The Future of Education (private feed for michael.b.horn@gmail.com)

Carnegie Learning was perhaps the first company to enter the education technology market with an artificial intelligence (AI) powered math learning solution. CEO Barry Malkin joined me to talk about Carnegie Learning's approach, how the company has evolved since those early days, and how they approach some of the hot button questions in math education. In particular we tackled questions around conceptual learning in math versus memorizing procedures, the grain size at which Carnegie Learning approaches personalizing learning, and what the impact of artificial intelligence is likely to be more broadly. As always, you can listen to the conversation above if you subscribe, watch it below, or read the transcript if you’re a paid subscriber. Michael Horn:Today's guest, Barry Malkin, has had a fascinating career at a fascinating perch right now at a company that I got to know very early on in my introduction to the world of education technology, which is Carnegie Learning. We're going to hear a significant update, I think, about what they're up to and as well as frankly some perspective on some of the burning questions that educators are really asking right now around the rise of AI and more, but all in this bigger question because we're obsessed with helping all individuals build their passions and fulfill their human potential. And so Barry, first, it's great to see you. Thank you for doing this.Barry Malkin:Well, thank you for having me. It's a pleasure to be here.Horn:Yeah, you bet. So let's start with that, just your own background into your current role leading Carnegie Learning and your own journey. I suspect when you started out, that's not something you would've necessarily guessed that this is where you'd be at the moment.Malkin:No, probably not. Although, I have enjoyed every moment of it. I've been here for seven years now, and I'm having a ton of fun. We're making huge progress and having a huge impact on students across the country, so I couldn't be more thrilled with what I'm doing. I have had I guess an interesting pathway to where I am today. So I started as an investment banker in New York many, many moons ago focusing on mergers and acquisitions and covering a variety of industries at the time. And so I was in New York for a while. I'm from the Midwest originally. I'm from Milwaukee and a Midwesterner at heart and decided to finally move back to the Midwest and brought my fiance or wife at the time to Chicago with me, who is a New Yorker, so that was a bit of a tough sell, but I was able to convince her. And I got a job working for Deborah Quazzo and Michael Moe, actually. That was my first job in education.I was working with them, for them at Merrill Lynch in Chicago, and they were building an amazing business services and educational services practice at the time, and I just fell in love with education. I fell in love with the people, I fell in love with, the mission, the entrepreneurialism. It just felt right for me, and I kept rolling with it. So I stayed in investment banking for a while with Deborah and Michael, went to another firm where I also stayed for a while and was advising companies all over the world on capital raising and mergers and acquisitions in education across the spectrum. I made a job transition at that time, and I went to what they call the buy side where I worked for a public company, Career Education Corporation, in their mergers and acquisitions group. And again, working all across the world looking for higher education institutions to purchase at the time.That was a transition from advisor to principal, and I really, really enjoyed it. To make a long story short, I ended up at Apollo Education Group where I was the global head of mergers and acquisitions there and worked on an acquiring educational technology companies and higher education institutions and even building some product there and doing some strategy work as well. It was a lot of fun. I was there for about six years. One of the acquisitions I did at Apollo was Carnegie Learning. So in 2011, we had a real challenge at the University of Phoenix, which was the largest business within the Apollo Education Group, and that was we were having persistence problems with students getting through basic math education courses, and we needed a solution. We were using products by a number of third parties, and it just wasn't satisfying the requirements, and we were losing too many students too early in their post-secondary education journey.So we went around, we looked for solutions, and we came across Carnegie Learning. We were fascinated by the work that they were doing, the research that backed the product, the AI and its capabilities, and we ended up acquiring the company in 2011. Again, to make a long story short, the post-secondary industry had lots of challenges, and the integration of Carnegie Learning into Phoenix didn't quite happen in the way we all envisioned it because of lots of distractions and changes in that landscape, but the idea was to obviously improve the outcomes in math, but also to leverage the AI across different subjects and classes throughout the university. So that was the rationale. It was a good thesis, a really good thesis, and a great little business.In 2015, so I had left Apollo, and I had been gone for about a year, I was doing some advisory work, some personal investing, and trying to figure out my next gig when Carnegie Learning was for sale. So they decided to divest the business when they were taking it private, and I put together a small group, and we bought the business from Apollo. It's been seven years now, and we've completely transformed the organization. I just always thought it was a sleeper. I thought it had great bones, amazing people, great technology, the pedagogy was amazing, and I naively felt that I could do something with it.Horn:Well, and you haven't been wrong, so I mean that's your history and coming into it. The history of Carnegie Learning I think is also fascinating because people may know, maybe they don't, but if they don't, it was initially a math-only solution, and if I recall really an algebra-only solution developed out Carnegie Mellon. It was built with AI. As you said, it's really, I think it's fair to say, and we'll get into this later, the first ed tech product with artificial intelligence in it that I'm aware of anyway, and a rigorous curriculum, rigorous backbone, lot of research behind it. It also had a very, at the time, sort of specific, shall we say, classroom models, a little arcane in its early days, but you all have evolved a ton. You have even more research. You're one of the few folks that has a federal government research study behind it showing positive and significant effects on student learning, but what are you all today? It's much broader than math if I look at the website.Malkin:Yeah, it is broader than math. And so when I began in 2015, we were simply focused on middle school and high school mathematics, and that had been the business for 20 plus years. And as you said, it started at Carnegie Mellon University. It started as a research project between the School of Cognitive Science, the School of Psychology, and the computer science department, all led by John Anderson who was really the force behind the research that created what was called Cognitive Tutor at the time. That was very early in ed tech days before there were computers in classrooms. And in schools, they weren't prevalent at all, so they were way, way, way before their time, but they had some success rolling it out as a research project within the Pittsburgh Public school system and got a lot of interest in what they were doing from districts across the country. And Carnegie Mellon University is a very commercial university and knows a lot about tech transfer and monetizing intellectual property, and that's exactly what they did with Carnegie Learning and created a company from it.So we've evolved quite a bit. We first started out as a technology company, we moved into curriculum, and then we also moved into services. So those are really the three legs of our business today. But now we're broadening the business beyond math, but also expanding within math as well. So one of the most exciting things that's happening at the company is the launch of our K-5 math product, which is going to be a blended learning product, much like our existing 6-12 product line. So we're incredibly excited about this. This company has always wanted to do a K-5 math product, and so I'm incredibly excited. The product's amazing. It'll launch officially at the beginning of September, but we're already getting a lot of interest in it.That's the main thing. We've expanded beyond 6-12 math into K-5, but we've also expanded into literacy as well as world languages as well, and we're putting a lot of effort into improving, reinventing, and wrapping technology around those subjects as well. So we're super excited. We've got a new core 6-12 product coming to market and lots of exciting things happening in the world languages space as well.Horn:Very, very cool. So let's dive deep though in the math strand itself because one of the interesting things that you all say is you don't just teach people the what of subjects like math, but you really focus on the why behind it. I can guess what that might mean, but I'd love to hear it from you. What does that really mean? How does that work in a digital learning solution? I think when people think digital learning, they think procedures and computations, but not why. That sounds like something you'd get out of a humanities course. So how are you all doing that?Malkin:Look, the whole point of what we do is to strengthen the conceptual understanding of mathematics. We are not a procedural math company. We really believe that students must internalize and understand why they're doing the math, what its proper application is, and when and how to use it most effectively. And if you're just teaching multiplication tables and memorization and manipulating equations, you're not teaching anybody the application of that mathematics, and so that's really what we try to do. We center a lot of our problems around word problems, and I know some students find that more challenging, but at the end of the day, it produces students who understand much, much more about the mathematics and how to apply it in the real world.If you were a engineer at SpaceX, and you were trying to figure out the aerodynamics of a rocket, an equation is not suddenly going to appear for you to solve that problem. You're going to have to figure out what it is you're solving, the purpose of the math that's necessary to solve that problem, and then only then do the equation. So this is what we do, this is how we teach, and we believe it's by far the most effective way of instruction.Horn:So I want to dig in this a little bit more and understand it better because as you know, there's been this big reckoning over the last few years around the science of reading. And for folks tuning in, the importance that you actually have to teach the mechanics of how to read and not just guess based on the pictures near you and so forth. We haven't seen that, I don't think, in math per se. We've seen commissions come along and so forth, but it does seem to me, if I look at it from a high level, that there are some food fights or fractures, if you will, in the world of math. Crassly, I'd say on the one hand you've got folks talking about the importance of learning procedures, getting to automaticity through like, you got to memorize your times tables so that you'll be able to do the higher order math.And then I think on the other hand, you have the conceptual folks that talk less about the importance of getting the right answer and more understanding the why behind the answer, sort of what are the mechanisms in other words. And I'm just sort of curious, in your answer, it sounds like you're saying both have wisdom, but I'd love to know how you think about the split and fundamentally what's the country getting right and wrong right now about math instruction?Malkin:So you said something that was interesting. You said that in the conceptual framework of mathematics, you care less about what the answer is, and I think that's a misconception. We want to get to the right answer, we just don't believe there's a singular path to achieving that answer. Every problem in life has a number of solution sets. It doesn't matter if it's math or any subject or domain. So there is a right answer here, but we want students to be able to prove it out in their own way. It doesn't mean there's a unlimited pathways, we obviously need to instruct the student in the most efficient method, but by stressing the conceptual framework and the ability for student to take their own path, it's only there that we can actually understand where their struggles are and where their misconceptions are. If they're just memorizing math problems and manipulating equations, we can't see the work. And if we can't see the work, we can't really diagnose the specific skills that they're struggling with.Horn:That is super interesting. So in other words, it sounds like, yes, I'm doing the procedures, but I want to see your actual work behind it to see the pathways because it may turn out that when I start to do the quadratic equation, you realize Michael actually has a more fundamental problem on understanding exponents or multiplication or whatever it might be, I don't know, factoring. And so using that would say, "Okay, we actually got to go there and maybe it's not a procedural thing, it's like a conceptual. Michael doesn't understand that this is in fact a question of division." Is that sort of how you're thinking about it?Malkin:That's exactly right. What's interesting is our textbooks as well as our software utilize the same principles. So even though it's a digital solution, the digital solution is unpacking the specific skills that students are struggling with. And so within any math problem that we're providing within our MATHia software, we could be analyzing anywhere between five and 25 different skills in a single math problem, and we're really looking at those discreet capabilities of the student to understand where their struggles are. So it works our print, in our eBooks, as well as our software.Horn:It's fascinating. So this actually I think hits at another tension we see right now in the math... it's not the reading words, we don't have the math words, but I think there's some tensions brewing, and one of them seems to be acceleration versus remediation, like you're going to fix the thing that the kid is struggling with versus we're going to push you through, but we'll sort of loop in to build the skill up that maybe is deficient in the service of that high order thing. I think those are the crass categories, if you will. How do you think about that question? I have a guess based on what you just said, but I'm sort of curious philosophically how you think about the importance of personalizing learning in a subject that's more cumulative maybe than any other subject that's out there.Malkin:This is a hot button of this organization, as well as myself personally. So what's happening in math education really way too often is that students are being placed in below grade level content because they are struggling with some component of on-grade level material. And unfortunately, when you take a student and you put them two, three grade levels behind, it could be a life sentence for being behind in mathematics for, like I said, forever. And so what we try to do is we try to remediate the specific skills that they're struggling with. And every student, whether they're an accelerated class or intervention course, they need remediation, but they don't necessarily need to be put in a single or multiple grade levels below where they need to be. And so we think of it as a highway. And the student can get off the highway for a moment or go on a rest stop, but they're getting back on that highway.Most other companies through remediation, intervention, they're taking them off the highway, and they're putting them on a completely different road. We don't believe that's necessary. We think with the power of our curriculum and the power of our software that we can see specifically where they're struggling and maintain their trajectory on the road, on the on-course level material.Horn:It's super interesting. This is my aha thing from hearing you say that, and tell me if I have this right. It sounds like to me, basically you're saying, "When we personalize along the categories of on-grade level or all for fourth grade math versus sixth grade, it's too blunt an instrument. We are tracking people on things that are hard to escape. Whereas when we're personalizing it sort of the atomic level of the specific misconception, then we're being much more precise. We allow for a lot more fluidity." Frankly, once you remediate maybe that one thing I didn't understand from three years ago, I might start soaring now because now everything comes together. Is that the right way to think about it?Malkin:Exactly. A hundred percent. Every single student needs remediation at one point or another. The difference is we are keeping them on grade level. We're not sending them down a grade or two. We, that's our whole objective. That's our north star. Keep them on grade level, remediate them where and when it's necessary, but keep them on task.Horn:That's awesome. All right, so last topic as we finish up because you all hit on a bunch of the hot button issues in education, and the last one right now is artificial intelligence. It's everywhere. ChatGPT. And is it the end of English and all these questions and math faculty being like, "Now you have a calculator," and all this stuff. So I said it up front, Carnegie Learning was at least as far as I know, perhaps the first solution out in the market with an AI driven solution. So not the first in research, but really out in the market. There's obviously so much hype, excitement, worries around this stuff right now. And it can be beyond your product. How do you think about the use of AI in education? Where's it going to make an impact? Where is it overhyped? And I mean, you probably have a level of nuance that we don't, so what are we missing? What's the media conversation missing about this story?Malkin:Yeah. Well look, things are changing so rapidly with ChatGPT, and it's hard to know exactly where it's going to go. I'm not a fortune-teller or Nostradamus, so I don't know exactly. Look, the real challenge of teaching in the classroom is being able to differentiate between all the students and all their different needs because they're all at different places, without question. And so the power of artificial intelligence is the ability to give those teachers some additional leverage to help all of these different students who are at many different places. It's what our MATHia software does, it's what it was built for, and it's really what makes it so special. It's a competency-based framework. Everybody goes through it at their own pace, and it provides that differentiation to really help again scale the teacher's ability. So I think AI is an incredible tool. It's obviously in its infancy, but the power of it and GBT and AI is really around the ability to personalize instruction for every student.That is the Holy Grail of education to be able to meet every student where they are at any moment. And so I'm very, very excited about the recent developments. It's going to keep us on our toes. We have to continue to reinvent ourselves and continuously improve our products, but I couldn't be more excited about where things are headed.Horn:Let me stay on that one bit, and this is my observation. You didn't put me up to it, but I think it's a chance for you all to toot your own horn.Malkin:Okay.Horn:No pun intended. But as I look at it, one of the things that I've sort of concluded about AI before the ChatGPT stuff came out was that in and of itself, it's not going to deduce causality of what things you've got right or wrong in its own sort of big abstract model. It is best used when it's built on a rigorous curriculum with good assessments that are giving good data into the model, and it has a theory of learning. And when I look at you all, again, you're developed out of Carnegie Mellon, there's a clear theory of how math concepts connect with each other, the importance of understanding the why behind them, how you build that up, all that is there, and then the AI sort of turbocharges it within a model, it seems to me, as opposed to... I mean, we're seeing this right now with Bing and Google getting all sorts of things wrong in the world, which is okay when you're doing a search, less when you're instructing someone.It seems to me it's the two together though, like rigorous theory-led curriculum with the AI, that's like the magic sauce. Do you agree with that? Is that too simple?Malkin:I do agree with it. And this company is unique in that we have a large research staff. We are undoubtedly the most researched education technology company on the planet. There's been more independent, truly independent, not like casual research and case studies, but truly independent research that's been done on our products and services, and it's proven that the approach that we take is sound, it works, it works well, but it's... So it's a really a combination of the pedagogy and the technology that works so well together. So I think we're in a unique place as a company. I think we have the ability to really make huge gains in outcomes. There is going to be a flight to quality within the K-12 school systems. All of these products and services, whether it's supplemental or core, that have been sold into the market for way too long have not had any discernible impact on student learning. Just look at the numbers.And so I really think that districts are going to focus more on research-driven products that they can trust, that they can get a quantifiable return on investment, and that's why I think this is our moment. This company has always been way ahead of its time. Today, we are exactly where it needs to be to make a huge impact on students across the country.Horn:Well, here's to the impact. And Barry, thanks so much for joining us. I really appreciate you sharing the stories and the work that you're doing.Malkin:Well, thank you for having me. It's been a pleasure.Horn:Yeah, you bet. And for all of those listening, we'll be back next time on The Future of Education. Thank you for subscribing. Leave a comment or share this episode.

