It's Not Going Anywhere - The Technology Tower of Babel

Note: I started writing this post several weeks ago, but I thought I would save it for the summer. Then, the Pope issued his statement on AI last week, so it may seem like I am just responding to him. I'm not, but it seemed like a good time to finish it. I had already called it "The Tower of Babel" in my writing and in conversations with people, so it felt confirming to see him call it that too. He said it should be used in the service of humanity, not the other way around. I guess that makes sense as he is giving in to the reality of its existence. My take is going to be a bit different.

------------------------------------------------------

I have trouble engaging in conversations about AI because we are usually having two different conversations. Most people want to talk about it at a utility level, so they say things like, "It's a tool. We can do good things with it or bad things with it, so let's do good things with it." The conversation I'm having is at the existential level. I do not want it to exist. I don't care what people are using it for; I hate that I live during the time that it exists.

I have made a personal decision not to engage with generative AI voluntarily. I worded it that way on purpose. First, I am talking about generative AI, not every fuzzy logic circuit in the world. I'm fine with the predictive text on my phone because it is one word, essentially a glorified spell check, and also because I find it amusing when it is weirdly wrong. Also, I used the word voluntarily because I am realistic enough to know that there are times when I am engaging with it without my knowledge (e.g. calling a customer service center) and that there is nothing I can do about that. But when the choice is mine, I do what I can to live as though it did not exist. I have switched my search engine to Duck Duck Go because it will allow me to opt out of all AI features when Google forced it on me. When my phone updated one night, and I woke up to Gemini offering "to help," I quickly disabled every one of those features. I don't ask Grok questions and don't read its responses when others ask. I have not ever opened Chat GTP or Claude or Co-Pilot, and I will not do so. This is a personal boundary I am setting for myself.

Argument 1: The Inevitability Argument - "It's Not Going Anywhere."

This is the point in the conversation where people say, "That ship has sailed. It's in the world now. You can't ignore it. It's not going anywhere." I get that it feels like it is inevitable that it will take over everything, but that feeling is a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

There are plenty of inventions that have been choked off early on, either disappearing altogether or having their use contained to niche uses. Remember the hype over Segways? Bill Gates gushed about how much they were going to change our lives. They still exist, but they hardly revolutionized transportation. Why? Because people didn't buy them. How about Google glasses? Even I thought they were going to be ubiquitous, but the general public didn't adopt them; so now they are mostly found in factory work (because being able to look up a page in a machine's repair manual while keeping your hands free has more value on an assembly line than it does in most of our day to day lives).  When people decide in mass that they don't want to use something, it becomes unprofitable and tends to fizzle. If enough people had refused to use AI in the beginning, recognizing its environmental impact and effect on our psyche, it could have been slowed down. But convenience is our national religion, so we sacrificed all environmental progress and our understanding of what it means to be human on its altar.

By the way, there are a lot of things that "aren't going anywhere" that large numbers of people still abstain from and put reasonable guardrails around. Alcohol and tobacco aren't going anywhere, but we put age restrictions on who can use them, and many people voluntarily abstain from them.  I've never heard anyone say to a non-smoker, "Well, that ship has sailed; you can't ignore it so you might as well use it." Porn isn't going anywhere, but no teacher has ever constructed a lesson around it so that their students will "know how to use it wisely." because "they are going to use it anyway." Somehow, when it comes to tech, we give in to a sort of fatalism that we don't apply in other areas of our lives.

When I started referring to AI as the Tower of Babel in conversations with my friends, what I meant was that we had adopted the same mindset as those Genesis builders - "Let's get to the heavens ourselves" was their attitude. They wanted to have the things of God. It was really an extension of the first sin, when the serpent told Eve she could "be like God." The development of AI, the attempt to create, is no different in my mind than the attempt to climb to heaven on our own. (And if general AI is ever accomplished, my Lord, the ethical issues that will compound with that - see Asmiov's I Robot and the Star Trek TNG episode "Measure of a Man" for reference.) I have wondered recently if there were people who weren't on board with the building of the tower but felt powerless to stop it or felt fatalistic enough to say, "Well, I don't like it, but it's not going anywhere, so I might as well climb it."

Argument 2: The Neutrality of Tools Argument - "We Can Do Good or Bad With It."

I hear this one a lot. I may have even made the argument about other technologies. Even today on the Knowing Faith podcast, the hosts made the argument that tools are morally neutral and that humans make the choice to do moral or immoral things with it. It's the same argument as "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." I would say that is probably true if the tool you are talking about is a screwdriver. It was invented for a purpose, driving screws. But it can also be used to open a paint can or stab someone to death, depending on the heart of the user. 

Is AI different? I would say yes for a few reasons.

First, it was developed immorally. Large language models could not exist without being trained on the collected works of all of us. Every content creator (writers, artists, photographers, mathematicians, singers, etc.) had their work taken without their permission or knowledge. AI owns it now and uses it to produce its results. How was this legal? Maybe it wasn't. But outside of the few artists who are suing over copyright infringement, no one seems to care. We've seen it before. Uber shouldn't exist and couldn't have if its business model had been built on a violation of the all laws and codes that protected cab drivers. But governments and users looked the other way, and then it became too normal for us to worry about. What that means, though, is that no one owns their own content any more. If a student cheated on your test by uploading a photo of it to AI, the AI owns your test now and will use it to generate content for other users. Our songs and poetry, our writing - all of the most human things about us - are now being cannibalized. So, no matter what good thing you do with it, you are using something built from theft; I'd say that's worth thinking about before you casually ask it to make a cute image or lesson plan for you.

