerable to attacks and compliance violations. Starting migration planning immediately ensures adequate time for device inventory, compatibility testing, and smooth district-wide deployment.

    Find 7 more reasons to upgrade to Windows 11 here.

    Laura Ascione
    Latest posts by Laura Ascione (see all)

    Source link