If we're serious about helping all individuals build their passions and fulfill their human potential, then we need to help them not just with their academics, but also focus on their health and wellness and their habits of success. A big part of that can and should be built on a foundation of fitness, which means instilling lifelong habits of fitness when they're in K–12 schools. But that means some big changes in how we think about sports, PE and more in our society. To help unpack elements of this topic, Steve Mesler, an Olympic gold medalist and the co-founder and CEO of Classroom Champions joined me, alongside Andy Rotherham, a national leader in the world of education reform, the co-founder of Bellwether Education, and a member of the Virginia Board of Education among other roles. Steve and Andy’s passions for this topic really shone through in this conversation, in which we touched on everything from the reasons why sports are beneficial to students, how the high demands and desires to be great in one thing can be counterproductive, and why it’s necessary to make sure sports are fun and not just about the competition. The conversation rolled into a lot of important and controversial places, as it touched on everything changing the youth sports culture to the role of social-emotional learning (SEL) in schools. As always, you can listen to the podcast, watch the video below, or read the transcript if you’re a paid subscriber.Horn: I've long said that if we're serious about helping all individuals do just that, then we need to help them not just with their academics, but also focus on their health and wellness and their habits of success. And a big part of that can and should be built on a foundation of fitness, which means instilling lifelong habits of fitness when they're in K-12 schools. But that means some big changes in how we think about sports, PE and more in our society.So, to help us think about this topic and frankly, the broader topic of preparing students to lead successful lives, we have two incredible guests today. First, we have a first on this show, we have an Olympic gold medalist in Steve Mesler. He won Gold in the 2010 Olympics in the four-man bobsled, but he also currently serves as the co-founder and CEO of Classroom Champions, which offers an award-winning social-emotional learning curriculum in K-8 schools.We also have my friend Andy Rotherham joining us today. Andy, of course, has been a national leader in the world of education reform, and he has served in a variety of roles, really as a bridge across the various partisan bickering and silos. He's the co-founder of Bellwether, which works to transform education systems to ensure systemically marginalized young people achieve outcomes that lead to fulfilling lives and flourishing communities. He writes the Eduwonk Blog, has been a columnist for Time, and serves on the Virginia Board of Education. You get the idea, two big deals here today. And with that, Andy, Steve, thank you so much for joining me. It's great to see you both.Rotherham: Great to be here. This is going to be fun.Mesler: Thanks for having us.Horn: Yeah, you bet. I just want to dive in with a macro question for you both really to set the table, which is, in both of your views, why are sports important to young people today? Andy, why don't you go first and then Steve, you can jump in after.Rotherham: Yeah. I mean, well, there's a couple reasons. I say there's like three, starting with a basic one. It's fun. Sports are fun. They're fun for kids, they're fun for us to watch. They bring a lot. But more importantly, there's a couple of really important things that happen with sports. One, we know kids who participate in sports and it's particularly true of girls. And I have daughters who participate in sports, have better outcomes. And some of that is obviously just the math. If you're spending time doing sports, that's time you're not spending doing other things. So it makes sense that some of the sort of behaviors we think about as being more at risk behaviors, you'd be less exposed to it just because of time. But even accounting for that, there are other things that lead to really good externalities and outcomes.And I don't think it's surprising you see, particularly again among women, women who participate in sports achieving elsewhere in their lives at a very high level. And I think that's because of that third thing. It gives you the ability to learn how to win, how to lose, how to communicate, how to work together, all kinds of skills that are just really important out there in the workplace and in life. And it lets you get them in a very authentic way. It's not contrived, it's not made up. You're learning those things through real lessons. I mean, I'm on Steve's board at Classroom Champions and we don't want to spend the whole time talking about that. But as I segue to Steve on this question, that is part of what we do at Classroom Champions is sort of letting students see this happening in authentic ways with their mentors. Not contrived ways and made up, but in very real ways, see these kinds of things and learn from them. Steve, what would you add?Mesler: Yeah, I mean, well first of all, wait a minute. We're not talking about Classroom Champions the entire time here?Rotherham: The bait and switch.Mesler: I know mean it's an incredibly important question, Michael, and I mean, I think honestly it leans back to your opening, which is thinking about how to help kids have a life that not only provides them academic opportunity, which then we know is whether you're looking to break the cycle poverty, whether you're just looking to get ahead of life or just do bigger things, that it really begins with academics. But I think the realization that it doesn't begin and end with academics is where sport comes into play. Because ultimately, what else are we all doing here? What else are we all doing here? But to live rewarding lives that we can live longer, we can live happier, we can be healthy, we can think longer, we can do all these things.And again, whether you're talking about trying to help kids, whether it is in some of the communities that Classroom Champions serves in Camden, New Jersey or in rural Indiana, or whether you are talking about those maybe on the haves side of the American economy, ultimately I think sport is this demonstrable place for kids to see, just like Andy said, I mean, I'm going to echo something that Andy said, but ultimately it's demonstrable.Kids can see it happening whether they're experiencing it themselves or not, and they're participating. Look, sports isn't for everybody. I'm okay with saying that, I'm comfortable with saying that. But the principles that sport teaches are for everybody. And when kids can see winning and losing happening, whether again on the field themselves or in others or in their role models, athletes still to this day right there with YouTube stars and TikTok stars athletes are those people. They're the only consistent role models as we've kind of transitioned from a generation that participates and watches things on television to now can find their own role models as they please on the internet. And those role models are getting thrown in their faces in a way that wasn't there when we were kids. Sports serves a purpose because again, the rules are clear. It's an opportunity to follow, agree to rules.And we have to remember, look, I spent eight years on the board of directors of the US Olympic and Paralympic committee, and if there's one thing that I really took away from that, it's all made up. It's all made up. We all decided the line in football is out and the line in tennis is in, those are arbitrary things, but so are majority of the laws and so are the majority of the things that we do in life. And I think sport is this wonderful place where life kind of just mirrors there where we've all agreed to a set of rules, we're going to follow them and the moment somebody doesn't follow them, they either get thrown in a penalty box and they have to sit on the sidelines and be singled out in front of 20,000 people in the NHL. You're sitting in a box just by yourself because you messed up and it reflects on that.So I think that's where, from a societal standpoint for sport, that's what I really see the value on. And again, Andy I think did a great job talking about those things that go into the sport world.Horn: No, that makes sense. And Charles Barkley, I suppose be damned in terms of the role model comment, but I'm curious sort of how we're doing on that in terms of schools and society more broadly, because this frankly doesn't have to all be on the backs of schools, but really opportunities for the kids that want to choose. And I take your point, not everyone's going to want to do sports, but for those kids that do want to participate, how are we doing in creating those opportunities in your view? And what are we doing right and wrong?Mesler: Yeah. No, I mean look, there's data behind this. There's my opinion, but then there's actually what the data says in this world. And the fact of the matter is that over the last 13 or so years ago, our friends over at Project Play at the Aspen Institute, Tom Farrey's and Jennifer's amazing shop over there. Their data's pretty clear. I mean participation's down from 45% in 2008 to I think 37% in 2021, that's a pretty material drop. And then over half of the kids that are participating, 58% of the kids that are participating are doing so through their community-based programming. So where are kids coming to those community based things. I live up in Calgary, Canada. I moved here to train when I was bobsledding. I was two feet wider, two feet taller back in my bobsled days. And I moved up here to train and our daughter can participate in community sport right here.Same thing happens all over America. So I think how are we doing? We're losing them. But I think in that turn, we can maybe also see the value and what it is that we're losing. And I think the only way to turn things around is people have to see what we're losing and see what the problems are. And I think this is going to be a pretty stark one outside of the concept that, look, when all of us were in school phys ed was a much more prominent part of our days. And I think the transition from when I went to school from the eighties and nineties, you could see phys ed activity, daily activity dropped from something that was a relatively daily occurrence to a once in every five or six day allotment. And two generations later, we are in a mental health crisis. Those things are not not connected. We've increased screen time and we've decreased physical activity and we've decreased the mandate of that in our schools. To your point, it doesn't have to happen in schools, but hey look, basically 100% of kids are in schools.Rotherham: So I guess I look at it a little differently. That was interesting and we didn't rehearse this. So that was interesting to hear from Steve because I look at it a little bit differently. I don't think we're doing great. And there's some, I mean, look, Steve mentioned the Aspen work and they're doing just fantastic work on this. I encourage everybody to check it out. One of the things in a recent study they put out it's almost $900 a year people are paying out of pocket for sports. So that right there, that's going to be inaccessible for a lot of people. And I think that's actually a low number, if you know kids-Mesler: Did I say it wrong? It's dropped.Rotherham: Yeah, yeah. No, it's dropped, I know it's happening around the country. I worry that we're actually de-emphasizing rec sports in favor of competitive sports. And so for example, Chili Davis, the baseball player, he's talked about how it's become so specialized, he's not sure he would've been a baseball player now, and you're seeing this in a number of sports. I remember with my girls, a well-intentioned parent with older kids took us aside when they were playing soccer and was like, "Hey, if you're really serious about them succeeding in soccer at a high level, playing varsity, be able to play really competitive, travel. Here are the kinds of things you need to be doing with them now." Clinics, labs, specialized coaching, my girls were seven at the time. And we were like, they don't even know how much they like soccer. And they've both been very successful in sports, but neither of them actually in soccer, they found their way to other sports.So what I worry about Michael a lot is we're losing that emphasis on sort of sports for fun, sports for rec. Kids stop playing when the funnel gets more narrow. And so if they're not making varsity, and they're on track for that, they stop playing if they're not JV. You see that funnel, and I don't want to romanticize it, but if you spend time in Europe, I'm always struck, even when you just talk to people in a lot of European countries, they don't ask you, do you play sports? They ask you do you do sport? What sport do you do? And that's not just a contrivance of language, it's a different thing. We think of play and competition and so forth, they think of doing as moving and doing those things and being active. And I think there's a reason you see in Europe, many more people playing sports much later into their lives than you see here.And so to Steve's point earlier about the important health outcomes and so forth, we should want to get as many kids as possible playing. So we'll have as many adults as possible still moving and doing things. And I just don't think we're doing a great job. And one thing maybe we can talk about here is that relationship, school sports, community sports, do we need to be rethinking that just as a basic access, equity, inclusion kind of question?Mesler: Yeah, no, and sorry Mike, I'll hop in. Because I think Andy is, again, having lived in a foreign country for 20 years now and yet Classroom Champions works across the US system and across the Canadian system, I have this really interesting opportunity to look at both sides and then again, being part of the US pipeline, I did junior Olympics from 10 or 11 years old. I got an NCAA scholarship and then I went to three Olympics and then I sit on the board. So I personally have had the entire lifecycle of doing multiple sports as a youth, excelling in one that I found after my first sport and then moving through the entire system and then wind up overseeing the system in that way. And I think that there's one thing that the US has a completely different viewpoint of than the rest of the world.And that is to what Andy said, there is our viewpoint of the value of sport. It is intuitive in Canada that sport for young people is good. It's intuitive in Europe, that's sport for young people is good. In America it's like, well, I don't want my, they're going to try to go to the NFL where they're trying to go to the NBA. We have this viewpoint that participation in sport has an end goal, which is success at these higher levels in a lot of ways. And it's permeated through and kind of corrupted, to Andy's point, they're trying to get them at seven years old. They're trying to get them into clinics and all these things because Andy's goal must be to get them a college scholar scholarship. That must be the goal if he's having a seven-year old participate in sports.And I see it now on the other end of Andy in some ways, I've got a five and a half year old and an almost one-year-old. So I'm thinking about these things a lot. And it is, how do you change that? I don't if you could think about changing the culture in America on that one, but how can we change? We change. And I think that's where schools do come into play because you do have systemic opportunities there that you can influence in that way.Horn: And that sort of gets where my head goes, which is, so I've got eight-year-old girls, they're super into gymnastics. I can see the funnel already starting and frankly it's kind of crazy from what I've read about the research around not trying to specialize. And then to your point, we sort of have this PE which frankly I was in Montgomery County growing up. They had already moved PE to once a week I think, back in the 1980s. But you sort of see this steady decline of a focus on participation in movement and that just be active. And I guess in terms of this participation conversation, two of the books that I've read that have really influenced my thinking over the past decade are both by David Epstein and Steve, you reminded me that you're in one of them, The Sport Gene and Range, of course.And one of my takeaways from the research there was even for those that do want to star in that sport or want that college scholarship because this is their "way in" or whatever else it is, frankly, maybe even especially for those individuals that they ought to play lots of different sports and not specialized too early. And David sent this great newsletter out about this moment with Serena Williams in the front row where he was presenting the research and being like, well, she was the consummate tennis player from early on. And she was like, no, you're right. I learned to throw football. I did all these other activities.And to your point, Steve, I mean your own personal journey, I think you were a decathlete in college for the Florida Gators, so you obviously were doing a lot of different things. How do we get that narrative out there, maybe? Maybe that's the question. How do we change the narrative so people recognize just doing is a really important thing right now in a lot of different fields and then we'll let the chips sort of fall where they maybe over time, but not have that immediate transactional obsession upfront.Mesler: Upfront. I mean, I think it's a great question, Andy. I mean what do you think from a school's or from a community communications standpoint?Rotherham: Well, I'm struck when you talk to people who have succeeded at a high level and with one of the things with my work is you sometimes get to interact with folks who have succeeded in professional in baseball or in hockey or whatever. And one of the things they uniformly are like, don't specialize young, do different. This idea that you have to specialize is almost like a bias of people who didn't succeed at a high level. I remember I did a session last year at the bar conference with Nicole Hensley who's the goalie for the women's Olympic hockey team in Kelly Pannek who's a forward. And this issue came up and I remember, I think it was Kelly Pannek who was just like, your kid should play any sport that's going to make them happy in high school because if they're good enough to go at that sort of D1 and highly competitive level, they're going to be good enough whether they're playing two sports or one sports, this idea that you need to focus them and specialize if they're that at that level of being an athlete, which again, most kids aren't.So one of the big things is helping people understand these funnels are incredibly narrow and everybody thinks... The most important thing you should make sure is happening is that your kid is having fun, they're enjoying moving, they're creating lifelong relationships with sports and physical activity because the odds of them competing at that level are extremely slim and even slimmer after that. And so you just see that again and again, somebody I don't know, but know of Justin Williams, former NHL player with the Caps, the Kings, he's won the Stanley Cup, he runs a highly regarded hockey camp up in Canada and every day he has the kids doing a different sport, just expose them to them. So one day you're going to learn about these different sports besides hockey and it's a hockey camp and I think a lot of people think you're going to a hockey camp run by somebody like that it's going to be hockey 24/7, but he's really into this idea, learn to do other stuff.And I just think as a parent, and I know Steve's experiencing this, you got to expose your kids to lots of stuff because how are they going to find out what they like or don't like? If all you do is one sport, your kid might be a great tennis player and they're never going to discover that passion that that's actually what they love, not whatever sport you have them doing. So I think it's a little bit, it would be helpful if more people in those positions kind of communicate that they didn't necessarily get where they got because they just did one thing again and again. They did sort of do different things. They followed some of the stuff that David talks about in those books.Horn: Steve, what's your take?Mesler: I mean, I'm of two minds on this one, and look, we talked about this sport pipeline a lot.Rotherham: You need to take a break in a second to take his kids un-tape their right hand from behind their back.Mesler: Exactly. All of those things. All of those things. I'm of two minds. We talked about the sport pipeline a lot at the Olympic Committee, Olympic Paralympic Committee for sure. But ultimately I'm here and there. Look, I'm 44, which means my story of how I became successful, in my day there wasn't a hyper sports specialization. So I can't necessarily tell you that your kid can do what I did if they take my path because the people they were competing against weren't hyper specialized. If I had to hyper specialized against kids in other sports and I wasn't hyper specialized and they were, would my physical attributes be able to overcome?I'm definitely of the mindset, which is, look, if your kid kid is good enough to get a college scholarship, they're probably going to have a really good opportunity whether you specialize them or not. It's the ones that are on the fringes. It's hedging your bets. It's the ones who maybe, look, my kid is always going to have to go against. And she, I'm seeing it already in the ski hill. Yeah, she did good, but her dad was an Olympic gold medalist. So she already has this, it's thing that she can't help, that she can't control that she has theoretically good genetics for sport in that way. I mean, my sister got the brains in our family.So I think that's the thing is there's this generational emphasis. I can't tell you in a hyper specialized world whether a generalized approach to sport success is going to work today. And I love Range. Look, I was a decathlete. I lead my organization with a decathlete mindset. The thing is, if your kid is, I don't know if they're in a hyper skill sport and you don't have necessarily the jumps and the speed to them, is that going to help them? Probably. Do I think that is what is best for kids overall? Absolutely not. Do I think that is what is best from a sport participation standpoint? Absolutely not. But I do take exception.Rotherham: What does that mean? You might be right. I'm not disputing the point because you may well be right that the level of specialization means everybody has to, but from an equity standpoint, that's a pretty daunting, if that's true because the costs of these things, even just the camp I mentioned a minute ago, all this stuff is staggering and just out of reach for a lot of parents. And so different sports have different challenges around inclusion, diversity. If you are right, we need to rethink how we're creating those opportunities at the municipal and school level or we're never going to have a level playing field.Mesler: No, I agree mean absolutely. Yes, there are sports like track and field, there are some other, let's call them pure. You're fast. Yes, you can get a little bit faster, but you're fast. I was the fastest kid on the soccer team. That's how my dad got me into track. But I think Andy, maybe one of the answers has to be, we have to think about, I don't know if we can change the momentum of this. What are you going to do tell private coaches to make less money and try to do that? I think the horse is out of the barn on this one. It's really hard to put it back in. If I'm a parent and I have the opportunity to give my child more training and more coaching and pay for better things, who as a parent isn't going to try to do that in a lot of standpoints?I'm again 50/50 on how that is actually good for my child's development. When you talk about Europe, Europe has this overwhelming gymnastics