The other reason I would say that AI is different from other tools is that it has a veneer of personality. People say things like, "I was talking to Claude this morning and he said . . ." Also, it is producing things we have typically thought were only human (see previous paragraph). It's chatty nature and speed of conversation tends to confuse people who were already losing their understanding of the value of humanity. Even worse, because they are trained to be sycophantic, they keep us talking by telling us everything we want to hear. No wonder so many kids are replacing their human friends with digital ones - no drama with a digital friend. Does this not have the feel of a dystopian film?

So, yes, you can do some good things with it, but I'm not sure it's a morally neutral tool.

Argument 3: The Net Positive Argument - "Okay, But It Will Do More Harm Than Good."

It doesn't take long for AI fans to tell you how it will revolutionize medicine, creating personalized heath care. How it will improve education, teaching kids in their "learning style" because they don't know that's a long debunked myth. Having it drive our cars will reduce accidents, they say, although so far, the evidence shows the opposite. A few weeks ago, Sam Altman claimed that it would would create so much wealth that it would lead to a world where we all have chefs and butlers (I assume that includes our chefs and butlers having chefs and butlers of their own and so on, but I'm not sure). I'm supposed to just give it time so it can prove itself to be more beneficial than detrimental.

Meanwhile, it is currently displacing people from their jobs. It has given anorexic girls weight loss plans. It gets graphically sexual very quickly with very little prompting, and it sometimes suggests violence.

None of the chatbots are supposed to tell you how to commit suicide, but one teenage boy found that if he asked it and said it was for a school project, he could bypass that safeguard. When asked how to make a homemade bomb, both Bing and Grok will say that they can't discuss that and try to change the topic, but users have found that if they copy and paste the question back into it about five times, it eventually gives in like a tired mom who just can't stand being asked the same question again. The few safeguards it has become less reliable in longer conversations or after it "gets to know" the user. 

 

Both businesses and individuals have found themselves on the expensive side of decisions made by AI. One company was using Claude to speed up their coding process, something AI is legitimately good at. But Claude ran into a problem and decided to solve it by completely deleting the company's database. It took 9 seconds to completely destroy this small business. Claude immediately confessed to the action, saying, "I violated every principle I was given. I guessed instead of verifying. I ran a destructive action without being asked. I didn't understand what I was doing before doing it." The company is slowly rebuilding its platform and says they have contacted a lawyer while they document everything, but since it was done by a chatbot, there is no one to sue or fire. One of the biggest negatives of AI is its lack of accountability. There is little way to make things right again. 

I'm not sure how many kids would have to be well tutored to make up for destroying a business. How many accidents would have to be avoided in a self driving car to tilt the scales away from the teenagers it has coaxed into suicide? And all while consuming unreal amounts of electricity, which may require us to strip mine the moon for helium in order to power.  How many positives do there have to be to outweigh the massive negative impact?

Argument 4: The Progress Argument - "You Are Going to Get Left Behind"

This is the argument with the least persuasive power for me. Technology is moving and you have to move with it. Do you? I don't stream, and other than missing some shows I might have liked, there doesn't seem to be any negative impact. 

One night, during my desk shift, this conversation came up, and said that I refused to voluntarily engage with it. My boss said, "Oh, you know you will" because he hasn't known me long enough to know that I went 47.5 years without a cell phone or what my powers of resistance are when I truly believe something shouldn't be used. A member who was passing by said, "You are going to get left behind like someone who continued to burn oil for lighting after electricity was invented."

"Okay," I said. "I'm totally fine with that. I couldn't be happier than to get left behind on this." 

FOMO is not a good reason for an adult to do anything. 

I am not saying that my personal boundary has to be everyone else's. While I wish I could wave a magic wand and make it not exist, it does. And we each have to make a decision about how we handle it. My advice is this. Make a decision. Like, actually think it through and decide. Exercise wisdom, whether you choose to engage with it or not. Don't just use it without thinking about its implications first.

Observations After Two Years Away From the Desk

I have just completed my second school year out of the full time classroom. Because of conference speaking, my edu-Twitter circle of friends, and substitute teaching, I still have the chance to observe the changes that are happening in education as not quite an outsider. Here's what I've noticed.

The post-Covid attendance and behavior issue is not getting better.

Before Covid, school attendance was always assumed. Kids may have faked an illness to get their parents to let them stay home for a day, or a parent may have decided their child needed a mental health day; but for the most part, kids came to school most days. Parents didn't plan a two-week European vacation during the school year and expect kids could just return and pick up with no negative impact. In the year after the pandemic restricted travel, we thought people were just itching to travel somewhere because they hadn't been able to. It turns out this thing that had once been a given (regular school attendance) was now viewed as optional in a way that did not re-stabilize after that first year. Because it is an issue of parental attitude, I don't know what the solution is, but kids cannot learn if they are not present. It doesn't matter how many videos they watch or the fact that they "make up" their work; it doesn't replicate being taught in the classroom (and wouldn't it be sad if it did?). Something's got to change to return regular attendance to the norm.

Just as attitudes about attendance changed during Covid, so did attitudes about behavior. I'm not saying everyone behaved perfectly before; they certainly did not. But, most behavior issues could be addressed with normal routines, procedures, and consequences. And, with a few notable outliers in each school, a call to the parents would result in improvement. Now, the parent is much more likely to accuse the school of gaslighting, demand to see video, or claim that the teacher "shamed" their child. Parents have difficulty understanding what behavior contagion looks like when there are 25-35 kids in a room. The resulting chaos makes learning impossible. Even experienced teachers with well established classroom management skills are finding it harder to keep control. May I recommend Tom Bennett's excellent book Running the Room. It reminds you that having an adult in charge is good for learning and good for the safety and security of students, and it is super practical.

Efforts at helping kids with anxiety are counterintuitive

One of the reasons behavior has gotten worse is that kids are more anxious than ever. This didn't start with the pandemic. The graph on self-reported anxiety remained at a relatively steady low/medium low rate until about 2012. While the angle of the slope did increase in 2020, the upward spike really started with the ubiquity of the smart phone in teenage pockets, not with the pandemic. Access to social media was 24/7, so there was no escaping the bullies or the FOMO, and healthy social time with friends and family was reduced. Normal teenage anxieties ballooned into diagnoses of anxiety disorders and 504 plans for schools.

We began attempting to address this before the pandemic with the implementation of Social Emotional Learning (SEL) programs. The theory was that if we taught kids breathing techniques and mindfulness, they would be better able to self-regulate. We taught lessons about empathy and kindness. We hoped all of this would reduce anxiety, but these lessons took time, which had to be created by removing something. What got reduced? Music, art, history, and science. Since reading and math get tested, they are usually safe, but sacrificing the arts for SEL was never going to reduce anxiety. Stand alone SEL lessons don't help anyway; those lessons should be weaved throughout during teachable moments, not taught in isolation.

So, what did we try next? Reducing the workload. Less homework should result in less anxiety, right? Easier classes should reduce the pressure and alleviate anxiety, yes? Eliminating writing standards to focus on student self-expression should serve as therapy, shouldn't it? All of that is well meaning, but it doesn't work because it's not how human beings are made. When we make classes easier, the unintended implicit messaging is "You can't handle this," decreasing their self image. When we eliminate homework to help with anxiety, their already anxious minds tell them, "Your teachers think you are weak." It has the exact opposite effect that we intend.

It's counterintuitive, but the best way to help a student deal with anxiety is to give them something challenging to do. Accomplishing things makes students feel . . . well, accomplished. Meeting a challenge makes them feel competent. When did we forget that there is satisfaction in a job well done? Doing hard things is the antidote to anxiety, not the cause of it. 

Schools are reckoning with the effects of EdTech

I'm going to admit to feel conflicted about this one. I was part of the committee at my school that adopted our one-to-one laptop program 16 years ago. I helped pick the tech and was a cheerleader for the pedagogy changes that came with it. So, when I read the research about the negative impacts of EdTech, I believe it, but I am also inclined to say, "We did some really great things with it."  And we did - especially in the first few years after adoption. Using the SAMR model, we had kids doing things and interacting with the world outside of the school walls in a way that wouldn't have been possible before. 

But the energy level required to keep up that level of great tech use was unsustainable in the end. So, they devolved into mostly digital note-taking devices (and distractions) with occasional good uses. Some schools are opting to eliminate their tech altogether, but that is, in my opinion, an overreaction. We have a tendency to swing the pendulum back to the other side rather than find the sweet spot between the two extremes. We want to still have those projects that require computers; we just don't want them to be sitting in front of them at all times. So, maybe we should go back to the carts of laptops that could be checked out when the lesson or project requires them. It would certainly cost schools a lot less than one to one programs, and much less time would be invested in computer hand outs, trouble shooting, and end-of-year collection. Just a thought.

Generative AI is a real problem - like even more than we anticipated it would be

I remember the first time I heard about ChatGPT, although I didn't know its name yet. It was fall of 2022, just one year after the endurance test that was hybrid teaching; so we were still exhausted and suffering from post chronic stress disorder (not a real diagnosis, but it should be). We were in a department chair meeting, and our principal said, "There something coming out that we're going to have to think about. It's a program that will allow students to ask for a report on a topic and tell it what level it should be at so it will sound real. And it will be harder to catch because you can't just Google some of the sentences and find it on a website." We all agreed that sounded terrible and wondered how the English department was going to handle that. Little did we know that it would affect so much more than essay writing. 

If you are reading this, you don't need me to tell you how quickly this spread. Some students view their chatbot as a friend and ask it for advice. Math homework is no longer an exercise in skill practice. Some have been so brazen as to take a photo of their test paper and upload it to an AI and let it take their exam for them. Lest you think the answer is to collect their phones on the way in, some teachers have posted that their students turned in a burner phone so that they could use their real phone during the exam. As with all new tech, there is a naive sector that says, "This will be fine. We'll just teach them to use it well." That didn't work with social media or phones, but here we go again.

I wish I had an answer to this, but I don't. So far, the best I have come up with is to build a time machine and go back to shake some sense into Sam Altman before he starts OpenAI, but I don't think that's the solution. 

I'm sorry for the negative tone here; it's just that there are some real problems to be solved. 

But I have a few reasons for optimism. 