space to their physical education programs, Europeans dominate Americans in general up until the junior ranks. What happens at the junior ranks, that U19 rank right after that, our NCAA system kicks in. So they have a wonderful foundation in gymnastics. Our kids do gymnastics 100%. That during the pandemic was painful. We have a tall gangly five and a half year old. So I really wanted her gymnastics and she missed a year, year and a half with that up here for sure. But they have the gymnastics base and then our demographics as well as our NCAA system kind of take over once that gymnastics foundation leaves and slightly better coaching at the youth age group level.But then ultimately on the other side of it just becomes maybe we need to think about where we invest differently. Do we need to think about our philanthropy or our investments going towards programs like in Canada have something called KidSport, which pays for the fees for kids to compete. And I think that may be a more direct injection, better angle than trying to change the system and the mentality that is hyper american competitiveness, which benefits our society in a lot of ways, but from a haves and have-nots it clearly,Rotherham: Well, you definitely can't bottle it up. And we're seeing out in the broader political landscape, what happens when you try to achieve equity by modeling up opportunity. People don't like that obviously. And you can't tell the coaches in a market economy to charge less. I think it's that third thing you just talked about. It reminds me a lot of the SAT, the affluent are always going to give their kids support on the SAT. We knew this. And so the strategy wasn't to attack them or try to get them to stop doing it was how do we start to have good SAT prep available for all kids to try to level. You're never going to completely level the playing field, that's life in a liberal democracy, but you can definitely shrink those gaps substantially. And I think the same thing here. How do you provide those kinds of skill?And just from the beginning, those kinds of exposure, again, the kids see sports that they may not be aware of, their families may not be aware of just to make sure they're aware of just the broad range of things that you can do.Horn: Well, and that strikes me as where schools can play a role and PE is to have a more gymnastic foundation and more exploratory with regularity of getting to sample lots of sports. So to your point, it's almost like a nudge as opposed to a, "thou out stop this behavior" sort of attitude as well as having these more equitable leagues that where the fees are paid for or covered for those who can't. I guess the question is how do we start to move that in schools? Because you know this Andy, reading and math has crowded out social studies and science for goodness sake in elementary school, which turns out to be critical for reading. But forget about that for a moment because we're so sort of hyper concerned about some of these things. How do we reverse these?Rotherham: Yeah, well this is a classic. Look, schools have low capacity to react to these challenges. People crowded out other subjects, but if you're going to teach reading what exactly are the kids reading? That is how you should be teaching social studies. It's part of how you should be teaching science. So the curriculum narrowing to the extent it happened was the wrong way to actually, if you were serious about wanting to raise your test scores, it was the wrong way to do it in the first place. I think it's the same thing here. We know kids need to move around more than they do, and American kids move around less. It's good for them to be outside, it's good for them to be taking breaks. And we sort of limit those. We still have a lot of places where they take away your ability to move around as a punishment.So if you act up, you lose the ability to go out for recess, when in fact the reason you're acting up may be because you need to be out there doing some of the stuff you do during recess. So I think it's achievable, Michael. It's one of these things schools need to actually look at what works, what does the research show potentially challenge some biases around some of these things and make sure kids are moving and doing these things. And again, you look again in some other countries, kids are just outside much more, they're much more active walking during the school day. These things, these habits and behaviors that you want. There's just a lot of inertia here and we don't do them.Horn: Steve, I want to go to you on this because you said you want to bring in Classroom Champions and is it a conversation about Classroom Champions? This the opportunity, and just to hit a few controversial topics in this right, social emotional learning is its own hot button issue right now in the United States. You all at Classroom Champions are saying these are critical life skills for people to be successful, whether it's through sports or otherwise. And you've created this curriculum. I'm curious just talking about that, how do you define social emotional learning? What does it consist of what isn't included in SEL and how you approach that because you're obviously working with schools to help make sure that they embed this for kids?Mesler: Yeah, no, I mean, thank you. And I think before I even jump into Classroom Champions, I think it's to talk about the role of sport and how can we help not change, but how can we help people lean into it? And I think ultimately look at Classroom Champions. We have our countries in the world's best Olympians, Paralympians, NCAA, pro-athletes. They are in the midst of their careers, not the gray haired has-beens like me telling my story. And I say that both in jest and in reality, which is when you're in the moment of something, you are never more clear of what you need to do to succeed. As I look back, I can say maybe I didn't need to be so serious. Maybe I didn't need to not have a drink on a Tuesday night randomly. Maybe I needed to not. But in the moment you couldn't have wavered me for that.I had a drink once every four weeks on a Saturday night at the end of training cycles. There was never a casual Wednesday evening cocktail. But ultimately, if we can lean into those attributes and lean into that and look at sport as a cultural phenomenon today, sport is probably, and I'll say this without the data behind me, probably the one thing in our society that got politicized and snapped back in the last five years, basically nothing else has. You name me another thing, another piece of our society and culture that got politicized and then isn't just in whichever corner, if it landed on the right or if it landed on the left, it's just stayed there. Sport came back, they stopped kneeling, they did whatever they "made amends" to the people that they were offending on that side. And now literally, I just saw last week, 94 of the top 100 broadcasts in America, the things we watch together, the things you come into work the next day and go, "Hey, did you see that?" It used to be friends in Seinfeld and sport and this and that.Now it's 94 broadcasts out of 100 were sport. And by the way, one that wasn't sport was also the Academy Awards. So competition. So when you think about the meritocracy, sport is a pure meritocracy. It truly is. And when you think about it Americans hunger for that. So there's still a societal need for a societal need for that. And there's places where we need to change those inputs. But ultimately Americans still watch sport because they're watching something that has a winner and a loser and they can watch it happen in front of them. So when it comes to how do we at Classroom Champions view SEL is we view these things as the things that sport brings kids and things that brings all to watch the inspiration, the hope, the stick to it-ness, the grit, the perseverance, all those things are previously black box skills."That Michael works hard, he's a hard worker." "Andy has a lot of grit." No, these are skills. These are skills that at some point somebody put a value on that either the self or somebody else and then taught them and then they worked on those skills. But for some reason it's been this black box where you come out of high school and you come out of college and you come out of any postgraduate work, whatever it is, and no one taught you these things explicitly. You were supposed to implicitly learn it. And did you learn those things or not? I couldn't tell you at Classroom Champions other than some of our higher education folks. I couldn't tell you exactly what everybody's degrees were, but I can tell you their personality. I could tell you what their stick to it-ness is, their conscientiousness, those things. And these, again, they're skills. So at Classroom champions we view SEL in that way.We view them as, I don't love the word "life skills", but they are, it's just too broad. We view it as they are skills that do help with goal setting, perseverance, critical thinking, decision making, tenacity, teamwork. Our curriculum aligns with Castles five basics of SEL, self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, responsible decision making, rolling them all off. We align with that. But ultimately, how do you help schools use sport as a neutral place, apolitical place that everybody, whether you like sports or not, you are fascinated by them in general. You are fascinated by the people who do them. How do we use these people as a keystone for that and then bring an SEL program around it.And that's the way we look at it. And I worry that we see sport as this separate thing in society. And I think sport has the opportunity to help build positive culture in so many ways. And we've seen the data on that at Classroom Champions. So I'll stop myself there. This is an area of where SEL, the politics of it all, the way that society still views sport are just this really, really big flashpoint for us.Horn: Andy, I'd love your take on this because obviously Virginia has been no stranger to the debates over this question, but I really like the way Steve just phrased it as sport can cut through that and I don't know parents who don't want their kids to grow up with a sense of perseverance and a mindset of working hard leads to success when we get at that level. I don't know parents that disagree with those sorts of things. So is this sort of the way to cut through all this?Rotherham: Well, yeah, I mean I would extrapolate from it. Classroom Champions is great, obviously as I said, I'm on the board. I don't think we're the only way to cut through it. I think the problem, and Steve didn't talked about the politics, the problem is right now, SEL's become one of these terms, it's impossible to define. Lots of things are flying under that flag and there has, and we should be honest about it, there's been an effort in some quarters to use SEL as a way to smuggle political ideas into classrooms in a way that I think parents are like, wait, that's not what I signed up for. So I think one of the most important things the SEL community needs to do is come up with, and especially the particular providers, come up with what they're talking about. I mean you listen to Steve can give you a very specific answer when we talk about SEL, the skills and so forth and what we're talking about.And that they need to be willing to stand behind those definitions so we can start to have some clear lines in terms of what is these things around ethical behavior, good life skills like tenacity and grit, things like compassion and understanding and so forth. And then where does it morph into more political content that in a pluralistic society need to be very careful about having in the public schools. So I think that's the most important thing. And look, I mean you mentioned Virginia, so I'll just say one, a lot of the stuff that's flared up in Virginia and elsewhere, it's not organized curriculum. It's teachers freelancing because they're not being supported. And so they're being told by their school district to and make sure that they're talking about equity and equity's not even very clearly defined or make sure that they're talking about challenges of racism in society.Then they're just told to go figure that out. And just like airplanes, you don't hear about all the ones that take off and land fine, but you do hear about the ones that don't and it doesn't take many where teachers cross lines, they may be well-intentioned but they downloaded something off of Pinterest or whatever it is, parents are upset about, that winds up on social media and the average parent doesn't know that that's something that some teachers freelancing, they just think, well that's the curriculum, that's what the schools are doing now. And it just raises the temperature. And so not just Classroom Champions, but lots of these providers across a range of things, teachers just need support and they need to be helped to take on different topics. You don't wake up in the morning knowing how to do this stuff. And we've done a really poor job supporting teachers on this stuff and in the process have done a real disservice to them.Mesler: Yeah, and I think if I can echo what Andy's saying and build on that, which is ultimately from the politics side of things, I think Andy mentioned it and touched on it. Look, there's been people in the SEL leadership world who have, I remember as the social justice two summers ago happened where SEL was going to be a Trojan horse for social justice. We can't have Trojan horses in education. We can't. First and foremost period, whatever it is, yes, social skills and emotional skills are the basis for understanding each other and working with each other and doing those things so it can support kids and society's views and how we tackle our issues from a social justice standpoint, yes, but to view SEL as the mechanism as a Trojan horse that there was a time when everybody started just dumping and it's still happening.Everybody's just dumping. If it's not math, science, history, et cetera, it's SEL. That's incorrect. Including mental health. Mental health is something you need reactive clinical professional people to support mental health. Look, I competed in the Olympic Games with six teammates. Two of them have taken their lives, I have spoken on this. I have worked with our performance teams at the Olympic committee on how to help athletes from these standpoints. SEL, we've seen it, we're seeing it in Monroe County schools that we support in southern Florida where they have, looking at our mentorship plus program, which is our higher level of our social-emotional learning curriculum or a higher level on top of that where you actually get matched with an Olympian or a Paralympian for an entire year and they communicate with the classrooms or at the schools that they're worked with and they're seeing improvements in mental health. But that's from a proactive SEL standpoint.So I think what we have to really understand is call it SEL, call it whatever. We have to have proactive places in schools that we are teaching kids these skills to not just to cope but to thrive. And part of the coping skills are if you understand that people that are team USA Olympians are dealing with anxiety but perseverance through it, it makes your own struggles better and easier. But then we certainly need, and we're doing a better job reacting. You're seeing schools putting in counselors and social workers and other things like that. Not as much as we need, but we're doing a good job reacting to the trauma that our kids have gone through from an evidence-based trauma standpoint. But we're doing a lousy job continuing to Andy's point, you have math teachers, science teachers who are trained in those things who are now being "made" or asked to support the social emotional development of children and they're just not equipped. They don't have the tools in place. So I think that that is a big thing that we got to solve that quick.Rotherham: And it's playing out against a really tough political backdrop. We should just name it, Michael, where essentially, not to overgeneralize too much, but you basically have a situation where you've got some folks on the right, far right who really are snowflakes about this stuff. You mentioned racism and they fall to pieces. And then you've got some folks on the left who they think a particular political view of the world is so self-evident that it should be taught to every kid. And those things are just colliding in really counterproductive ways. And most people are in the middle. They don't subscribe to either of those viewpoints and they're just getting sort of buffeted along for the ride. And we need more leaders to be willing to speak up and where necessary call BS on both sides so that we can have a more reasoned conversation.Because the tragedy will be if some of what we're talking about with SEL, some of the things Steve's talking about here, and again, this is broader than just Classroom Champions, but the folks who are doing this work well if this kind of gets washed out in a backlash or people lose trust, and that'll be really unfortunate because there's a lot of really good important work.And as you said earlier, Michael, most people, they want their kids to learn these skills. They want them to learn ideas like tenacity and how to solve problems, how to work with others. That's one of the reasons they send them to public schools in the first place.Mesler: And let's not forget, reading is a goal. Learning to read is a goal. There are steps to that. We kind of skip over that with kids. We tell them to set a goal, we tell them to set a goal for an A, but then we kind of miss and skip over the fundamentals of how a goal works, which is that you will have short-term goals and medium-term goals, long-term goals. And oh, by the way, many of your short-term goals won't happen. So how do you adjust and how do you insert perseverance to do that? So I mean the data is incredibly clear when you're talking about double-digit percentage increases in academic performance with quality SEL style programs that are in there that are offering solutions and providing these skills to kids.And I think that's the mind-blowing thing for us, which is sometimes I step back and go, man, how did we have education around this long where we just skipped over a few pretty darn important parts of life, let alone let alone learning? And I think there's where the opportunity for people like you to really help get the word out is like how do we help? And to Andy's point, we need leaders who are willing to be there. And I think that's a really hard place considering the politics around it right now.Horn: But I love this conversation the way you've both framed all of this. And I guess that gets to the last point I just want to ask you both on as we wrap up here. It occurs to me we could go for a while, there's a lot of topics, but just focus on that, which is, you mentioned Steve, how you reach a goal, executive function skills, things of that nature that you're just not born with, it turns out. You need to learn. And so as we talk about resetting the place of sports and participation and building these skills in our youth and so forth, and you all have both, I think eloquently laid out the goal as we think about that one next step, maybe let's take the sports arena of resetting that in American society and one thing that ought to happen. What's that first step in your mind that we ought to be doing? Steve, you want to go first and Andy you get last word?Mesler: Yeah, happy to. What's the first step? I think first step would be we need to find some places of agreement. Traditional problem solving 101, right? Conflict solving 101. We got to find some agreement. And again, I believe in the power sport, I believe in and in so many ways outside of we go back to the beginning of the conversation, which is what else we all do in here but trying to enjoy our lives and be healthy and pass that on to our kids. Given that, so I think coming to a place within, I think the schools are a key... Clearly the schools are a key to our society is where all of our children go at one point or another for extended periods of time in their life. So I think find a place of agreement. Sport could be one of those places where having sport influence, being an influence could be one of those places.And if it is from a sport standpoint, then I think we've got to get together. We've got to get our major leagues together. And I think there's a huge opportunity there. Our professional and NCAA systems don't quite understand the power they can have in turning around our schools. And if they did, and that's what I'm trying to spend a lot of time, both from Classroom Champions perspective and a personal perspective, is showing them, look, NBA, NLF, MLS, NHL, MLB, NCAA, Women's National Women's Soccer League, WNBA, let's get all of you guys together in a room. Let's get the 50 state chief superintendents organization and the council of great city schools in a room, and let's talk about how can sport in a systematic way support the needs of the system.And I think there's a huge opportunity to do that. So Michael, I think those two things, let's come to an agreement and find some agreements on how to move forward, if sport's one of those things, there is a giant hunger from the leagues, the teams and the players and the athletes to do something meaningful. And I think that's how sport can really make a difference in that way because that's where we aggregate everybody. You can get in sport more so than the arts, more so than in music and other places, you have places where you can get eight people in a room and you can speak for thousands of role models that our kids know and believe in a way that is more powerful and more systemic than anywhere else.Rotherham: Yeah, I don't have anything to add. I thought that what Steve said, so that I'll just go in a slightly different direction and you said one thing I'll give two. Number one is gender equity in sports. I think we still have such a long way to go. And you were saying, Michael, you've got daughters, you're going to see this as they grow up in ways big and small, how girls sports are just second class citizens just across the board in all kinds of ways. Obvious in terms of access to facilities and time in weight rooms and in ways subtle in terms of the messages that are sent. And girls sports are great, they're exciting, and we need to build a culture like that. And it's exasperating when you go to high schools where the football team might be mediocre or the men's basketball team and the women's basketball team's great and it's barely supported and they're actually doing the winning or the volleyball team or whatever it is.So I think that's a big culture shift where we still have a lot of work to do and in terms of a more inclusive society is really important. And then the second thing would just be, we've got to have a broader frame on this. We anchor off of elite sports. We love elite sports. Most people, the closest they're ever going to get to elite sports is the stands and we should be more open about that. And that's how you build a culture of kids continuing to play and so forth. And I think elite sports are great, they're exciting, but if you want people to just develop a love for sports and so forth, we need to broaden the frame.And if you look at most of our most sort of fractious issues, whether it's toxicity in youth sports or issues around transgender athletes, it's all anchored on these really elite sports. When in fact, at a more broad level, these things aren't actually sort of huge issues. It's always on these places where it becomes zero-sum and we just need a broader frame if we want people to keep moving and so forth and not think sports are something you do until you're not good enough at some level, and then you stop rather than something you do in your life and as a part of your life.Horn: Really well said. Steve, Andy, thanks for helping us unpack this topic and appreciate you all joining us in the future of education. We'll be back next time. Thank you for subscribing. Leave a comment or share this episode.