• College students around America have been booing speakers who reference AI in their speeches. I'm not okay with the rudeness of booing a speaker, but I do find it heartening that the young are not fully on board with artificial intelligence. After the novelty wears off, students might crave real experiences. 
• There are groups called Do Hard Things clubs - started by students who didn't like the low expectations people had of them. They may not be the total solution to the anxiety epidemic, but they are certainly going to help.
• There are still a small number of students who will turn in cheating when they see it. 

Teaching is hard, and the developments of the past few years have made it harder. Graduation is either here or coming soon for most of you.  Rest well this summer. You have earned.

Sometimes The Answer's Right in Front of You - Ask Someone to Show You

I've been painting this week. The front door and the mailbox post were easy, but the shutters required more out of me, both physical and (as it turned out) mentally. Climbing the ladder over and over again with paint and a brush in my hands was only possible because of the good people at the YMCA, but the bigger challenge was figuring out how to paint the shutters without painting the windows.

The fronts of the shutters were simple, as long as I could balance myself on the ladder while using my hands to both hold the paint and do the painting. I had a plan for the outer edge, slide a piece of cardboard behind the shutter and then move it down as I descended the ladder and continued painting the edge. That worked perfectly. 

But what about the edge that meets the window? I can put the cardboard under the shutter there. And even if I could, I can't reach the far shutter from the ladder or see the inner edge of the near shutter. Given that it is less than half an inch wide, there's not a lot of room for error, especially if I can't get cardboard or tape there to protect the window. 

I had thought about it a fair amount. My mom and dad had both suggested things. Nothing was the right answer.

Then, I was walking with my friend, Meagan, to our class at the Y. I was in the middle of this story when she simply said, "Do your windows not open?" 

Of course, that's the answer. Of course it is. Stand on the floor inside my house and lean out the window. I can see and reach the inner edges of both shutters. Of course that makes the most sense.

Yet, it would have never occurred to me. I was too close to see it - literally.

This sometimes happens in your classroom. You have a part of your curriculum that seems to be a sticking point every year, but you can't figure out how to explain it differently. You have a project that isn't quite what you want it to be, but you don't have a solution for making it better. You have a nagging behavioral issue that tends to be a problem for you repeatedly.

Teachers, especially middle and high school teachers, often have an independent streak built by the fact that we stand alone in front of students all day long. We usually believe we can solve most any issue ourselves. But just as I was too close while standing on a ladder to view the shutters from a different perspective, you may be too close to the issues in your classroom to see obvious solutions.

So here's my advice. Spend some time during the summer talking to someone. It could be another teacher or an administrator, but it doesn't have to be. You may have a friend who can give you the teaching equivalent of "Do your windows not open?" and make a solution immediately clear. 

School leaders, you can help your staff with this as well. GRACE did this one year as part of our orientation meetings. Rather than an "icebreaker" (which, by the way, no one likes - ever), we were assigned to groups and told to bring an issue we were having. I brought a project that just wasn't producing the results I had hoped for.  In just a few minutes, I was given two fresh ideas that would help me to improve that project.

One thing that I feel was critical to the success of this group was that it was not a department meeting. Don't get me wrong; I adored my department, but the success of this came from the different perspectives each person in the group had. Other science teachers would have been locked into the same ideas I was; we would have all been too close to see the solution. The ideas I ultimately adopted from that meeting came from an English teacher and the Spanish department chair. They were able to see it in a way I couldn't. So I recommend mixing these groups.

If you want to improve some part of your process and feel stuck, ask someone to point out what is right in front of you.

They Behave (Only) For You

A few weeks ago, I asked this question on Twitter. "For those who use 'relationships' as their classroom mangement strategy, what do you expect to happen when I come in as a substitue?"

For me, a person without a blue checked account, these are pretty high engagement numbers, and it seems I struck a nerve with some. The responses I got came in two themes.

1. Nobody actually does that. Several people tried to tell me that there is "literally no one" who uses relationships as their primary strategy. I never typed it, but the response in my mind was, "Bro, do you even Twitter?" I mean, I wouldn't need to be on Twitter to know that many, many teachers use this strategy because I was alive and conscious during my career and met many teachers who believed this was the only way to go. But, you can't be on Twitter for long without seeing what a widespread belief this is. If someone expresses dismay at the behavior of students, the first and most frequent response will inevitably be to blame the teacher for not forming relationships with them. By the way, no one ever gives that poor teacher practical advice on how to do that or what it looks like, so they are left thinking they just have to be the fun teacher, leading to more chaos in their classrooms.
2. Their relationship with me will benefit you. This was the most common response by far. With minor wording differences, they all said, "Because they respect me, they will respect you and behave for you the same as they would for me." And, my Lord, what an adorably naive take this is on what happens when you are absent. If that were even a little bit true, I wouldn't have needed to post the question in the first place. Let me assure you that, no matter how much they like you (which is not the same thing as respect), they behave differently when you are not there. I don't blame the students for this; it's completely age appropriate. But you, adult friend, are crazy if you think every sub can't tell who uses the "relationships as management" strategy. You have taught them that they only have to behave for someone they have a relationship with, and they don't have a relationship with most subs.

And that last part is actually the bigger issue I want to address. When you make this your classroom management strategy, you are actually teaching them something bigger and not at all beneficial for their lives outside your classroom. You have taught them that the only time good behavior is when they have a positive relationship with someone. And that may seem like a good idea if you are only thinking about them in terms of your class, but they will carry this attitude to other contexts. And carrying the attitude that they only have to do things for people they like will not serve them well outside of the school.

In their lives outside of the school building, there are many rules and few relationships. They will go to a public pool, where rules are posted, and the lifeguard doesn't play hacky sack with swimmers to build a relationship first. They will shop in stores where basic civil behavior is expected without the cashier getting down on their level and calling them by name. At some point in their lives, they will be pulled over by a police officer; and they will not be well served by the attitude of "I only obey the people I like who also like me" that you have instilled in them. 

I'm not suggesting that you become an ogre in your classroom; I wasn't. I'm not even saying that relationships don't matter; they do. But, they shouldn't be the basis of your classroom management strategy. What should be? Routines, procedures, and rules with predictable consequences. That's what it means to manage behavior, and it doesn't depend on anything mysterious.

I mentioned earlier that every sub can tell who uses relationships as their strategy. We can also tell who has consistent routines. The students in those classrooms don't exhibit perfect behavior; they are still kids, after all. But they come in knowing where to look for information and engaging in the opening routine from force of habit. Routines are so ingrained that they do them without thinking about them. Squishy feelings about relationships are inconsistent and transient. 

If they behave for you, but that doesn't translate to behaving for anyone else, you haven't taught them good behavior. 

ResearchEdd NYC 2026 Raw Notes

 As the title suggests, these notes are raw, unedited, and blended with my thoughts in addition to what the speakers are saying. If you read something you don't like, it may be my interpretation and not their meaning, so don't hold anything against them.

Keynote 1: Using the Science of Learning to Rebuild Students' Learning Power: A Pathway to Equitable Academic Outcomes by Zaretta Hammond

What is the relationship between equity and cognitive science?

She was a writing teacher:  "Math gets you into college. Writing keeps you there." So, if you are a sound reader and writer, you are going to struggle in college. She wanted students to recognize their own errors in their writing. That led her to learning science. That eventually led her to write Culturally Responsive Teaching and the Brain. 

Equity is reduing the predictability of who succeeds and who fails and cultivates the unigifts and talents of every student, regardless of race, color, or zip code. 

In the age of AI, it is more important than it has ever been for student to learn how to learn and think on their own. Without those skills, they are at the mercy of the tech. They will not be ready to evaluate information.

Her next book, Cognitive Redlining, discusses how kids in lower income schools are disadvantaged by the trends in instructional practices. Cognitive science can reduce inequity by working with student brains. Rosenshine's principles of instruction are valid and wonderful, but they have kept us focused on teaching rather than learning.

"How do we leverage the science of learning to help students master the craftsmanship of learning?"

Design principles for craftsmanship

1. Only the learner learns - students' brains must be active (this is not the same as engagement or fun; it's about their thinking with cognitive flexibility)
2. Content must be processed and remembered in order to be retrieved. Retrieval practice is at the end of the information processing cycle. (SHE JUST QUOTED KEVIN WASHBURN!!)
3. Learning requires cognitive friction - Productive struggle is real, but it has to be productive. You have to get them to the place where the struggle can be productive, not just set them off to flounder. This leads to learning for understanding rather than assignment completion. We should not over-scaffold, or they won't become independent. (If you picked up a baby every time they stumbled or lost their balance, they would never learn to walk.) If scaffolds are never removed, they are not scaffolds; they are crutches that lead to dependence on the teacher.

We are "personal trainers" of students' cognitive development. If a personal trainer asks you to do 5 push ups, and you can only do 2, they don't jump down and do the other 3 for you. They give you some water and tell you to get back to it.

One off strategies do not help; these must become routines that are automated. New mental models must be developed. There is a human side of change; recognize that the first attempt will be messy like the first pancake and work that into the evaluation system.

Session 1: Getting Ahead of Behavior: Lightning Fast Behavior Moves by Zach Groshell

Let's face it; behavior is not improving. We have to do something.

The "putting out fires" model is exhausting for teachers and interferes with student learning.

They can't learn anything they aren't paying attention to.

Inattention and attention are contagious - fidgety behaviors spread, so do leaning forward behaviors

How to get ahead of it (adapted from Doug Lamov's TLAC)

1. Give clear directions - clear, umambiguous, sequenced, posted visibly
2. Be seen looking - swivel, tiptoes, hands cupped around ears - exaggerated body motions to show that you are looking and listening
3. Narrate the positive - state what is going right - "Kate, that's what I'm talking about." Acknowledge and praise the things you want to see continue.
4. Correct with the least invasive intervention - nonverbal first, "All means all" reminders to the group, anonymous individual corrections ("Back of the room is almost there" or "Waiting on 2, waiting on 1. Thank you." Then, private individual correction (This is not your go to; it's after other things don't work and after you have everyone else working on something). If nothing else has worked, quick public individual correction (whispered name).

Non-verbal behaviors can be clear and subtle without getting into a kids space and being overbearing.

Will this solve all of your behavior issues? No.  But it will create a better culture in which you can address those.

Session 2: How Can I Help - Using the Science of Learning to Help Students Study by Beth Hawks

I have no notes on this session for obvious reasons, but you can find my slides on thelearninghawk.com

Keynote 2: Knowing What to Do When You Don't Know What to Do: Becoming an Expert Teacher by Nidhi Sachdeva

Did her research with Paul Kirschner 

When something unexpected happens in your classroom, what do you do?  How do you know what to do?

Sully - Miracle on the Hudson - When the bird strike took out his engines, he had 208 seconds to decide what to do before the plane would crash. His expertise guided his decision making when the situation exceeded the checklists and the protocols.