Anthony Kim has done some of the most impactful work in actually helping school districts implement innovations as the CEO and founder of Education Elements. Now the Chief Learning Officer of Scholarus, of which Education Elements is a part, Anthony joined me to talk about why simply switching out the curriculum of how students learn to read won't be enough to create actual change on the ground that leads to real outcomes. Implementation and operations will matter.As always, you can listen to the podcast, watch it below, or read the transcript if you’re a paying subscriber.Michael Horn:I am incredibly excited about today's guest because he's been a longtime friend, collaborator in the field of education. Frankly, for almost as long as I've been in this world, I've known today's guest and he's someone from whom I've learned quite a bit, but someone who does incredible work on the ground as well. He's currently the chief learning officer of Scholarus. EdElements is a part of the Scholarus companies. Anthony Kim is our guest. He's also a serial entrepreneur in the education space and someone who's great at spotting the trends, but then also making sure that they actually get acted on to create real change on the ground to benefit human lives. So Anthony, it is great to see you. Thanks for joining us.Anthony Kim:Thanks for having me, Michael. And I'm happy to have this conversation more publicly. Because over the last 12 years, you and I have had a lot of conversations and worked on a lot of projects together where we talked about some of the things that we're going to talk about today. So, one I know we're generally and mentally aligned on some of the things that can happen in education. And so glad to be here and open to sharing some of the thoughts that with your audience that we would normally have in private, I guess.Michael:But really, Anthony, when I think about you, one of the things that I admire most about the work that EdElements has done over the years, and I'll say as a former board member, was proud of, was the way you worked with all sorts of school systems, from private schools to public school districts and individual schools and all the rest to not just help them innovate, but actually operationalize in a really strong way the work that they were doing. And maybe before we get into the topic that we both want to delve into today, I'd just actually love to have you reflect as a consultant that comes in with a school district say, and isn't just consumed with helping them think up the next big idea or create a fancy looking deck or whatever. But actually being committed to put into action what they're saying that they want to do. How have you all developed that capability? And where has that expertise come from for you?Anthony:That's the topic I wanted to talk about in general today. And quite frankly, I think a lot of that started day one when you and I were working together in creating the EdTech market map. So if you recall, that was 12 years ago maybe.Michael:Yeah, that's probably about right.Anthony:And we were asked with Ted Mitchell to start to organize EdTech at that time before people are starting to think about it. And when we were doing that research, I recall, there were so many good products out there. And everyone would argue incrementally, this product was slightly better than this product, or this one was good for middle school and this one was better for middle school or elementary. And there was a lot of debate around where they got categorized, what to use them for.And I think from my early interaction with you and that work, we saw that implementations varied dramatically regardless of the quality of the product. And there were schools that implemented a very simple product really well and got results and there are schools that implemented something that was really sophisticated poorly and got bad results. And so that's when I started to wonder about more of the implementation as opposed to the product because I knew that a lot of companies were investing a lot of time and thought into the research of the products themselves and the efficacy of the products. But the idea of the implementation was always designed around perfect conditions. And we all know that implementations aren't in perfect conditions. And there are a couple things that we also learned when you and I were active promoters of blended learning and how hard that was to implement something that we knew would actually get results.Michael:Yeah, no, there's no question about it. And you all built a muscle around... It strikes me not just seeing the problem, but actually getting people to row in the same direction and operationalize. Let's stay one more beat on that before I jump into the topic du jour, if you will, which is just, how did you build that muscle then? You have a whole team. How do you help the schools and the educators themselves get that fidelity to implementation to what they've designed?Or maybe that's the wrong question. Maybe there's another secret, but how do you get that discipline in actually enacting? Because again, you said it well, you hear all the time, our friends in the ed tech space, they'll come up to us and be like, "Our product's amazing if only they would use it right." And you're like, "Well, they're going to use it how they're going to use it. So you have to take that into account somehow." But it seems like you've done a really good job of both building systems and then getting people to execute in a realistic way. I don't know how else to say it. And I'm just curious how you've built that muscle, not just to recognize it, but build the muscle and see it enacted.Anthony:Yeah, I think part of it came from when we were doing all those tours during the heyday of no child... I mean NGLB, right? NGLC, sorry. Next Generation Learning Challenge, right? And it was race to the top and innovation grants. And there was a lot of visits to schools that were doing something slightly different. And different schools had different products that they were using, different ideas around grouping of students, different ways of scheduling students, whether it was sections or blocks. The variety of ways schools were getting implemented to create those innovations. And also the outcomes was pretty diverse. And I remember when you were at the Christensen Institute, you were doing that research too, and you were trying to show patterns through the different models.Michael:And we couldn't draw anything to advocacy because the implementations were totally different. Yeah.Anthony:Yeah. Right. But even with a station rotation model or a lab model or a flex model, one school would try to do a flex and do it really well like Carpe Diem, and other schools try to do that and did it really poorly. And so what I realized is that a lot of it has to do with the culture of an organization and the human reality of how people work together. And I think having been in startups for so long, there are a lot of companies that get started with similar ideas, but the actual implementation of the actual company and how they operate varies a lot too.Michael:No, that's super interesting. So let's get in the topic that has become hot, not just across the education space, but in a lot of communities, a lot of parent communities, people tuning in and all of a sudden, discovering this new phrase, the science of reading, if you will. And basically, for those that haven't followed, the basic idea, I don't think is actually anything that new. It's that teaching kids to decode and learn their phonics and pattern match what they're seeing on a page to the auditory sounds and then build fluency and so forth, turns out to really matter. You can't just guess at words and look at pictures and try to pick up hints and somehow be able to read more complex texts over time. But I think you're asserting that all these training programs around teaching teachers about the science of reading are changing out the curriculum that didn't do that, that did the triple cueing or whatever methods instead of building this foundation that, that won't be enough, if I'm understanding what you're arguing.Anthony:Yeah. I think that when we think about implementing something as comprehensive as a reading ELA program, and what I see happening right now are a lot of debates, classroom to classroom, building to building, state to state, whether one program approach is better than the other. And there's probably some variation. I've talked to some academics and professors that are arguing the benefits of both. One, they say is easier to implement and so easier to adopt as well. And other is more complicated to implement and also takes a lot of rote development of students. And so the reason it shifted to one form of the other is because the movement and the trend shifted because something was hard to do.And so now we're at a place where something that seemed easier to do, actually doesn't seem to be producing the results that they had hoped. And so now they're like, "Okay, well let's go back to this other thing." And there's this whole debate now. So my experience in looking at this has been that there's a lot of conversation around the academics of it. But for anything to be implemented well, there needs to be a system of implementation. And just going back to what we started with, there's a way in which we see this thing being implemented, science of reading being implemented. Well, that seems to have more stickiness and the momentum building that we started to see in things like blended learning and personalized learning but didn't continue on. So what I wanted to create an analogy around is, you know the concept of the flywheel, right? Like The good [inaudible 00:10:54] Collin's flywheel.And what he says is in the flywheel analogy is that through these small pushes and rotations, you start building momentum. And once you get to a certain level of momentum, it spins on its own. It has inertia to continue to spin. And if you actually don't do that, well, there's another term called the doom loop. And it reverses the progress. So when I think about our work with blended learning and personalized learning, what the early stages of the flywheel were funding through programs like NGLC or Race to the Top. Examples of pilot schools that are doing different things, and that's what Christensen Institute did a lot of studying around. And then other communities that practice Digital Promises, League of Innovative Schools started to create this momentum because every year, there were new members that wanted to become members of the Digital Promise, League of Innovative Schools. More grants were given out. And then more pilot schools were created.And so people were like, "Okay, I got to jump on that." And it created the necessary momentum around the flywheel. So if you want to do something like that around a shift towards science of reading, what do you need? And that's what I started thinking about. And one is teaching conditions and teacher mindset. And the way I think about it is, if I'm trying to do a diet in November going into Thanksgiving and the holidays, it's unlikely I'm going to be successful. If I try to start a diet in January, it might be a better time. But still, most people are unsuccessful in that timeframe. So my mindset has to be right in order for me to fully commit to something. In addition to the fact that there has to be less roadblocks and things like that.So one is just what makes the right conditions for a group of people to be successful in implementing something new for a set of goals that they have? And I think that's a human condition thing. The next piece is professional learning communities, PLCs. And you know whether you're training for something like crossfit or doing a diet or I'm training for something or I'm trying to learn something new, having that community to share stories and share experiences together is really key to maintaining momentum.And then the third piece is systems of support. And in the case of the work we're doing in Texas where the state of Texas is actually providing certification and funding and time to do those things, that those three things working together allow for that flywheel of implementation to take place. You get into doom wheel when there's fewer successes, small successes, smaller wins. You don't have wins, so you don't see improvement. Then you start getting into a doom wheel. And when you start seeing a lot of negative activity where people are saying, well, this or that doesn't work, or they're constantly bashing you about stuff. And I think we saw a little bit about that in the blended learning world where people were talking about too much tech, blah, blah, blah. Then Covid comes along, and it's like, "Everyone, we need tech."Michael:Yeah. And then all of a sudden, we were disaster situation. So mindsets, the professional learning communities around you, systems of support that reinforce that. Those are the three big ones. I was going to ask you, you started to allude to it, who's doing it well? It sounds like Texas has put some things in place, but who would you spotlight that seems to be getting that balance correct?Anthony:In the blog post around this that I wrote, which is called Implementing the Best in Imperfect Conditions, Tips to Making Change in Instructional Practices at Scale. The way I see it happening is at a school level, different teachers are excited about something like science of reading. And then what's happening is that they have to expend so much energy convincing people. And so there are a few schools that are implementing it really well. And then at a district level, I think one of the things that is hard is there's, as you know, educator exhaustion. There's leadership changes. And so what happens a lot of times when districts have those things happen, especially leadership changes, it's like, well, every time a new leader comes in, they want to reevaluate everything. So that is challenging for programs like this because you're constantly restarting and re-validating what you're trying to get done.So you never really get to the point where you get that flywheel motion and you get into the doom loop. So I think states like Texas are actually starting to think about it in a way where there's a longer term plan, there's strategies that are supporting at scale, and they understand that different clusters of teachers are at different stages of mental readiness. And so they're anticipating that. And I think they'll be more successful than other states trying to implement science of reading or something else, just because of the way they're thinking about readiness, longer term planning, and also the fact that people are coming at different starting points and need different lengths of time. And a lot of times when I see schools trying to implement programs, they think everybody's educated at the same level, they're ready at the same level, and they're going to commit the same amount of... Put of time into implementation.Michael:It's funny when you say that. Frankly, it's the same problem with the school system writ large, which is that we feel like, oh gee, you were born in the year of the rabbit. Therefore we expect on September 1st that you have automatically already learned these things. Maybe you have, maybe you haven't. Maybe you've learned much more. Maybe you've learned much less. But we're all going to give you the same thing no matter what. And obviously that doesn't work well. And the same is true with teachers also. The other piece that I just pull out there is you talk about building on successes, and I've said, just like they say success is the best deodorant in team sports, that it sort of masks over problems among the team chemistry and makes people get along and get excited and we'll get on board and builds culture.I think the same thing is true in education. It attracts parents. It attracts teachers. A lot of the school board fights go away if you have this sense of momentum and success that we're all, we're moving towards something desirable. In the blog post, you brought up something... You talked about the Jim Collins work. But you have another trendy book in there, James Clear's Atomic Habits, that I think relates to some of this. So why don't you just spell that out. Because I think it's an interesting set of points and I think it's one that resonates with individuals, frankly. If Jim Collins speaks to an org leader, Atomic Habits I think right now speaks a lot to individuals making changes in their lives.Anthony:And I think you bring up a great point. One of the problems I see that's different in terms of just wins in education versus other industries that I've been in is when a school wins, there's a lot of questions that come up. You just don't take it for granted that they did it well. People are like, "Well, that school leader, those kids were different, they got this extra money," or whatever it is. And we've seen that happen over and over again. And so the credibility of wins are often questioned instead of just saying, "Hey, I could win too."And I think that's a really tough mindset in the education space right now because in other industries, when people see other people winning, they're like, "I could do that too and I'm going to win and I'm going to do it." And that's how we get Silicon Valley. That's how we get innovation happening. And we often try to stifle innovation in school systems because we're always questioning the validity of something or how they did it or why they won instead of just appreciating it. And so that's where I think the Atomic Habits does come in. And what I like about James Clear's work is, it's repetition, discipline, and small wins. So he talks about 1% change. If you do 1% change cumulatively over a year, you make massive amounts of change.And he says, let's say if you want to become a runner, you could start by saying, "Well, I want to run ultra-marathons at 50 miles or a hundred miles," and that's a daunting task and it looks scary. And then you're going to try and you're going to realize you can't even run 10 miles straight. And so if you want to start a runner and you haven't been a runner, maybe the first step is just getting up to run every day.That's 1%. You just got up, got out of the door because, first, you just need to build the habit of getting dressed and getting out the door. And I think part of the reason why a lot of folks that you hear on other podcasts and stuff and self-improvement books talk about cold showers and cold baths, it's not only the physical benefit, but it's the idea that you could put yourself in a condition every day that's uncomfortable for short periods of time. And building that repetition, even with something as simple as a shower, creates the notion that you could do hard things over a longer period of time and you're building that habit and muscle memory.Michael:So I'd love to bring this back to the classroom. I suspect some people tuning in are like, "Okay, this all makes sense. But at the end of the day, I'm subbing in a textbook from the textbook I had before. It's better written. I've got new lesson plans. Is this really that hard? Are we complicating this too much?" To that person who's maybe looking at it that way and feels like it's just a, change the ingredients, stir once and then repeat, why is this more complicated when we're talking about science of reading than that specific mental model I think some people have when they come to this conversation? In particular, which I'll just add, I think a lot of people think it feels different from other conversations 'cause it feels like, well we use swap textbooks all the time. We're not asking anything more than that. So why is that mental model too simplistic around this?Anthony:Yeah, I think one of the reasons it's hard is because somehow the idea of phonics got marketed with various companies, different ways. And it created a mental model of the problem with it too. And so now I think when you start bringing up phonics, people think Hooked On Phonics. And that wasn't a great thing. And it was kind of a sham and whatever. And so there's a lot of preconceived biases that exist. And that's one thing you just have to get rid of in order to start getting to that 1%. It's like, you think it's bad, then you're not going to naturally want to implement it. So one is, you just have to get those small wins, those 1% wins by trying it, and trying a little bit of it. We're not asking you to do something major. Just let's start trying small things to see if you could see the improvement instead of just having that biases and saying that it won't work because that's preventing you from doing it.Michael:Very cool. Last question as we wrap up here. You love to make prognostications and look into your crystal ball for the year ahead. We're still early in 2023. You're thinking a lot about this topic, implementation, science of reading, but you're also looking at the broader landscape. Any big predictions or things that you see coming that maybe the rest of us are blind to right now?Anthony:Yeah, thanks for asking that. Yeah, because I do try to do the predictions every year and some ears are definitely easier than others. One, everyone knows about the political landscape and we have elections, we have ESSER and all of that. So that creates some unique conditions. But one, I think there's going to be a refocus towards career education and a re-looking at what that should be. And because Perkins 5 was reinstated and such, there's funding in around this. But what's interesting is, there's growth in things like AR and VR in this particular space because I think also Covid made it hard for people to actually go into offices anymore to experience what happens. So now you are stuck with those experiences in a virtual mode. So that's one area. And then I start, I know chat GPT and AI is a hot topic. But it was one of my predictions too that AI is going to come up again because one of the things that we heard from school districts which was interesting is that a lot of districts implement... bought tutoring services, for example.And when you buy stuff at scale at a short period of time and those companies are trying to ramp up too, and we saw that with Amazon and we saw that with other even larger companies, even Zoom, it's hard to keep up with the demand at a rapid pace. And so I think quality was really different and varied in a lot of the programs like that. And what students have found is that sometimes, it's just better to have AI interact with you. And if you had to return something on Amazon or you had to interact with some sort of customer service angle, a product, basically you are often interacting with AI and you don't even know it. And so it's gotten to a point where you don't know until you get to the 1% problems, not the 99% problems. And I think that, I'm not talking about the plagiarism stuff like that, but sometimes the experiences through AI seem to be more consistent and people are getting more and more familiar with it through the experiences that we all had together.Michael:Super interesting, super interesting, and a different take on AI and how it's going to keep coming into the school system no matter what educators and their well-meaning efforts try to ban it or the like. Anthony, appreciate you coming by and it's just good to catch up and hear what's on your mind. And I think a set of lessons around the implementation that people would do well to heed now rather than go five years from now, the hype around science of reading and then we're back in the other cycle where there's a backlash to it because we didn't think about these things up front.Anthony:Yeah, and I agree and I think we're at a interesting stage in education, and you might have thoughts around this, Michael, because you're talking to so many people, but we went through this rapid adoption and change during Covid. Now people are talking about things like learning loss and stuff like that, teacher retention issues, all sorts of things that are destabilizing the infrastructure. And we have the option to go down and rebuild what we had or we modify and evolve and rebuild something different. And I'm not sure which direction the industry's going to go. But I do think that there's a little bit more towards doing something slightly different than there was before even just because parental understanding of education is heightened much more than it has been in the past.Michael:I totally agree with that. And I think while I'm dismayed, I think, often by the number of places that are just going back to business as usual. As you know from your board role with the National Micro Schooling Center, and we had Don Sofer on here as well. To your point, there are a lot of parents and there's a lot of educators that are saying, "No, we're not going to go back to normal," and are creating all sorts of novel innovations and ways of doing schooling and ways of connecting with students and flexible schedules and the like that work for frankly also a big shift in family units and what parents need from school as well that doesn't fit in the 8:30 to 3:00, if you will, window for a lot of families. And I personally think that's a positive because I think that'll also create more pressure on the districts to innovate as well and figure out new ways to reach not just the students, but also the families in a larger sense.Anthony:Great. Well thank you Michael. Thanks for having me.Michael:Yeah, look, Anthony, thank you for the work you're continuing to do. Appreciate it. Folks, check out the blog post. I'll include it in the link here as well. And keep an eye out on what Anthony is writing about and what they are doing on the ground. And we'll be back next time on the Future of Education. Thank you for subscribing. Leave a comment or share this episode.

Microschools have been around for many years, but many more people enrolled in them during the pandemic. In this conversation, I chatted with Tiffany Dudley, an educator who helped cofound a microschool to help her son during the pandemic. She's also the co-leader of the Black Mothers Forum’s Economic Development Team. The Black Mothers Forum strives to give students of color opportunities that have eluded them through mainstream education channels. Arizona awarded the Black Mothers Forum microschool $3.5 million in 2021 to develop up to 50 additional microschools throughout Arizona.What's the secret, according to Tiffany? “It’s the autonomy that their children have, where they’re more of a participant in their education instead of just a bystander in the background,” she said. “At the microschools they had a lot more freedom; they’re able to learn through project-based; to take the things that interest them.”As always, you can listen to the podcast, watch it on YouTube below, or read the transcript if you’re a paid subscriber.Michael Horn:   Welcome, welcome, welcome to The Future of Education where we are obsessed with helping all individuals build their passions and fulfill their human potential. Today's guest is Tiffany Dudley, and I'm going to give a bit less of a bio here because I want Tiffany really to tell her own story. But in brief, she's an educator, she's an education entrepreneur, she's a mom and she's the co-leader of the economic development team at the Black Mothers Forums. Tiffany and I first got to know each other because we were both panelists at a session, at a recent education conference. And I was so struck by the work that she was doing that I just wanted to highlight it here on the Future of Education Show and have her tell the story. Because I think it's a powerful narrative into the shift that's starting to happen in education, not just in Arizona where Tiffany lives, but frankly nationwide. So first Tiffany, welcome to the show. I just appreciate you joining us and it's good to see you.Tiffany Dudley: Thank you. Thank you for having me here. I'm really excited to be able to join you today. So I was really glad I got that invite to be here with you today.Horn:                110%. Are you in Arizona today?Dudley:             Yes, I am in Arizona today. Enjoying the weather out here.Horn:                I was going to say, don't make us all feel jealous here in New England, but-Dudley:             Yes.Horn:                So let's start with a little bit of your own background. You helped found a micro school as we'll talk about. But before that, as I recall anyway, you were an educator in a charter school. So I'd love to hear more of that part of your story of getting into education and the work you were doing in that school.Dudley:             Okay. Well I kind of accidentally ended up in teaching. My background was a degree in interior design and I actually, had been a stay at home mom for a few years and happened to attend a mandatory parent meeting at my oldest son's school. And at that meeting they were looking for an aide, a paraprofessional to be inside of the classroom. And so I was like, I've been a stay at home mom for a few years and this would be a good way to get back into the work field. And the convenience of being able to work at my son's school part-time was perfect.                        And so I end up applying and getting the position and I was not there very long before I realized that how much I loved being in the classroom and being able to help the students and being able to shape and help guide the kids through their learning process. And what started out to be like a temporary job ended up turning into eight years that I ended up at that charter school. By the end of it I started as an aide and ended up as the fourth and fifth grade teacher of the classroom because we had dual classrooms.Horn:                Just tremendous. And so your son's enrolled in that charter school, you're teaching at the charter school, things are going well if I remember and then COVID hits. And I'd love to hear what happened and what you started to see.Dudley:             Yeah, once COVID hit, by the time COVID hit, all three of my children were attending that charter school. And since we were a smaller school, we did shut down for a brief minute but was able to stay open. But it had a hard time with the numbers and being able to help the families, having issues with the technology because that's when a lot of families didn't have the technology or the internet capabilities to be able to do online school. So it became just a real challenge. And during that time is when I got introduced to Janelle Wood and Deborah Colbert-Green who are the Founder and CEO of Black Mothers Forum. And they were founding and building a micro school and being on one of their information sessions, I originally thought this would be a good place to place my child because he was having difficulty staying focused and being engaged in the school where he was at. Even though I was a teacher there, I think I was more so a distraction being a teacher there instead. So it was a very interesting topic to hear more about.Horn:                Super interesting. And I'm just sort of curious, that's a big move, right? I mean any parent that sends their kid to a school, I think often you say, okay well they're going to be there until the school runs out of grade levels, they go to the next one. And plus you're a teacher there, there's an emotional tie, this is where you work. And so what was happening that you sort of said, gee, we're going to make the switch and actually start this micro school. What jumped out at you about it?Dudley:             I think it was the autonomy that the children have, where they're more of a participant in their education instead of just a bystander in the background. Normally at how we were taught to teach is that we have information, that we give the information to the child and basically we tell them what they're going to learn and what they're going to do and in what order they're going to do it. But at the micro schools, they had a lot more freedom, they were able to learn through project based, to take the things that interest them, that they're interested in learning to be able to dive deeper and study into it. The very smaller classroom sizes was a big thing. The micro schools have a very short number. This one had a max of 10 kids per classroom. And so being able to be in that space where you can get the one-on-one help, being able to have that autonomy to learn and ask questions and to grow at your own pace.                        And that was kind of the things that attracted me to the micro schools, especially in regards to my child because he was having a lot of time, hard time focusing. He didn't want to be at school. He just had lost all interest in learning whatsoever. And at home it had become more like a fight to get him to do his work, to get up in the morning. And it was starting to shift and change the dynamic between the mother and son relationship. Because now when we're not home, I'm still not mommy, I'm still teacher because I'm having to be on him about doing this work and this is what you have to learn.                        And so just going through that, I knew that something needed to change. And so when I saw the microschools and I was like, I believe it would be a really good fit for him. And so a little bit of fear, because change is big. The school that he was going to was the only school that he had been to, so he had never been to any other school. And so I was nervous of how he would adjust to the change. But it ended up being such a smooth transition and one of the best transitions he's did. So I was super happy to see how that go.Horn:                Super interesting. But what's also interesting is, it wasn't just him that made the transition. As I understand it, you made the transition as well and helped found the microschool. Tell us about that jump and leap and what that meant for you personally and professionally?Dudley:             But yes, I was at one of the microschools, one of the teachers that was there from the beginning. So from the beginning of its inception I was there and it was a big jump because this is new. The micro schools is something that hadn't been done and organized in such a way. So it was kind of a scary jump to be able to make that transition. But at the same time, there's also, you know there's something that needed to be changed. I saw the need to have it changed even in the lives of my own children and they're not the only ones that I've seen that they need a different approach when it comes to education. And I believe that the micro schools was that approach to be able to take. That it would give that opportunity that we needed to change the dynamics of education, to change that narrative.Horn:                I'm curious, do all three of your kids now go to that microschool or how has that shaken out?Dudley:             My two youngest one does. My oldest one is just in high school, so they don't have the microschool for his age. But my two youngest children do go. And it has been such a beautiful transition for them, just to see them not be so down casted when it comes to learning. Like, "Oh, I have to do this. Oh, I have to do this." So it's no longer a fight to get them to want to do stuff. Now they'll ask questions about things that we're doing in the classroom and sometimes they'll even take the initiative to dig deeper and learn themselves to come share in the classroom.                        So that transition has been beautiful and even at home as well. So now I don't have to fight with them to do work as much, so when I go home I can be just mommy. So it has also improved our relationship as well too. So with both of my children, it took them a little bit to get used to it because they're in the same classroom, so they're around each other all day. And so at first you would see a lot of the bickering that you do within siblings, but even that itself has started to smoothed out as they mature and as they dive deeper into the learning and asking the questions of things.Horn:                Wow, that's something I'm taking notes on as a parent of twins where I'm always wondering about how that might shake out if they're in the same class. But I'm curious, because that harmony is something I talk a lot about with parents is like, you don't want to be fighting with your kids about what's going on in school. You want to be their advocate and behind them. It sounds like you were able to make that work and align those things in your personal life, on top of the fact that I guess there's been a bunch of policy changes in Arizona that's made micro schools more possible.Dudley:             Yes.Horn:                So I'm curious, what's the state of microschools more broadly in Arizona and the current context of the microschool, how many students are there? How how's it going today as we've really emerged on the other side of at least the pandemic piece of COVID?Dudley:             Right. And definitely in Arizona, they do make it a lot easier to have the microschools out with the laws that are already in place and the support with school choice that's out here. And so our microschools are able to grow and expand a lot easier and be formed. Our current microschools will go up to 10 students per classroom. And we normally have two coaches inside of each classroom. So there's a one to five ratio when it comes with the kids. And so that in itself creates that harmony that you were speaking of. When you're in a setting where you really get to know the people around you, you really get to know your teacher, you really get to know your other classmates, you become comfortable and they almost become a little bit of a family, like little cousins that they call each other.                        And so just them feeling that safe and comfortable in an environment, tends to drop down their defenses. And so they're not all defensive or guarded all day. Being on your guard all day is kind of exhausting. And when children live in that state of guardedness, I don't know what's going to happen, especially coming from post pandemic because there are so many changes. And so mentally and emotionally they're all guarded. But when they're in an environment that they feel safe, where they feel secure, where they feel protected, being in that environment really helped my children be able to feel safe. Especially being in an environment with The Black Mothers Forum where they were able to see guides and other students that looked like them as well.Horn:                Yeah, it seems incredibly powerful. And I guess it's where I want to go next, is shifting into this more macro work you do with The Black Mothers Forum as well. Why don't you actually tell us about that organization first and the work you do there before we get into the connection with your education journey?Dudley:             Okay yeah. The Black Mothers Forum their mission is to educate, organize, and take action. And in this regard as relates to school, there was a lot of issues that the mothers, there were just mothers at the time were seeing that was going on in the education system. Just injustices the things that were going on. And so they were advocating for these families, trying to help them, going to school boards and going to the meetings and stuff to advocate for parents whose children were being unjustly treated in the classroom and by administration. And so within that work, they kept coming together, coming together, and then Black Mothers Forum was created to form, to help go for advocacy is how it started. But as the years went by and they're still working in this fight to get the same treatment for all children, that it turned into a place that maybe what we're looking for and what we're needing is not there. Maybe we have to create that environment.                        And so that's when the ideal of the creating a school was born. And COVID kind of helped shift those things with the emergence of these micro schools. And that's kind of how the micro schools were formed in that need. And so the micro schools are targeted to help our Black and brown children because in Arizona we tend to see those statistics or those are the ones that tends to fall in those cracks. And so those are the ones that need a lot of help, that needs a lot of love and attention.Horn:                So it's interesting, if I understand it because essentially The Black Mothers Forum exists to take action to make sure that there's these avenues for these microschools or other such interventions that-Dudley:             Yes.Horn:                Create pathways if you will, for the young to really allow them to flourish in many ways. And when you're describing having a school environment where kids can let down their guard, they don't have to be on their defensive self where they can see role models that look like them and so forth and really make that identification. And then be picking work that's meaningful to them to learn the various standards and so forth. It seems like in many ways that's... Culmination is probably the wrong word, but it's a great manifestation of the work that Black Mothers Forum is doing to make something really tangible that parents can opt into. Is that sort of the theory of change? And where do you see it going as this continues to play out?Dudley:             Well, I see them growing a lot. The need especially post COVID, the need for something smaller or the need for change has been driven to the forefront just by society itself, wanting to see some kind of change. I think the eyes were opened of all that teachers do and what is required when a lot of the kids had to stay home when that pandemic hit. And so a lot of parents and stuff are seeing what's going on specifically with their child, because a lot of parents didn't really get eyeballs in the classroom, so to say, to see how their children processes through work. And COVID kind of allowed that. So coming out of that, we are seeing a more demand of a need for change and it can change in a different way. So I see it growing tremendously.Horn:                So it strikes me that you're really empowering parents then to be able to make a choice and not feel like that they're at the mercy of the 'system' and that they have these personalized options. I'm curious, you get to talk to the families who are enrolling in the micro school. Is that the motivation that they bring or what sort of drives them to find this?Dudley:             I think most of it is just the need for their child to feel safe. Because a lot of times when people come to us, they've tried all the avenues that they know how to try. They tried working with teachers, they've tried working with administration, they've tried moving to different schools and they just can't find the right fit that they're looking for for their child. And a lot of times they often don't know exactly what it is. They just know that what I am in right now is not working and I need to change something. I need to do something else. And so when we come here, they're just looking for something. And what they don't know is a place where we can look at the child, the whole child holistically and not just the academic portion of the child.                        A lot of schools, they really just focus on the academic portion. Are they learning the standards? Are they learning the curriculum? But they don't really get a chance to look at the whole child holistically. Are you emotionally okay? Are you physically okay? What is wrong with you in general? And oftentimes when you have 30 kids in one classroom, there just isn't time for you to be able to do that or form those kind of bonds that the children at that age kind of need.Horn:                So it's fascinating on so many levels. Because what you're describing I think mirrored with the research that we did around why parents switched their kids' school. And one of the big reasons is the current place, it's just not going in a good direction. I need that escape valve and something is going to be better than what it is now. And so they're making that leap to get out of a bad situation in many cases. And it seems like your answer in many ways is this more personalized feel. And as we wrap up here, the last question I'm curious is, for you as an educator, having been an aide, taught in a more conventional school and so forth. Now you move to this environment where you get this incredibly nice student teacher ratio, you get to do the projects, you're following the interests of the kids, you're getting to attend to the whole child. What was hard about that transition or what have you learned maybe is the better question out of that transition for you professionally that you might not have expected when you got into teaching originally?Dudley:             It was a whole lot of things that came out of this transition. Number one is, I didn't realize how lacking it was until I got out of the environment. To be able to... Just noticing how the children react now if a child came in and not a good mood or something like that. How you treated it at a public school is very different than how I can treat it now. Well before, you still have to come in, I see you're looking different than normal, but you still have to come in, you still have to sit down, you still have to get to work. And if things are not going well, then I send you to a nurse or I send you to a counselor or I send you somewhere else. But here, when a child comes in, I'll be like, the first thing I ask is, "Are you okay? Or do you want to talk about it or do you want to journal it?"                        Because they have their own journals and so have them let it out. And over time they start talking and they start sharing and you're almost like a counselor, or just a listening ear so to say. But that student teacher relationship shifts a lot. And so that was one that I was not expecting. But I do love how beautiful it looks when it comes. Because when a child fully feels comfortable and lets down all their guards, watching them blossom, it's just so beautiful when you see that curiosity and that passion ignited once again to be able. To see their eyes of wonder that open up when we're doing experiments and things like that.                        It is so wonderful to be able to see that light bulb turn on in children again. And so that was one thing that I was not expecting to see come out of it, is that closeness relationship. Not only do they open up, but I open up a lot too about what my passions are. Also, the work that I do with the economic development team of Black Mothers Forum, I'm able to share that in the classroom as well too. Teaching them how they run their own businesses, how economics and how finances work. Something that they typically won't get in elementary school in class, we're able to incorporate that in as well.Horn:                That's powerful. And it occurs to me that in many ways you're illustrating the truth that we know from the research, which is that when you're on your defensiveness, when everything's coming at you, the ability to be curious or creative or inventive, it's just not there. But once you create that safe space, you open everything up. So I lied, I guess one more question, which is-Dudley:             Oh yes.Horn:                If you're speaking to parents right around the country, around the world who are trying to figure out how to unlock those opportunities for their kids, what's your biggest piece of advice to them as they go on this journey, advocating for their children?Dudley:             Is to just keep speaking up. A lot of times we see parents get very discouraged as they're trying to look and trying to fall in other alternatives and things. It's just to keep speaking up. Oftentimes we find that in our children as well too. When they come to the microschools, they don't know how to speak up for themselves. So you ask them questions and they don't know how to respond because they're so used to being silenced or used to not being listened to. And we see that reflecting in a lot of parents too. It's just to just keep searching, keep advocating, keep speaking up. There are options. And now more and more, you see more of these micro schools popping up, more of these different ideas in traditional schools popping up everywhere. And just to keep looking and keep speaking out and keep advocating for your child.Horn:                It's a super powerful message. You are a super inspiring example of living it.Dudley:             Thank you. Thank you for subscribing. Leave a comment or share this episode.

How do we measure not how smart someone is, but how they are smart? That's the question that Elliott Washor and Big Picture Learning have sought to answer with their innovation—the International Big Picture Learning Credential. Exactly how they have built this set of credentials and made it valid and reliable is the topic of my conversation with Elliott—and what it might portend for the future of learning. As always, you can listen to the conversation here or on your favorite podcast player (just search the Future of Education), watch the conversation at YouTube below, or read the conversation below in full if you’re a paying subscriber.Michael Horn:                Welcome, welcome, welcome to the Future of Education where we are obsessed with helping all individuals build their passions and fulfill their human potential. And today's guest has been doing that for a heck of a lot longer than I've been involved in trying to transform education and he's been doing the work in a variety of ways, really by pushing the envelope or even ripping up that envelope and throwing out the playbook altogether and innovating. His name is Elliot Washor and among the many hats that he has worn and had, he's the co-founder of Big Picture Learning. He’s the co-founder of the Met Center in Providence, Rhode Island. And we of course have had learners from Big Picture Learning schools on the show we've had Andrew Frishman on the show. But the topic that I really want to dive in with Elliot on is the international Big Picture Learning credential, which in the words of Elliot to me, “Changes the equation by measuring how an individual is smart, not just how smart they are.” And I think that's a really profound flip and an exciting set of opportunities. So first, Elliot, welcome. It's really good to see you. I assume you're coming to us today from San Diego?Elliott Washor:           Yeah, it's not what people think. It's raining and chilly here today. I got a sweater on even. I don't mean to make anybody feel bad who's in real cold weather, but not all is perfect in San Diego like people think.Horn:                Well, still close enough to paradise I suspect. But before we really dive into the nuts and bolts here, let's talk about this credential that you all have created. It was developed by Big Picture Schools, as I understand it in Australia, and then the University of Melbourne I think partnered on this to sort of vet and bless it if I understand. But tell us a little bit more about what it really is and why it's unique.Washor:           And I feel that over the five decades that I've been working that... And we've all in very good ways, many of us, struggle with assessment, constantly that our colleagues in Australia and the Viv White who's the co-executive director of Big Picture Learning in Australia and her staff and we have about 40 schools there, have come up with something that contribute a lot to the field. So what happened was, is that Viv took Big Picture's learning goals, which are basically pretty easy to understand by anybody in that we like to credit students around how they apply their academics in and outside of school with mentors and teaching staff as advisors in the real world and in school, once again in communities.                        What they did was they took the learning goals and they went to the University of Melbourne to the psychometricians there, the head of whom is Sandra Milligan. And they said, "We want to credit teacher judgment, student self-assessment and mentor judgment and we need a warranting and validation entity to do that." And Sandra and her team collaborated with our schools and developed an algorithm that as you put the information in, through once again teacher judgment, student self-assessment and mentor judgment, it spun out a validation that vetted and warranted that this was real, that what they actually said they did, they did. And then our students applied to universities, colleges, technical schools, and the workplace in Australia and it lo and behold it was accepted without using standardized test scores or GPAs.Horn:                These areas now that they're vetting are things like communication skills, empirical reasoning, quantitative reasoning as I understand it, personal qualities and sort of metacognition or knowing how to learn, I think. What are those artifacts that they're feeding in or into that algorithm really look like?Washor:           So basically it is students create their own learner profile, which is both text and video, that's a piece of this, and that can start and we see this starting kindergarten all the way through. Right now we're doing some work at the K to eight level with this, excuse me, but it's mostly at the high school level. And when a student has compiled their work, both they're in school work and they're out of school work, which for us are connected, they put it together and run it through what they call this pedal or ruby, which looks like those six measures in them. The learning how to learn, one is metacognitive as well as disciplinary thinking, how to learn to think in a discipline.                        And once again, all that work is looked at and vetted all the way through. And then in the junior year and senior year it goes into the University of Melbourne to be vetted and warranted and they somehow spin it out with an algorithm that they're working on to get better and better. And it's pretty good now. And lo and behold, it worked. It gave enough validation and credibility to what many of us needed.                        So for example, if you have a portfolio from any school, how does that university, workplace, technical school know that it's real? And that's the function of what Uni Melbourne is doing. And I don't know why we never thought of it like that before. It seems pretty simple and smart what Viv and her colleagues came up with, but we hadn't. And so we just relied on sending out transcripts if you will, and portfolios. Now if there really is, and there is developing a clearing house around this, we can utilize a university, a trusted place, to vet and warrant these three things around student learning. So now what happened was in the research and at the end we can point you to the research that's been done in Australia by third parties, we found out that indigenous students, immigrant students are getting into places that they normally wouldn't get into, because it's not about how smart you are, how you look to a test, but it's how you are smart. And all of a sudden people are starting to recognize that and go, "Wow, this is really, really different. This makes a lot of sense."Horn:                Super interesting. And as I understand it, in each of those six areas, there's five levels. So I can say in effect, "Here's my portfolio of work, the things I know and can do and show application of." And it's going to say, "Great Michael, you're a level four communicator." I'm making this up right. "You're a level three in your quantitative reasoning." Whatever it is. Basically these mastery thresholds.Washor:           Yes.Horn:                I assume. And then that's going to create a very simple portfolio of who I am. I say simple in the sense of it's a quick representation for a university or employer or whatever. And then they can dig into it to start to say, "Okay, what does that mean Michael can actually do and let's actually look at the work in itself and the exam."Washor:           Yes. And before it gets to that point, there's professional development where staff from the same school and staff from different school look at different students work and rate it. So there's that piece going into that algorithm as well. And then that university psychometric work is saying, "Yes, it is what they say it is." And that's really powerful and important. So there's a lot to it that makes teacher professional development and judgment, it raises the bar on that, if you will.                        And what we're finding out, and we've started it in the United States with about 25, 30 schools in California, Washington state and New York, is that the algorithm, the teachers are harder on the students and the students are harder on themselves than the algorithm is. So there's all this play going on, which I feel is really very healthy.                        Now, the implications for that are pretty amazing, because now you can credit learning that happens outside of school, as well as inside. Now you're crediting tacit learning, where you know more than you can say, you can show things. Now you're crediting fluid intelligence and young people recognizing patterns that come out culturally and in their communities and from their neighborhoods and families. So it looks, it's taking this to another level. We've also instituted it in or started it in where we have schools in Barbados and Kenya and that it's working very well there as well.                        