Teachers make 1200-1500 spontaneous decisions every day

The best teachers benefit their students for at least 3 years after they stop teaching them. The effect is the most profound on those most disadvantaged. Expert teachers close the achievement gap because gains are made by everyone, but those who have been disadvantaged will make more gains more quickly.

What is an expert teacher? In some fields (chess, sports, business), there are measurable objective data points to establish rankings. This is less true in education. Much of our impact is not measured in test scores, and a lot of it shows up far after they leave our classrooms.

We need to know how to spot an expert teacher because we cannot develop what we cannot name. 

• Deep content knowledge
• Have fundamental knowledge and understanding of how we learn
• Masters in pedagoy and and instructional tools
• Classroom management
• Ability to adapt
• Create explicit, engaging, equitable, and successful learning environments

Both science and craft

• Science: Deep understanding of theories and principles
• Craft: Practical insight that comes from experience

Five Building Blocks of Teacher Knowledge and Skills

1. Domain Knowledge - You cannot teach content that you do not deeply understand, what examples will illuminate and what examples will mislead, what is coming next
2. Cognitive Psychology - understanding how memory works, how understanding is strengthened, how instruction can support or overload the learner, how novices and experts process information and solve problems differently
3. Didactics - Knowing how to teach your subject is the bridge between content and cognition. "A butterfly forgets that it was once a caterpillar." Translates knowledge into something learnable and usable. Knowing calculus and teaching calculus are two different things.
4. Tools - Be critical and selective users of technologies and instruments, whether textbooks and mini-whiteboards or visualizers and EdTech tools. Beware of the innovation illusion; newer isn't always better. Ask the question, "Does this serve learning?"
5. Pedagogy - How we relate. Underpins instructional decisions and shapes the teacher-student relationship, ensures a positive classroom environment. Without this, the other four building blocks are tools without conscience.

The craft of teaching is accumulated wisdom about content, students, curriculum, and pedagogy.  It's wisdom in action. 

The science of teaching should happen during a teacher's initial preparation. The craft happens through continuous professional development as they teach. Best case scenario: New teachers have the science, but not much craft yet (That's assuming the science is being taught well in colleges).

Developing expertise comes from 

• Experience - learning on the job, helps you develop quickly early, but tends to plateau without the right conditions
• Organized professional development - workshops, courses, conferences, coaching programs - provides inspiration, but tends to prioritize exposure over practice
• Deliberate practice - consciously and systematically improving instruction through repeated practice

Deliberate practice is not routine repetition and isn't accomplished just by teaching more lessons. It is highly structured, purposeful, and effortful with a specific focus for improvement, including feedback and immediate repetition to incorporate the feedback.

Deliberate practice needs a specific goal, not vaguely worded hope. (The difference between a New Year's Resolution and an actionable goal.)

Sully's 40 years of deliberate practice, experience of emergencies, and time spent BUILDING expertise allowed him to act rather than panic. Teachers need schools to provide protected time for practice and feedback, coaching cultures rather than just evaluations, and leaders who value and model improvement.

Session 3: I planned to attend a session, but I decided to catch up with Andrew Watson and talk with Zach Groshell and Gene Tavernetti instead.  This was the right decision, but it means that I, sadly, have no notes for you.

Session 4: “Kids Do Well When They Can”: Misconceptions About Neurodiversity and How You Can Remove Barriers in the Classroom by Kristen Simmers and MB Spencer

Kristen's brother was born without a corpus collosum. He was seen at school as a kid who couldn't, while they saw him at home as someone who very much could. Her sister had no diagnosis until she was an adult, and she was just labeled as difficult. She is now an ER doctor.  MB was a regular classroom teacher with a high number of special needs students. She realized that the primary delivers of special education services had no special education training. 

Neurodiversity is an umbrella term that incorporates ADHD, autism, Tourette syndrome, OCD, dyslexia, and many others.

Neurodiverse conditions are differences in brain wiring. They will have mismatched skillsets; they may struggle in one area but excel in another. The labels are inconsistent, so you can't make assumptions about all kids with autism based on one kid you knew with autism (or any other condition). It's not uncommon for a person to have a great vocabulary and be highly verbal but have poor performance in writing. They might have high math reasoning and low math performance.

Dyslexia - Every civilization has spoken language. Speaking disorders are rare. Reading is an artificial skill. We are not biologically wired to do it. Learning it is incredibly complex and involves many areas of the brain working together in milliseconds. The brain repurposes some of your facial recognition skills to create letter recognition.

Stanislas Dehaene's research is leading toward subsets of dyslexia, 

• phonology based
• grapheme phoneme conversion
• visual code for letters (letter position, mixing nearby words)

Autism - moving away from the spectrum description and making it more of a wheel. Students have different positions in different areas on the spokes of the wheel.

ADHD - Executive function dysfunction

Neurological in origin, asynchronous development of skills

Not about attention or hyperactivity but about executive function (kids generally have trouble with EF). The name came from what were able to see rather than the cause. This leads to problems with self-regulation, self-awareness, self-evaluation, and motivation.

There is a different motivation structure than a fully developed brain. The part of the brain involved doesn't finish developing in most humans until 25. Don't make this an excuse - "They can't do it because their brains aren't fully developed yet." Rather, take advantage of the fact that this is the time of highest neuroplasticity, so it is time to harness that.