So what we're looking for now and what the University of Melbourne is doing, Sandra Milligan and Viv is we're looking for university partners in the United States. And Uni Melbourne has sister relationships with other universities in the states and that's where Andre's going first. And we're seeing how they can partner with universities here. So the transfer of student data is not going across internationally. And of course there's all these pieces that have to be worked out around online student data and all that and privacy. And that's also a part of this work as well. And it's not easy work. It's rewarding, it's exciting, I hope it leads once again to other people figuring this out even better than we figured it out. But we're going to keep pushing on it because we think that Viv and our colleagues were really onto something.Horn:                Well, so there's a couple pieces there that I want to come back to, but just, you talked about what it starts to replace a little bit. Standardized test scores that are very narrow measures of certain basket of skills, we'll call them, grades that maybe are unreliable because maybe the teachers are underrating what the students can do or vice versa in certain settings, I'm sure and grade inflation. But that it's creating these robust measures. It strikes me that something else that it's doing is that this isn't just say badging work that's been out there for years because there's this validity and reliability behind it. It strikes me, we see industry certifications, but what seems different here is that these are... The six areas you just talked about, those are sort of school competencies if you will, that should port across states, countries, school systems, et cetera. And then there's stuff like the Mastery Transcript Consortium and stuff, which I think is super exciting, but they're not actually doing the validating, if you will, of the actual learning itself as far as I understand it. So it seems to maybe not replace but fit within something like that. Do I have that right? What else is it replacing and tearing it out?Washor:           We've been having some very nice conversations with Mastery Transcript and other platforms like Capable and it does fit because we're adding some value that quite frankly people haven't thought about in a way we have. And what's one of the things that's most interesting personally for me and for our work at Big Picture is that crediting outside of school learning that it doesn't just happen inside the four walls of the school. That certifications are out there in the real world as well as in school. And that becomes part of the process of bringing this work back in school and crediting it and accrediting who the young person really is from the community that they come from. All those pieces are in incredibly important that are leveling a playing field.Horn:                Well, and correct me if I'm wrong here, I have this recollection that used to work in New Hampshire even before Big Picture Learning days. If I'm correct, I don't know where I'm pulling that from. But a place like New Hampshire now has these pathways to credential out of school learning. I think one of the reasons maybe people have had concerns about it is that there's not been an assessment sitting on top of it to say like, "Is this really just Michael Horn's volunteer hours at a community center? Did he actually know and do and apply something?" And it seems like this framework could also really help support those more systematic efforts as opposed to say, individual schools or school networks that have valued out of school learning. This could really turbocharge some of those efforts to be a little bit more true I guess, to this notion that we all know is true, which is learning happens all the time anywhere. We just haven't figured out a way to credential it, if you will, outside of the formal school day.Washor:           Yes, to what you said, I feel that whether people buy into the work that is the international Big Picture Learning credential or learn from it, it's once again adding value to the whole body of work that's out there and it's needed and necessary if we're going to move this forward. I always say on the competency based systems, they talk about anywhere, anytime, but if they don't talk about the many ways that you really understand something that sometimes you can show it but you can't say it, which is how you work more in the real world, then we are bouncing back to a written text test or/and text for any kind of validation and certification.                        And this is way more than that. You can actually show what you can do. As Wynton Marsalis said at one time, "There's only one school and that's the school of can you play?" And that you can't schools shy away from that. It has to be what you put down in a written test and what you say. But so much of the world works in the tacit arena, in the arena of a craft, if you will, and a science and an art all integrated together. Whereas our measures are text-based and written and spoken, but not necessarily something that comes out of a community of practice outside of school that is validating, "Can you do it? Is it good enough?" And those pieces around is the, my buddy Mike Roses who passed away would say, "As mastery as foregrounded, the clock recedes." When you looking in school time and a set time of a day and a set period and a set number of weeks and then you're punching out a grade that looks very, very different now, than something like the IBPLC.Horn:                So I want to dig then into the valid and reliable part of this. And I mean a psychometrically evaluated tool, it seems to me that that's pretty breakthrough here. It's another thing that's different from all the badges and stuff that's out there because it says, "Yeah, the student can do these things." And you mentioned interrater reliability of having different places look at an artifact of work and saying what this really is a mastery threshold of and so forth. Tell us more about, how does someone know if it's valid and reliable, what does that really mean and indicate because we hear it all the time as sort of the gold standard of assessment.Washor:           Yeah, no, it's a really good question and I'm not a psychometrician, but I'm glad that some psychometricians are interested in exploring this with us. And I feel that they have really put their heart and soul and analysis, analytics to this, to really come up with something that is ongoing and developing, but is pretty damn good. And so using what is being inputted by teachers, by mentors, by students and creating that analysis is what's doing this and looking at bigger numbers of students going in to this process is what's going to make it more, is going to refine it and make it even more reliable. I can say for sure, pretty much for sure that much. Like I said, I know it's not magic, but I know, and I know that there's a really serious bunch of people playing and involved in producing these kinds of analytics.                        So I think they're on their way, it's real important. And for some reason we'd all like to say, "Just use teacher judgment." But it hasn't happened in 70 years and it ain't going to happen. So we come up with something called standardized tests, which measures things way, way too narrowly for most of us. It miss too much. This is something that's giving us this other kind of breakthrough, possibly, disruption, possibly. I don't think we're at the end of it, I think we're at the beginning of it. And I really feel very hopeful about it and I hope, and my hope is that we get the supports and that people, because people say, "Hmm, this is really important." I can't keep doing what I'm doing like you discussed in New Hampshire, it's not going to give me what we really want. It's not going to give it across states, countries, even within our own place.                        And this is that whole piece around, as well, around our work and that's been in the field and the research work of people like Julia Freeland Fisher, it's who knows you know what you know, and that gets you to a place, well that's that outside of school learning validation that's coming into this, as well as you hear the student voice in the learner profile in the video and in their written work of them telling everybody who they are and who they want to become and what adds meaning to their life. And it's different for each and every young person.Horn:                Well I love that you can represent that individuality and that pursuit of uniqueness as opposed to trying to all compete to be the best on something narrow, which creates the zero sum mess that we're in right now. The question I guess I want to end on is, folks who listen to me know that I think innovation in an assessment is perhaps the most important or in the top two certainly innovations we need to enable a real positive sum system to flourish where we move beyond the timed measures and so forth and allow each person to be the most unique person they can be, ultimately. So you all have developed the beginning of this, as you said, you're bringing it into the US now you're looking for the university partner. What are the steps ahead? Are all Big Picture Learning Schools going to start using this credential? Or what's it going to take I guess to start to get this spread? Give us a little bit of the roadmap mapping.Washor:           Right. So right now we have about 30 schools in the US and around the world aside from Australia involved. And although we use... Big Picture Learning goals are interesting in the sense that I think you were saying, and I would agree, they're not so abstract like a lot of competencies, like creativity. All right. I mean when does that happen? I go, ah, when I hear that, I go, it's wonderful, but these are really tied to the school. Empirical reasoning is applied science. So you applying your knowledge and use of science, use of quantitative reasoning, mathematics.                        When we talk about communication, we're talking about not just written, it's like the Isadora Duncan line, "If I could say it, I wouldn't have to dance." So that's part of communication too. All those ways that we can communicate. And so we are closely aligned to what schools can grab onto. And now we're saying, "Ah, wait a second, now we're including application." And the application can happen inside or outside of school and that's different. That's key. And yes, we're going to use the judgment of mentors who talk to students and teachers and yes, student voice is going to be part of this as well. So yes, we're looking for, and Uni Melbourne is looking for a university partner. We're looking for platforms that we could put this on, that are next steps so it is not... It's not two steps over the chasm to get to applied academics, which make it a lot easier set of learning goals, if you will, that can be understood by any school system, public, private, home.                        And I think that there's a big market for this in homeschool. I think there's a big market for this in youth development and in public schools of course. So that's a little bit of an answer to your question, I think, of places we have to go and how it can connect beyond Big Picture Schools as well as using ours as a pilot as well as we have schools in, and another part of Big Picture called Upstream Collaborative, which are not necessarily Big Picture Schools in full, but are schools that want to learn more about how we do what we do. And they're also involved in this as well.Horn:                Love so much of this and I can't wait to follow the progress and have you back on at some point, I think, to update us on that. But for now, as we wrap up, where can folks learn more about the international Big Picture Learning?Washor:           Go to our website, Big Picture Learning and look up the IBPLC and my email's, ewashor@gmail.com or send me an email and I'll send you, if it's not up there yet, I'll send you the research. You can go to Big Picture Australia, as well. They have a lot more posted than we do because it's their research. So yeah, there's a bunch of places you can find out more information. We're happy to talk to any and everybody about this and hopefully once again, like I said, if it's not us and somebody else takes this and goes further with it, in better ways, that's fantastic. But I really feel, once again, I give a lot of credit to Viv or colleagues that they really have contributed. And I'll say it might be a nice idea to have Sandra and Viv on to talk about those psychometrics because I'm fully admitting that I'm not the person to talk to about the details of how they analyze what they do, but I've heard them talk about it. I'm just not the person to talk about.Horn:                Let's do that soon, we'll say. But for now, Elliot, huge thank you. Appreciate what y'all are doing and appreciate you and for everyone tuning in, we'll be back next time on the Future of Education. Thank you for subscribing. Leave a comment or share this episode.

Having served in a number of roles in education—from the superintendent of public instruction of Ohio to a teacher—Susan Zelman has seen many sides of the American education system. In this conversation, she shares some of the big lessons from her just released book, The Buying and Selling of American Education—and her conclusions about how to move forward to support the success of every single child. As always, you can listen to the podcast, watch this on YouTube, or read the transcript.Michael Horn:    Susan has served in a number of interesting roles across the education ecosystem. She's currently president of the Zelman Education Consulting Group. I'll tell you more about why I'm particularly interested in having her today in a moment. But just to give you a little bit more of her background, before that, she was the executive director of the superintendency at the Ohio Department of Education. She has also served as the senior vice president for education and children's programming at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, where she developed policies and programs to integrate public service media into a national reform education agenda. And prior to that, she was the superintendent for public instruction in Ohio for 10 years. And during her tenure, the state of Ohio went from 29th among states to fifth in the 2009 Education Week quality counts report. But more important for this conversation, she's also the author, or co-author I should say, of a new and very interesting book titled The Buying and Selling of American Education. Susan, welcome. It's great to see you.Susan Zelman:            Oh, thanks. It's great to be here, and thank you for interviewing me.Horn:                Oh, you bet. You bet. So before we get into the conversation around the book and so forth, I've given obviously the thumbnail, if you will, of your bio, but I'm just sort of curious about your own journey through education and education policy and how that journey perhaps has shaped where you've spent your time and your passion within the world of education.Zelman:            Well, I love that question. And actually my, I think education journey started when I was in sixth grade in Mrs. Eisner's class. At that time, we were living in the Marble Hill projects. And on my floor, a family moved in from Harlem. And the boy who was going to PS 122, though it's now not called PS 122, of course it was reconstituted, but was in my class, in my sixth grade class. And I actually tried to befriend him and walked to... We had a long walk to the elementary school together. And he seemed like such a nice, bright guy, and he was quite tall. And he lasted in my sixth grade class for one week, and then he got demoted to the fifth grade. So, I asked my teacher, Mrs. Eisner, "Why?" She said, "Well, he went to school in Harlem and they don't have good schools there."                        And I thought, how unfair. And not only that, but he also got then demoted to the fourth grade. And that really freaked me out because he was so tall and just stood out a sore thumb. And I thought, God, the system has failed poor Ernest Gibbs. And to this day in my old age, I still remember Ernest Gibbs and kind of wonder whatever happened to him. The second thing is that my grandparents were immigrants from Russia, but education was the route to the middle class. I mean, my father was a lawyer, my uncle was a lawyer and a judge, and my uncles went to the city college in the thirties, and it was their way to become middle class. So, education was always very important and a value. Plus, I was kind of a nerdy kid, and I was the type of kid who failed summer camp.                        Nobody wanted me on their volleyball team, but I couldn't wait for school to start. So in some sense, even though I know my father wanted me to be a lawyer, education was my passion, and I felt comfortable at school. And then I could have done college in three years, but I stayed on to get certified. And for one year, I was a high school social studies teacher at Grace Dodge Vocational High School... And I so... I would have to leave the teacher's room because I thought they were so judgmental about their students. They said they couldn't tell the Bronx students from the students at Grace Dodge, and that really me off. So, then I was able to get a full scholarship, a fellowship then to go to that, but I have to say this in... Because I live in Ohio right now, that other university up north, University of Michigan.                        And I was in a doctoral program funded by the US Department of Education to train people who were interested in education, who had an education background, but who would do research planning and evaluation for public schools. And I got to do my dissertation from the Harvard Civil Rights Civil Liberties Law Review. I met my husband that brought me to Boston. And then he put it in our marriage contract, our marriage was no void unless I finished within a year, which I did. And then ironically, through a high school English teacher he had, I got a job teaching at Emmanuel College. And I was an academic for the first 14 years of my career. I also simultaneously held a research appointment at the Harvard Educational Technology Center. Then I got an NSF grant from Columbia Teachers College for women who taught in small liberal arts colleges.                        I was getting kind of bored. Even though my kids were young. And I happened to meet actually Mike Dukakis at our neighbors party who was in his law firm and becoming a judge, and I was recruited to join the caucus administration as an associate commissioner. So, I left my brilliant academic career and joined state government. And not only that, but I really found my passion. I felt that I could help design and improve educational systems and I could make a sort of a greater impact. And I was the associate commissioner for a new division called Educational Personnel, and I lasted there for about six and a half years. And then I had an opportunity to really break the glass ceiling and become the first deputy commissioner in the state of Missouri. Oh my gosh, a far cry if we've ever been. And my two girls were in college at the time, but we took our son to Missouri, and he used to call it the good enough state.                        First of all, he was angry because I denied his birthright of going to Harvard Square every day when he was in high school, but the reality was I realized the variability in the quality of education from state to state. He went to Arlington High. But quite frankly, where he went, which was considered a very good district in Missouri, was not as challenging for him. And that gave me even more passion. And then I was recruited to be a state superintendent in Ohio, and I did that for 10 years. I went to Washington for almost two, came back. I actually also did a short stint in a publishing company, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Yeah, Houghton Mifflin. And then a new governor came in, he wiped me, and I came back as executive director.Horn:                I'm just curious because you have a lot of experience across a lot of states, a lot of context, a lot of personal passion, and anger in some cases, tied into all of this, right? And you're sort of your why. And I'm curious what you wanted to pull into this book and really share with the readers as you wrote it.Zelman:            I had a wonderful experience of seeing how legislation is crafted both at the federal state and policy at the local levels. And one of the things that... What sort of struck me when I started to work in the State Department of Education and not the academic community was that people who engaged in education policymaking really didn't understand American educational history, and yet we were trying to improve and reform the system. And without roots, trees perish. So, I think it's really... First thing is that are very important for us to have a good conceptual model of where our American educational experimental system has been and is currently now over the past 230 years. And so that was one thing that I was going to do. And I also wanted to highlight the sort of what I would call the structural problems in trying to reform an educational system that I saw up close and personal, particularly in the state roles that I performed. That was one of the reasons why I wrote the book.Horn:                No, that's helpful. It gives context. And I'll dig back into the history piece in a moment. But first, let's go to the title because you have this super provocative title, The Buying and Selling of American Education. And I'll give you some context for my question in a moment because I really want to hear how you picked that title, because this isn't really a book about commercial interests in American education or capitalism in American education, nor is it like philanthropists buying American education or even private schools. Frankly, it's not even like a Diane Ravitch type book. It's none of that, so I'm sort of curious why this title, and what does it mean to you?Zelman:            Well, it was very clear to me in my work over the years that our educational system was designed around the needs of adults in the system. And we all, including myself, have vested interest in this system, and it is so hard to change because of our vested interests. So in the intro, not the introduction, I think the prefix of the book, I talk about the seven Ps, the politicians, the parents, the professionals, the publishers, the producers of educational software now, the plutocrats who want to keep the status quo, and the partisans, people from either the left or the right who don't like anything. So, I thought... And I've always tried to be provocative, so I thought The Buying and Selling of American Education: Re-imagining a New System of Schools was a title which I would hope sells books, but who knows?Horn:                We'll find out in that, but hopefully will help a little bit and get people a little bit more interested. And so I want to dig in on the history part of it because this book has a lot on the history of American education,, and frankly it does it from a lot of the perspectives that you just laid out, the professionals, the politicians, et cetera. You sort of go around in a variety of these angles and help us understand how we got to where we are today through the lens of, as you said, the last 230 years. And so, this is a totally unfair question for a cast like this, but I'm curious as you think about the top couple things you hope people take away from that extensive history, what are they in a little bit more detail as sure as we think about informing where we are now and where we go?Zelman:            Absolutely. Well, first of all, education, teaching is not a linear type of thing. I mean, we don't have a curriculum, we teach a kid, and then we expect to measure results. It's really kind... I think teaching and doing school... First of all, doing school is hard work, and teaching and learning is a complex human act, and that we don't do it in a vacuum. I mean, you're a classroom, in some sense, is a social system in a system of a district in a system of a community. And I think that in lots of ways, the school is a microcosm of what's really going on in society, and also relating to other systems, the political system, the economic system, the taxation system, the health system, housing policies, which I talk about in my book, banking policies that create neighborhoods for whatever reason. So, one is that this is really quite complex. And one of the things that I think educators need to do is to immerse themselves. And your book talks about this.                        I think one of the problems we have become a political tool to the Republican party, and the superintendents are leaving, teachers are angry and they're leaving and so forth, is because we really didn't do a good enough job in community engagement. And we need to open up the schoolhouse store. We need to let the community into the school and immerse ourselves and go out into the community like cultural anthropologists, and also develop a sense of empathy for the families and the children we serve. And I think that's really, really important. And I think educators tend to be somewhat judgmental of their students, and that fosters a culture of soft bigotry, of low expectations. And for this book, I interviewed 104 Ohio superintendents, and one of the things that came out, particularly in Appalachia... And I'm spending a lot of my time working with JASON Learning, by the way, I think doing some terrific, incredible work in workforce development in Appalachia.                        One of the things the Appalachian superintendents told me was because of food shortage and difficulties of getting learning materials, they went into the little villages, and they saw the conditions in which their students lived. And that really changed a lot of teachers' attitudes toward the kids and toward the families. So, I think that's really important. And I love your chapter where you talk about that you better, as a superintendent or a principal, understand that schools have different purposes for different families, and you better assess that. And you need to accommodate that, you need to develop trust, you need to listen, you need to take your judgment and work with community-based groups within your community and develop wisdom to solve problems.Horn:                Well, so that's... I mean, it's a terrific set of points there and that piece of empathy, and getting out into the community to understand the progress that there's trying to make and so forth. I think you're right. It could break down a lot of these walls. And as you said, tools are the ponds that schools have become in a lot of these political fights. And so you give this diagnosis of how we got to where we are today and how broken and intractable some of it seems. But then really in this last culminating chapter six, you end with this conclusion of how we can move forward. And it's really... A major conclusion that you have is to embrace a more pluralistic view of American education in schools. And it's frankly, as you sort of implied, it's very similar to where I ended up in my new book, From Reopen to Reinvent, as I sort of worked my way through it.                        And I think we both took different paths to it, but we ended the same place. And so I'm just curious, tell us more about that conclusion and why you see it as the only way forward.Zelman:            Well, first of all, I don't see it as the only way forward. I want you to be provocative and say to people, "Look, you're not going to like my vision, but let's all come together form a multi-sector partnership and rethink." So, let me start off though with why I talked about, accountable pluralism. As state superintendent, first of all, I am the Zelman of the Zelman voucher case, and the Supreme Court is really moving... If you follow the Supreme Court decisions, they're really moving more toward funding private and parochial schools. That's one thing.Horn:                Yes.Zelman:            And that's happening in lots of other states with regard to vouchers, private school scholarships and charter schools. And I had three children, all who are very successful, thank God. I don't want to knock wood or whatever, but they all were very different types of learners. And as a parent, I mean, it was expensive to put all three of your kids in private school, and we didn't have very many choices.                        And today, I think parents, all parents, not only poor, but especially poor parents need better choices. And as state superintendent, I saw how people exploited poor kids by making money off of the charter school movement, and that there is no accountability in these private school scholarships. And I thought in some ways, when you only have one system like the common school, which was never really... It was sort of a myth of the common school anyway. And I think, well, you know what? We're moving toward pluralism, but other democratic countries have done this much better than us because they hold people accountable. So, I always liked the work of Paul Hill. And he wrote this book in 2013 or 15 about democratic constitution for our public schools. And he was, as I was. Very upset about where the school choice movement was going because of its lack of accountability, and that we were not giving poor parents really good quality choices.                        A lots of charter schools only last for five years. Now look, there are wonderful models of charter schools out there. I don't want to bash that, but we need more of it. We need more innovation, we need more experimentation. And we need data, and we need people to understand quality processes and how to measure it. So, that's was really important to me. Plus, if you look at like 26 state policies on school choice, they're all over the place. And it's not a coherent system. They're discreet programs. So, I try to use my imagination and say, look, we have an ailing system. If I were queen of the world, what would I design? And I designed this system, which would be a system of schools. The CEO would be a superintendent type, but they would manage a portfolio of schools. The money, we wouldn't fund schools. We would fund students, and that we would stop the property tax because it pits parents against one another. It's not equitable. But we would have a statewide taxing system with an equalization formula based upon the needs of students and their families.                        And I think with new emerging technologies, we could get a better sense of how to merge educational funding with health and human service funding and get better data. I mean, one of the good things about technology, I think from a research perspective, is that we will have these incredible databases, or we can, and we could understand what works under what conditions and why. And that's what I was sort of a arguing in chapter six. Where is the role of business, philanthropy, state government, the federal government in trying to build a stronger R&D for American education? And bring all people to the table from multiple perspectives and see what would come up. Do an XPRIZE. Rather than go to the moon or Mars. Why don't we do an XPRIZE for different types of educational systems, do some good research, design evaluation, and see what works under what conditions for what types of children and families, and provide better choice and accountable school choice for parents.Horn:                So much to aspire to, I think, in that vision. Susan, thanks for writing the book. Thanks for joining us on The Future of Education, and thanks for continuing to push for quality choices and options for the families who need it the most. Really appreciate it.Zelman:            Thank you. Thank you for subscribing. Leave a comment or share this episode.

Parents are increasingly voting with their feet and making novel schooling choices for their children. What's behind the moves and their desires? Adam Newman and Christian Lehr of Tyton Partners joined me to talk about the vast research they have done in this space to learn about why parents are making choices—or even where they aren't choosing something different, what their preferences are. In this conversation they detail their research and what we're learning about parent choice, student-centered learning, and the future of education. You can listen to the conversation above, watch it below, or, with a paid subscription, read the full transcript below.Michael Horn:   We have a great topic lined up for you all today. It involves choice, student-centered learning, enrollment trends, innovation and more, all in K-12 schooling. To help us unpack that, we have two terrific guests, Adam Newman, the founding and managing partner at Tyton Partners, as well as Christian Lehr, senior principal at Tyton Partners. They are the authors of a series of research reports that are just fantastic, Choose to Learn and School Disrupted. I like it not just because it has the name disrupted in it, but they have really unpacked these trends around choice, some of these enrollment trends we're seeing in K-12 school districts, parents' desires and for what they want for their kids. I'm just excited to unpack a lot of this.First, Adam, Christian, thanks for being here.Adam Newman: Hey. Great. Great to be here with you, Michael. Thanks for including us.Christian Lehr:  Yeah. Thanks, Michael.Horn:                Yeah, you bet, so a lot of interesting findings in these reports that you've published. I've actually written about some of your findings, but I'm excited to hear about it directly from you guys. I think one of the most interesting things that you found frankly is that the momentum behind the enrollment declines that we saw early on in the pandemic from school districts is not abating at least as of spring of 2022, and so I'm just curious. That finding seems to have gotten more attention over the last several weeks, but why is that from what your research is showing?Newman:          Yeah. No. Absolutely. It's a great question. Listen, honestly, we were surprised ourselves really to see the magnitude of the transition out of public district schools and into other options. A couple important factors, our enrollment numbers are through the lens of parents. Our work is based on a large, nationally representative survey of parents of children in K-12. It is not the official data that states capture. It's the parent perspective, and it's really focused on what they believe they are doing or want to do for their kids, which we think is incredibly important. Parents are a voice that we don't often hear from regularly in this debate. Really, we saw two things that were primarily driving the dis-enrollment in public district schools from the spring '21 through spring 2022.                        The first was academic quality and perceptions of academic quality, which we could spend the whole hour talking about. I mean, I think, for different parents, that meant different things. Certainly, within the context of the pandemic, it meant the quality of the experience, the educational experience their students were getting based on the type of school model and format that they were participating in. The second dynamic was actually an interesting one to us and a little bit counterintuitive, which was school safety, but, interestingly, it was not focused per se on health, health-oriented safety issues related to COVID, but some of the more, unfortunately, age-old issues of bullying and violence in our schools that are really independent of the pandemic and those effects, but certainly as we see unfortunately in the news on an all-too-frequent basis continue to be really prominent.                        Those are really two of the drivers, and I think the third one that I think underpins that is the pandemic. You've written about this, Michael, in a lot of your work, too. Parents had a front row seat into what their educational experience was like for their students as a result of the pandemic, and they realized it was not what they wanted it to be or what it could be, and so this idea of parent agency married with a proliferation of choices and alternatives that started to emerge in response to the pandemic we think are what were many of the drivers that we saw in that fairly significant 10% dis-enrollment from the district public schools from the perspective of parents.Horn:                One of the most interesting pieces of that data point that you just said, the 10%, was that your sense was only 10% of that if I recall was due to the demographic declines or dropouts or delayed entry into K-12, which we heard a lot about the redshirting phenomenon in the wake of this, but the academic concerns, the bullying which frankly, if you talk to educators, they say that the school violence issues that they were dealing with were a lot worse coming out of the pandemic in the return to school as well. That adds up I guess, but I guess I'm just curious in terms of what you found that parents are choosing instead. What are they turning to when they make that choice to leave that district school? You mentioned that there's a lot more options. They feel like they have a sense of agency. What are you learning about in terms of the actual choices that they're making in a proactive way? Thank you for subscribing. Leave a comment or share this episode.

Anu Malipatil is the founding team member of the Overdeck Family Foundation, one of the most significant forces in education philanthropy over the last several years. In this conversation, we talked about Overdeck's philosophy around creating transformation in the field of education, what kinds of projects Overdeck funds and why, and what innovations and efforts in education has Anu particularly excited at the moment, as well as the role of research in education innovation. As always, you can listen to the conversation above (or in your favorite podcast player), watch it below, or read the transcript.Michael Horn:   I am very excited about today's guest because it's someone I've known and gotten to work with in the education field for many years now. Back to when I helped start the Robin Hood Learning and Tech Fund, and then have remained as an advisor to it. One of my favorite people in the world of education, Anu Malipatil. She is the founding team member of the Overdeck Family Foundation. We're going to get into what Overdeck does and much more, but first Anu, it's really good to see you.Anu Malipatil:   Yeah, so great to see you too. Thanks for having me.Michael:           Yeah, you bet. Before we get into the professional side and what you're excited about right now as you're helping to shape the future of education, I guess where I want to start is you have an interesting personal story and journey through education into philanthropy. I suspect that people checking this out will be curious. How does someone start in education then end up in this place where you get to invest dollars into promising ideas and help shape innovation and research in the field? So I'd just love you to share your own personal story in this world.Anu:                 Yeah, thanks for that question. Well, my personal story really starts with my dad. My dad grew up in a small rural farming village in South India, and education was the key that unlocked his ability to pursue college. It was also the key that gained him entry into the US on a student visa. This concept of unlocking potential for every child, which is the vision of Overdeck Family Foundation, is very personal for me. This connects to my own story because I knew that working with kids to help them unlock their potential would be the way that I would shape my life purpose. In fact, in fourth grade we had an assignment to write an autobiography, which was quite funny as a nine-year-old. But on the last page, the assignment asked us to write about our life ambitions. At that age, at age nine, I knew that my life ambition was to be a teacher. When I finished college, I joined Teach For America. I taught seventh grade math and science at PS/MS 95 in the Bronx and it was the beginning of really living my life on purpose.                        And the second part of my story they don't talk about as often, but I think gets at this question of how I got into philanthropy, my life has been really guided by a strong cultural principle, which is called work as worship. It's this concept that you put your full heart into your work and that your work should be something that makes your community better. And so I really apply this principle to solving challenges in my current context and then also trying to create better conditions for those who were to come after me.                        I started in my first chapter of my career as a teacher as I mentioned, I felt wholly unprepared to step into the classroom, so I committed the next chapter to really coach and develop and prepare teachers to be more effective in their roles. And then as I started supporting teachers all over schools in the Bronx, I really saw this common challenge of them not having enough access to high quality instructional materials or common assessments. So the next chapter of my career, I devoted to really building and architecting the first open source high quality curriculum, which is called Engage New York, which certainly played an important role in shaping the curriculum market today.                        Then as I saw that and was involved in that work, I saw the role that philanthropy played in getting EdReports off the ground. I was there at that very first meeting. And EdReports, for those of you who don't know, is a really important market shaping mechanism for high quality instructional materials. And so it was that meeting that I decided that philanthropy would be the next place that I wanted to have my contribution and impact and to really think about how to lead in different areas in education. So here I am at the Overdeck Family Foundation, as you mentioned, as the founding team member, but almost over nine years into the role investing in innovation, evidence building and growth to do just that.Michael:           Wow! I love these conversations because I get to learn something. I hadn't heard the work as worship piece before either from you. But I want to get into the Overdeck then philosophy on philanthropy in the education sector and your theory of change. You mentioned it there around helping build evidence and innovate. I'd love you to elaborate on that and what that looks like on the ground. What are the sorts of investments and the girding philosophy that's guiding those?Anu:                 Yeah, of course. Our mission at the foundation is to open doors for every child by measurably enhancing education both inside and outside the classroom. We really see our role as grant makers focused on scaling cost effective, sustainable solutions that we think can improve both academic and socio-emotional outcomes for kids. But based on my background and my professional experience. I think we're smart enough to know that scaling programs isn't enough and so we also invest in the ecosystem to build favorable conditions for these impactful solutions to scale.                        We do this by investing in research, program evaluations and various policy-making building efforts. Through all of this, we really try to help our grantees unlock innovation, evidence building and growth. I think one of the underlying philosophies that you asked about that I that might want to touch on here is that we really try to do what we know the government struggles to do, that we know the Department of Ed spends less than one 10th of 1% of its budget on R&D, a step that I know you know quite well, Michael. So we invest in innovation because we know that philanthropy can take risks.                        We invest in evidence building because we know that while there are grant programs like IES and NSF, those are often slow and burdensome for organizations to be able to apply to. So we aim to provide evidence building support that is timely and helps meet grantees where they are. We care both about proving and improving program effectiveness, which is oftentimes harder for the government to be able to support. Then lastly, we invest in growth. We support organizations on their growth journey and we advise them in building key capabilities that we know are required for sustainable scale. Really helping to position them for sustainability and public funding down the road.Michael:           So I want to get back into that research and innovation in a moment, but let's just stay on the growth trajectory. Can you give us some examples of some of the organizations that you've funded along that growth trajectory that have really helped, I guess launch them into escape velocity toward the sustainability trajectory, if you will, that you get really excited about when you think about widespread impact on kids?Anu:                 Yeah, of course. I would say a handful. There's so many organizations that we're so excited about, but a handful that really stand out to me, ParentCorps, which is an organization that works to prepare parents for their little ones joining school in a more formal way. That organization, when we first started supporting them, they were operating in a handful of schools in New York City. They had a strong evidence base behind them but didn't have yet the scale. And so we supported them through a really important growth trajectory where they became eligible for New York City funding. And we actually helped them unlock the public funding to be able to be provide their program in most pre-K and K programs across the city.                        Another example is LENA, which most folks know them as the organization that creates or provides the pedometer that goes into sort of children's vests to help count the words that an adult might articulate or communicate to a little one. We call that sort of conversational turns and word count. And so that organization, when we first started funding them many years ago, they were operating in a handful of regions. Today, we've supported their growth at least 3x over the last five years. Reaching over 18,000 students and young ones across dozens of regions. And then of course we support organizations like Springboard Collaborative and TalkingPoints, both of which have had immense growth over the last several years. And we've been with Zearn for many years of their journey as well.Michael:           And that's obviously an incredible scale story there. We could deep dive in all of those organizations for a while. But I want to come back to this conversation you had around you're investing in areas where the government struggles, I would say tragically struggles in the case of the research piece because in other sectors the government does pretty well in terms of funding research and so forth. But in education, as you noted, it's scant, it's barely scratching the surface. But there's a lot of folks, as you know that will say, "Well, research on what works is at odds with innovation where you just need to be trying things." Or I'm not quite sure what the narrative is, but they sort of have this at odds sense of it. I certainly haven't seen it that way. I know you don't either. How do you think about these things as working in concert with each other, and why should we not see them as opposite ends of the spectrum, if you will?Anu:                 Yeah, it's such a great question and I agree with you that I think oftentimes folks will tend to pit these two against one another. And I think as you mentioned, they can really work in concert with one another. And so we, at Overdeck Family Foundation, we don't see this as a tension. We think both really matter. And I think we know, and I think we'll admit that the current way that kids are learning, the way that teaching and school is organized is not really working. And we've seen that of course with the decades of plateaued NAPE scores and the most recent decline in both math and ELA in fourth and eighth grade. And so I think we really think innovation is critical to look at these challenges in new ways. And we believe that understanding that those innovations work is equally as important. So we support organizations on their evidence building journey so that we're not just testing and trying and tinkering, but that we're also understanding if we're tinkering and trying and innovating, that we're supporting those innovations to be as impactful as possible.                        And so just to give an example of what this might look like, I think we know that teacher professional development, the research is fairly conclusive that one and done PD doesn't work. And we have early signals that PD aligned with high quality instructional materials can actually result in better outcomes for kids. But the thing that we're really interested in innovating around is a delivery model. Can it work in a hybrid model? Can it work in a virtual model? If so, which components are best suited for virtual delivery? And does the dosage matter? It does it need to be different in virtual versus hybrid versus in person? And so our support of an organization and a collective called the Research Practice Partnership for Professional Learning, also known as RPPL, is structured to do just that, sort of understand these innovations and understand the impact of them over time.Michael:           And is that your practice in general, every time you're making an investment in an early stage, either organization or new spin on something that they've done, that you're also coming in alongside and saying, "Great, we're going to invest in your program capability, your development, your growth, whatever it is, but we're also going to make sure that we're building a research base." Or are those things decoupled in some instances?Anu:                 Yeah, they're mostly coupled together. I would say we do think about research both as sort of little r research and big R research so that we're sort of really meeting grantees where they are, as I mentioned before, that if we're really testing a brand new innovation and it's built off of existing an existing evidence base, then maybe a pre-post is appropriate for the first round or an AB test is appropriate. And then the innovation builds, we have some evidence that can build or data of signals in the right direction. We can start to move towards more rigorous research like a QED and in very few cases. But I think critical cases, we do think about RCTs when organization is ready and where RCT would be meaningful for the organization and their journey.                        And we certainly think that there are different stages of that journey. And as much as we can be supportive to meet organizations where they are is I think the best we can do. So we invest both. We have support organizations both in gaining key capabilities, whether that's personnel. We partner with the Harvard Strategic Data Project to place fellows in our early stage organizations where they oftentimes don't yet have data teams to help them of think through a theory of change in a logic model, and then in later stages actually support by partnering organizations with a third party research provider who is best suited to help them. So kind of all of the above.Michael:           No, but that makes sense. And then I guess just staying on this, because you talked actually in the beginning of your career realizing you wanted to go into philanthropy, influence of ED reports on in that and the way it made the market bringing forth what's actually aligned to the standards and so forth and thinking about materials through that light. You're doing all this research building now and so forth. One of the biggest struggles, and people joke about it often, they say, "Well, how do you know if you know the curriculum or the ed tech or whatever it is that you're going to adopt works or not?" And people will jokingly say, "Oh, well I'll go to the website of the company and look at the 10 studies that they list." And most of them are pretty poorly done and so forth. So how do you make sure that these good studies that can actually inform adoption and so forth sort of lifts the evidence base, if you will, of the field and is distinctive or distinguished maybe from all the other stuff that is out there? Because companies realize they have to have something with the word research in it.Anu:                 Yeah. I will say that the non-profit versus for-profit curriculum providers are definitely different, have a different, let's call it spirit around research. And I would say we partner mostly with the non-profit organizations that provide curriculum. And so what I would say is that we oftentimes partner or incentivize organizations to do the sort of the right size, right stage evidence building. But the truth is that buy in important on both sides of the sort of table. So the organization needs to understand what having better research will do for them, both from selling to customers, but also for their end user, the student or teacher and student. And for us, I think we see it as one of our unique value propositions in the philanthropic sector. I think there are many foundations who would like to see evidence behind programs before they would fund, but are not as interested in actually putting the dollars to invest in building the evidence.                        So that sort feels like a really clear place where I think we can add value and fill a gap in the field. But look, I think it's a really tricky thing. I think a lot of times curriculum providers are very quick to put a stamp on the front of their book to say it's curriculum, it's standards aligned or it's efficacious and these ways. And the truth is, it's important for us. I think we think we can be a clear leader and sort of help to shift the behavior towards rigorous research, especially when we're talking about curriculum getting in front of millions of kids across the country.Michael:           Yeah. And obviously the folks you fund are literally doing that. We're talking about millions and millions of kids. So yeah. I want to shift then to the innovation side of this and the innovation specifically that you and Overdeck are most excited or interested in right now at this critical time in American education. What are you looking at and why is it interesting to you?Anu:                 Yeah, wow, there is so much here. There's really four big areas that I'm excited to talk with you about, Michael. Four areas that I know you're deeply interested in as well. So I'll sort of name these four top level and then I'm happy to go into a little bit more detail wherever the conversation takes us. But the first is using technology to help kids and families. The second is re-envisioning out of school time to create more connection between after school, summer and in school time. So these things are less siloed. The third is re-imagining healthcare as a channel to support not only physical milestones, but also academic ones. And then last but not least, redesigning the educator workforce to better meet the needs of students, which is, I know is a topic that we are both very interested in. So I can start by talking about what we're excited about in technology to help kids and families.Michael:           Yeah that’d be great.Anu:                 There's a couple areas that I think we see really great promise. The first is in family engagement. I think for decades we've known that family engagement is critical to a child's success, but reaching parents is oftentimes difficult and expensive. And so technology shows us that it can be done at scale. We support an organization called TalkingPoints, which is a two-way multilingual family engagement platform that uses text messages. They have found that 98% of teachers were able to reach families they had never reached before through their platform. And 100% of non-English speaking families were more engaged with their child's schooling after using TalkingPoints. And so we know that a child's first teacher and often supporter is their family and parents. And so it's critical that we continue to find ways to make this engagement really easy and effective.                        