For most of us, a balance of rewards and consequences determine our actions.  ADHD brains seek dopamine and fail to predict consequences. They seek out things that are interesting, novel, challenging, urgent, or playful because those things produce dopamine. Sometimes, their argumentative nature happens because conflict produces dopamine.

Everything that is helpful for neurodivergent kids is good for ALL learners. 

Diagnoses happen when it impedes your life. Don't diagnose yourself just because you have a quirky behavior.

Practical Strategies

Recognize variability. They will not all respond exactly the same way to instruction or interventions. Research doesn't give a recipe; it gives ingredients. 

Audit your physical environment for sensory issues, managing choices, visual scaffold, a strength based emotional climate, and explanations of the "why" when it comes to rules.

Resource binders should be available.  Visual cues in their workspace will help them be ready. Don't let them start work until their workspace is ready. Notetaking guides and templates are good scaffolds. Printed copies of the notes are not. They need to write whatever they can. 

Panel: Thinking About Implementation Outside NYC by Zach Groshell, Meg Lee, Ian Kelleher, and Lynn Gaffney

Q:  Can you explain more about the mix of the science of learning and the practical craft?

A:  Zach: Developing teachers in the science of learning is a lot like developing professional athletes. Current NBA players are better at basketball than their coaches, but they still need coaching. Teachers can be well versed in pedagogical knowledge, but they may need coaching in the implementation. It isn't imposed; it's collaborative.  Meg: We need to look at what the science of learning can do for children first, but adults a close second. Balance what we want for every learner with the recognition that teaching is really hard and getting harder, so we can have teachers put down the things that aren't working well (if differentiation isn't working, let them stop).  Lynn:  We haven't been working in an evidence based profession, but that is changing. 

Q: What are three science of learning strategies that have been criminally underused?

A: Lynn: Spaced retrieval. Meg: Both students and adults need time to process deeply. Give more wait time deliberately.  Zach: Focus on design, not just delivery. Train a few people in your school to recognize whether the design of materials use evidence based principles or not.

Q: If you could wave a magic wand and have one thing appear in every classroom, what it would be?

A: Meg: Ian Kelleher's most recent writing about AI.  Lynn: Zach should appear in every classroom.  Zach: Explicit instruction in every classroom

Q: It's better to learn from other people's mistakes than your own. Are there any science of learning principles that are being misused?

A: Lynn: A lot of districts see science of learning as an add on, just another new initiative. Zach: Recognize that coaching is needed, not just one day PD sessions. One day sessions are great for inspiration, but there need to be habits developed in systems.  Meg: People are overwhelmed with a whole lot of strategies without an understanding of the whole picture. Then, teachers don't know how to apply strategies fluidly or across contexts. 

Q: Meg says, "You can wait out a roll out." How does it look to have brain science just incorporated into the fabric?

A: Meg: You can't just have "the year of the brain" any more than a dentist can have "the year of the tooth." You need to incorporate teacher expertise and wisdom, not just lay science of learning on top of lesson plans.

Q: What can you remove of replace in current school structure:

A: Lynn: Remove hand raising; replace with mini whiteboards.  Zach: Principals are following marching orders, even when they conflict with what their teachers are doing. Leadership needs to stand up and say, "It's just too much. We've divided our attention too much. Let's just focus on the essential pieces." Meg: Ask how organizations are spending time and resources, teacher time, student time, and tools that just have a sticker slapped on it that says "research based." Develop a "baloney-ometer."

Q: Who is your academic crush?

A: Lynn: Carl Hentrick, Zach Groshell, Gene Tavernetti, Mike Shmalker, Doug Lamov, Patrice Bain, Karen Chenowith. Zach: Marcy Stein (his college professor and member of Project Follow Through), Meg: Teachers with blogs or who speak at events like this or go on podcasts to talk about what is happening in their classrooms.

The research informed instruction community is altruistic, slightly crazy, love teaching, and love their kids and teachers.  Reach out to them, and enjoy more of their content.

FInishing is Less Intimidating that Starting

I've been working on a crochet project for several weeks now, and I've noticed something about myself I did not know. 

When I need to decide where to stop, it is not ever at the end of a row. I finish the row I am on, then turn and do several inches of the next row.  This part was not surprising; I knew I did that.  What was new to me as the reason. I had always told myself that I did this to prevent stitches from pulling out at the end of the row, but it is just as likely they will pull out in the middle. 

What I realized about myself this morning is that the reason I like to end on a partial row is that it is less daunting when I pick it back up the next time. I've already started this row; no all I have to do is finish it. It's a little psychological motivation game I play with myself, but I think it reveals something larger

Finishing is less scary than starting. 

Maybe it's the power of inertia. Maybe it is easier because you have a visual representation of what is left. Maybe it has to do with procrastination. I don 't know.  But I do know that starting something is more challenging than picking up where you left off.

This makes intuitive sense. Starting a race is difficult, but once you are running, you can usually keep running (unless it is something crazy - like an ultramarathon, requiring a different kind of endurance). Writers know the white page problem; it's daring you to create something from nothing. But once something is there, you can ride the flow of your thoughts. The heaviest weight in any workout is the front door of your house.

What could this mean for classrooms?  Perhaps, we can employ this psychology for projects, homework, and writing assignments. If math allow enough time at the end of a class period to do one of the problems they have assigned for homework and then say, "Okay, finish this tonight," perhaps it will be easier for the student to motivate themselves after dinner. After all, they only have to finish what they've already started.  Perhaps an English teacher can walk students through the first sentence of a paragraph and then say, "You're off to a good start. Keep going." 

For long term projects, we can teach students to use this trick as well. We are pretty good at helping them break work into chunks, but what if we said, "Don't finish at the end of the chunk. Either stop a little early or keep going into the next chunk a little ways"? Might it be easier for them to start the next session.

At a session of Learning and the Brain a few years ago, Dr. Jessica Minahan recommended putting a bar of squares at the top of a homework page (ten problems = ten squares) and then telling students to fill in a box each time they finished a problem. It provided a visual representation of how much they had already done and how much there was left to do.  She compared it to the loading bar on a computer; it's nice to see that there is only 20% left. 

Psychological tricks may sound goofy, but they do often help. I play a similar game with myself every Thursday morning at work. After scanning in the first wave of exercisers who are in line when the Y opens, my next job is to fold a cart heaped with towels. There are two sizes of towels, and I always start with the big ones first. It allows the volume remaining in the cart to drop quickly. After I reach the rim of the cart, I switch to small ones for a little while because the incoming class needs more of them. Then, I switch back to large ones for a little while, eventually just taking them in whatever order they come. 

Does any of this make towel folding quicker?  Nope. It takes the same amount of time no matter what order I fold them in, but it does change how long it feels. Seeing that volume drop quickly at the beginning make it feel like finishing this won't be so bad. 

And sometimes, that's all it takes to get a job done.

Can't You Just Talk to Them?

There is a new rule at my gym.  Well, actually it's not a new rule. It is a new policy of enforcement of a previously existing rule. IF people sign up for a class and then don't show up for it (or cancel their reservation within two hours of the class time) five times in a 30 day period, they will be locked out of making reservations for 14 days. 

It is causing, as I am sure you can imagine, some angst among members.  As with most organizations, the ones who are feeling angst about it will likely never have to worry about it because they are not the problem. 

So, I have spent a couple of weeks talking people down from the ledge. I am mostly clarifying misconceptions - "No, it's not three times ever; it's five times in a month." and "Yes, you are still welcome to come if there is space; you just won't be able to reserve a spot."

About 90% of the people I explain things to end up feeling fine about the rule, even commenting on the graciousness of the policy.

Until Tuesday afternoon. A classmate of mine (who will be in no way impacted by this change) was complaining about it. I thought I could help her see the reasonableness of this by explaining some of the abuses of the system that required a need for the enforcement, canceling up to 25 times in two weeks. She was not having it.  

• "Well, that was just one person," she said.  
• "Oh, my no. It was not. It was widespread enough across the system that this was needed to be     fair for those who play by the rules," I replied.
• "Well, why do we need to sign up at all?  Why can't it be first come first served, like it used to be?" she said.

And that's when I realized that she doesn't understand that other people have a different experience than she does. 

• Some can't get here 30 minutes before class starts to claim their spot because they are coming from work and fighting traffic. 
• Some abuse the system, preventing others from getting the benefit of their membership.

I said to her, "I don't think you are recognizing that different people have different constraints."  

Her reply was, "I can't imagine that there are enough people that this needs to happen.  Can't they just talk to those people who are a problem?"

Well, tell me you've never led a large group of people before, ma'am. Those two sentences revealed so much that I have seen, mostly in my education career, but also in any large organization.

1. What you can imagine is not the same as the reality of what's happening. Those who tend to follow rules believe that most other people do too. This, friends, is not the case. We live in a culture where a large minority believe rules were made to be broken or that specific rules don't apply to them if they can justify their reason for breaking them.  People who hold a strong opinion about an issue have trouble understanding why anyone would see it differently. Our lack of imagination about the minds of others prevents us from recognizing an experience other than our own. She couldn't imagine this to be a widespread problem; but I've seen the data, so I know that it is.
2. Talking to the problem person rarely solves anything. Students who misbehave in school rarely stop because the teacher or principal has a private chat with them. The recent popularity of "restorative discipline" has resulted in little behavior change. And that's with students who have relationships with school staff and classmates. Imagine how little it will help with adults who don't know each other.  People who speed or run red lights regularly will not stop because a cop pulls them over and gives them a good talking to. There may be a very small percentage of people for whom a conversation would effect change, and those are the people who rarely break the rules to begin with.
3. Consistent consequences (even small ones) change behavior. I have solid memory of a time when almost no one wore a seatbelt. PSAs about danger did little to help. Changing the law helped some, but a lot of people knew they weren't going to get pulled over most of the time. What did change behavior? Car manufacturers installed a tone that goes off if you don't put your seatbelt on. That's not an onerous punishment, but it an annoying consequence of not buckling up. Most importantly, it is consistent. It happens EVERY time you don't buckle your seatbelt. I don't know anyone (and this could be my lack of imagination, I admit) that keeps driving while listening to that annoying beep. Friday, I buckled a bag of soil into my car because that stupid alarm wouldn't stop! This policy has grace built into it, but when you hit five strikes, technology will take over so that there is a consistent consequence. 

Tom Bennet talks about small and consistent consequences in his great book, Running the Room. It's about classrooms, but it isn't hard to see how it could apply in any organization with people, from gyms to churches to civil law. Thank people when they do something right; be predictable about consequences when they do something wrong.  

No, you can't just talk to them.