A second area we think technology has a lot of promise is an assessment. On the assessment front. We know that technology can allow teachers to understand student progress and gaps, let's say both the pluses and the minuses more frequently and informally. So platforms like quill.org and CenterPoint offer realtime insight through diagnostics and non-graded quizzes and worksheets. And then we know that research suggests that oftentimes when these types of assessments are paired with high quality curriculum, they can also save teachers time by providing actionable data and kids can get more timely support. And then two areas that are close to your heart, personalized learning and tutoring. We're seeing lots of promising evidence that's starting to build on both of these areas.Michael:           That's awesome. Let's go then to the... All these are really freaking fascinating to be totally honest. Yeah, totally. I'm super interested in the connecting of silos, the re-imagining the healthcare side of this, because I think the health and wellness conversation, I know there's a lot of schools that say we want to stick to our knitting, but the reality is given the conditions that students are arriving to them at, if they don't think about their health and wellness, good luck doing the teaching and learning itself. So maybe let's do a beat on that and then let's talk a little bit about redesigning the educator role and what you're seeing there and excited about.Anu:                 Cool. So on the healthcare side, I would say actually we're thinking about healthcare as a sort of delivery channel. We know that almost every child has a well visit, sees a doctor with a parent or a caregiver. And we really think that this is critical in the earliest years between birth and age three, where we know that about 80% of a child's brain is formed. So organizations Reach Out and Read, actually think about integrating, reading into the pediatric visit, advising families about the importance of reading and sharing books that actually support healthy childhood development. So I think what you're touching on too though, Michael, is that there's sort of the mental health and wellness, even in the K-9 school experience. I think there is a lot of work to be done there. We think that there's a lot of action also currently in that space. And so we've chosen to focus our energy in the zero to three space for now.Michael:           Man it makes a ton of sense. I love that. And all it is also ultimately closing the gap that for all the early childhood education efforts have been unable to do, which is to get before age three in this country when honestly a lot of this development really occurs to your point. Let's go though to the human capital piece of this and redesigning the educator role, something as you noted, I'm incredibly interested in as well. What are you excited about in this area? What are you trying to accomplish? Who's doing interesting things in your view?Anu:                 Yeah, so I know you've written about this extensively, Michael, but I think, I'm not going to tell you anything you don't already know, but I think the thing that we've just been struggling with or grappling with for quite some time now is that this traditional model of teaching has one teacher to 25, 30 kids, it just, it's not working. It hasn't worked for quite some time. I think back to the days when I was teaching middle school science, I was teaching seventh grade, five classes of 30 kids. There was no way that I could understand even the needs of kids in the classroom adapt and modify my lesson plans to meet each of their needs. So I think knowing that the gap for students has widened, knowing that the needs are more diverse today, a redesign model is just so critical. And it starts with understanding the needs of students in each classroom, but also assessing the strengths of the adults in the school and designing solutions that really optimize for both in service of student outcomes.                        And I would say that largely the conversation has not been focused there. It oftentimes is solving for staffing shortages or solving for a very acute problem versus this more kind of macro challenge that we're navigating. So I think this could look like a lot of things, and this could look like having your strongest seventh grade math teacher teach to a class larger than 30 kids or having expert teachers taking on coaching and mentoring for other teachers, more novice teachers. You could have teachers that are maybe less great at classroom management, actually do more of small group tutoring or sort one on one type coaching for kids. And then you could also think about how to better amplify kids who are doing great work and allow for greater near peer mentoring options. We know there's a strong evidence space behind it. It's an opportunity to allow kids more agency and leadership and to learn from one another.                        And then of course, we think that technology could be leveraged in ways to really help a teacher be able to better meet the needs in their classroom. And so there are a couple organizations that we think are doing this really well already, just to answer this sort of question of who's doing it really well. Public Impact Opportunity Culture has done a really nice job of creating or defining different roles for adults, giving them various career opportunities and compensating them differently based on the roles that they play in a school. And this works really well, especially in places, districts and states that have light and thin teacher contracts. It doesn't work in all places, but I think we're seeing lots of positive impact in places where they are currently working.                        And then I think on the more, I would say early side of things, but I think very promising is ASU's Next Education Workforce efforts. They really focus on building workforce teams of educators with distributed expertise. And so really envision these as dynamic teams of educators who share a common larger roster of kids, but these teachers can work together to deliver better outcomes for learners while also making the job more rewarding and sustainable. We've heard teacher testimonies around not being siloed and having to work alone, but getting to work with a team both really lifts joy and satisfaction with the work while also making them more effective in the job.Michael:           Super interesting. Okay, so as we're running out of time here, and last question, because we've heard about all the things you're excited about, these four areas. Putting you on the spot here, aren't you excited about? What wouldn't you invest in right now? Because that's actually part of the really important job of an effective philanthropist is to help be clear about what you won't do. And so I'm sort of curious what, what's out there that either you're not excited about, the foundation's not excited about, or maybe it's over hyped or maybe it's just crowded and you feel like that's not your area.Anu:                 Yeah, so I think it's a really great question and it is a strategy question we always ask every time we sort of do a revisit of strategy. What are we going to do and what are we not going to do? And just to your point is just equally as important. One area that I think there is a fair amount of field energy around, but I think we've just decided is not for us is technology as the sole driver of educational outcomes for kids or technology being the sole contributor. I think we know what the research says about how important it is for kids to have a caring relationship or one on one relationship with an adult. And so we look for organizations and models that actually really blend a caring adult with a technology component. So that's one, I would say we tend to veer away from technology only solutions.                        We also have sort of steered away from socio-emotional learning solutions that are standalone for the reason that oftentimes we think that socio-emotional learning can be embedded in academics for where it can have the greatest impact. It's not meant to be a separate time or a separate period of the day where you just focus on grit and persistence. In happens in class. It happens throughout the day. And we have historically supported Valor's Compass model, which we do think very highly of. It's hard to scale those types of models because they really rely on a deep amount of educator expertise, let's call it on socio-emotional learning. And so as they started to scale, I think we felt like, "Okay, actually let's figure out how we can integrate these types of practices more into the school day versus a separate call out period."Michael:           No, it makes a ton of sense and I think it's consistent to your point with the research base, which says that these sorts of skills like executive function, agency, grit, whatever it is, much better when it's woven into the actual academics and we're showing kids that this matters as opposed to just having a standalone period and telling them that it matters. But then maybe the rest of the day doesn't in fact reflect that, which is the irony of today's education system in many ways.Anu:                 I know. Totally. Yeah. Couldn't agree more.Michael:           So last thoughts from you wrapping up. As you think about where Overdeck is going to make the biggest impact, what's the one thing that you haven't said to us yet that you're like, "Okay, that's going to be the thing that in a couple years from now we're going to be all talking about", that maybe you didn't see coming or that we're doing early research on and you're particularly peaked or intrigued about?Anu:                 Okay. Well there's two things that I, we are thinking about a lot that we are seeing coming but have not yet figured out what to do about it. So maybe I'll speak about those too. One of those is I think to really envision and redesign the educator role, we really have to figure out how to break down this barrier of union contracts specifically around key policies like the seed time waiver and the number of prep periods and teacher compensation. I think without being able to move and flex those contracts we're really going to struggle with that redesign sort of vision that we have. And then I think we're looking really clearly at what an Essor funding cliff about two years time. We're looking at a declining school population, as you've noted in one of your recent articles. And so we're expecting drastic, I think school budget reductions. We know that personnel is the largest cost for schools, so we're expecting teacher layoffs in two to three years time. And so the thing that we're thinking about or grappling with is what would it take or what do we need to have in place now to be able to navigate what will feel like a really tough set of conditions in 2024, 2025?Michael:           Super interesting. And it's interesting how through all of the work you're doing, human capital considerations and the people that are working with kids pervades every single one of those and it comes out loud and clear.Anu:                 Yeah, 100%. It's true in every sector, I think, right?Michael:           Yeah. The people matter. And so Anu thank you for joining us in the Future of Education. Keep up the great work at the Overdeck Family Foundation and really appreciate all the contributions you're making.Anu:                 Thanks Michael. Thank you for subscribing. Leave a comment or share this episode.

Homeschooling, charter schools, boarding schools, traditional schools, private schools, and more are all familiar modes of schooling. But the fastest growing segment of K–12 education is also one of the newest and least familiar: microschools. What's behind the microschooling movement? What might it enable? What should we watch out for as it emerges? Don Soifer, the CEO of the National Microschooling Center, joined me to share more. Don has been advocating for microschools well before the pandemic, and prior to his role in that movement served on the DC Public Charter School Board from 2008 to 2018. As always, you can listen to the conversation above (or in your favorite podcast player), watch it on YouTube below, or read the transcript.Michael Horn:   Don, it is good to see you. Thanks for joining.Don Soifer:       Great to talk, Michael. Always a pleasure and I've learned so much from your work and our work together. This is the most exciting opportunity to put it to good work, I've had to enjoy and in my career hopefully innovating.Horn:                Well, that says a lot because you've been in a lot of movements at the forefront of education innovation. You see things early, you get on them, you do things with them. I want to start there by framing the conversation for folks.                        Let's just do it around your entry point right now. What is the National Microschooling Center itself, and why are you excited about this microschooling movement that is burgeoning?Soifer:              The National Microschooling Center is an empowering hub for pioneering small learning environments. In the course of doing this, and we've launched the center over the summer. We have both met and gotten to know some people that have been doing incredible microschooling work for a long time. We've gotten to feel like we've inspired some fantastic educators and leaders to do new and innovative things, and just as likely to do some old and innovative things. Microschooling is to me, in so many ways, the most exciting storyline we've come across in American education in a long time.                        I think that way because the incredibly transformative potential that we see, it's all about designing learning and teaching learning around the needs of the particular learning that you're serving, and the relationship that you've built with those. There's just so much need and space for that everywhere we look in education, everywhere we've been in education. It's just exciting everywhere we look and the people doing it are the reason why.Horn:                When you say you're helping all these entrepreneurs, all these microschools that are popping up, empowering them, what does that support look like on the ground?Soifer:              Well, we've got one of the fastest growing movements and storylines in education. The researchers say there's between 1.1 and 2.1 million learners, who are relying on microschooling as their primary and first source of teaching and learning. It looks so different in so many different ways, in so many different types of settings, and in just about every different jurisdiction in the country. Depending on those jurisdictions, the National Microschooling Center loves to provide resources and learning tools.                        Sometimes we do bulk purchase of learning tool licenses, so that we can take learning tools that we like working with and make them available to our microschooling leaders, along with some training and some background, and some help tracking them. In some cases, it's helping them navigate the often complex framework for operating that they're working in. In the school choice friendly states, that can be as simple as connecting in a seamless fashion with the school choice vehicle in their states.                        Where there's other states that we have those incredibly life-changing educators that we're fortunate enough to have maybe one of in our lives, who are basically running microschools in some outlaw ethos. Because these are early adopters and the government and the regulators haven't quite caught up with what microschooling is, and how to work within in their setting and everything in between. Sometimes we help them connect with each other, sometimes we help them learn from each other.                        Sometimes with the incredible leaders that we have, we're able to share insights and innovations in a real community way, and it's got a feeling to it. Maybe we saw in those early days of the charter school movement, when these brilliant educators were meeting together in church basements trying to navigate how to bring this to the learners in their lives. It's got a feeling a lot like that, but in so many ways, microschooling is just such a different movement than those were.Horn:                I want to get into the compare and contrast in a little bit but first, I want to stay one more beat on this because you founded this center in 2022. But my recollection, is you got interested in microschooling well before that and frankly, well before the pandemic. It was something that I was certainly writing about before the pandemic.                        But my sense and my recollection at least, is that several years before it maybe, you said this could be a really important set of innovations or enabling innovations in the education sector. Tell me, is my recollection correct? Why was it that it sparked it for you, even before it became part of the popular lexicon?Soifer:              Yeah. I really fell in love with the ideas of microschooling around the time, Michael, that your co-author, Heather Staker, was getting involved with building the first acting academy in Austin, Texas. Really understanding the ways that knowing a learner and their individual needs, can make this whole process better. I come from the charter school world and school choice broadly, but particularly within the whole charter school world, lots has been written.                        Lots of really smart people have observed that it's increasingly difficult for charter school authorizers, to be able to approve and work with truly innovative learning environments that really live up to their potential. A lot of that has to do with the whole charter school approach has become about compliance and standardization. Even the best authorizers and some really, really smart people working in that space, find it really difficult to be nimble enough that they can bring in and attract, and support the diversified.                        Everything that microschools need to be, to really live up to their best potential. I lost a fight I felt early on in my involvement in charter schooling, where the idea of school specific and mission specific measures. So that if you've got a charter school with an approach that's maybe tied to social and emotional learning or performance art. That the charter schools could be evaluated on what's most important to the learners and the families that choose those charter schools.                        Whereas as the charter school world is turned into one of looking for a model and replicating it, and evaluating it based strictly on performance on standardized testing. Microschooling is such a diversified movement that brings together educators. As many hard left educators, as hard right, that really bring to this diversified approaches that we don't see very much of in the charter sector. It's an exciting movement.                        I think that the nature of permissionless education. In microschooling, the only permission that you really need is the permission of the learners and the families that you serve. That raises some really exciting potential and it makes this a space that has an excitement to it that we haven't seen in American education very often in a long time.Horn:                I want to double-click on a bunch of these things. This is where I want to spend the bulk of our conversation because I think these tensions are really interesting and you're calling it out. I've thought of it similarly. You ought to say the intent of the school in the public domain, is to produce these outcomes. Let's measure it in a way reflective of the school mission itself.                        As you noted, it just hasn't gone that way. What has that taught you, I guess, about when you start to take public dollars and you're asking for innovation at the same time, and maybe the tension there in it? Is this an inevitable thing that happened in the charter movement? Or do you think there's more nuance or subtlety there that it could have been done differently?Soifer:              Charter sector, and there are some brilliant educators working in the space, and some really exciting charter schools doing some really life-changing work. But the charter sector, in particularly the way that charter authorizers have evolved, has become increasingly compliance-based and standardized in a lot of ways. That it's just difficult for a charter school authorizer operating within the legal frameworks, in which they have to work. Charter school authorizing isn't easy, but it's relatively simple.                        A charter authorizer enforces the law by working with its community and with the schools that it serves, to satisfy the laws and the requirements, and the regulations that govern charter schooling. In ways that often put the most forward leaning and the most inspiring and inspirational charter school authorizers in a bit of a box, where they need to have a compliance mindset.                        Where a charter school needs to have a full-time staff person dedicated to nothing else but complying with the rules and requirements of the charter authorizer. It just becomes more and more difficult to do something truly innovative in it.Horn:                Stay on that for a moment, Don, just because is that the inevitable rise or creep? Because the ethos of charters originally, was free us up from the inputs because that's like the burdensome of the traditional district schools. We account for every single minute, how they use staff, all that stuff. It constrains innovation. The original ethos was free us up on the input side, and hold us to account on the outcome side. It sounds like charters in your view, have drifted considerably away from that in terms of how they operate.                        That's consistent with what I've heard from a lot of folks in the field as well. Is that the inevitable result of like, "Hey, we've got public dollars here"? More and more regulation is just going to creep in and mandate how we do the work, not just what the work itself is. Is that inevitable or could there have been another turn in the charter movement in your judgment?Soifer:              Well, I think that there's still plenty of opportunity for charter school leaders to be more nimble and to find ways to be truly innovative. It's not just the charter sector. I think that's something that we've seen broadly within the American school choice experiment. That when it comes to the use of public dollars, the deals that have to get made to bring people on board to the plan, or to bring an accountability regime.                        Because so many stewards of the taxpayer dollars and of students during the day, are rightfully so focused on making sure that they can police and protect against the bad actors in the space. But we've gone so far in that direction, that as innovative a charter school as you want to put forward, and there are absolutely some innovative charter schools out there. They're pretty much all at this point in every state that I can think of, measured really strictly on their performance on the state test.                        While I have always been an evangelist when it comes to the longitudinal growth of individual learners over time being the most important measure of accountability in a public education space. We have microschooling leaders that sit and that work with families, and the families themselves choose them because maybe they care more about the social and emotional growth of a child. Or because they simply have considered and reject their state's academic content standards, as being relevant to their child's future.                        Or just don't ever want to subject their kid, their children to norm referenced or criterion referenced assessments. There's space for them in the microschooling movement, so that you have microschools that really wouldn't have a space in the charter school sector. Or even in other school choice programs that get locked into certain ways of doing things. That truly hybrid approaches can't even operate in some of the more innovative education savings accounts models that we have, that are often held up as the state of the art in school choice today.Horn:                Well, so that's where I want to go next actually, which is you're seeing right now a growing movement across the country around education savings accounts, other forms of financing school choice. A lot of choice advocates are super bullish about this because they talk about the equity piece of this. That more and more families are going to be able to afford these innovative schooling options that are emerging. Which we should note, are generally lower cost than a traditional, independent or private school, but they still cost something.                        We're seeing more and more ESA programs start to give families the dollars themselves, so that they can choose these microschool options in many cases or other school options as well. I guess I'm just curious from your perspective, are you nervous about that movement because the public financing could lead us down the same road that you've seen with charters? Or is there something different here with the microschools? Once they start getting paid for from ESA money specifically or micro grants, whatever it might be, that makes them in your judgment, more immune to these pressures?Soifer:              I just don't know if I can confidently say I understand what the future of public school accountability is in this country. Everywhere you look, you see more and more hesitation to accept standardized testing regimes. And public education systems where you need to be so focused on compliance and adherence, and see time requirements, and 30 square feet per kid, and 180 days in a school year. Lawmakers that just can't resist getting involved in the academic content that we're teaching our kids.                        There have been really smart people, John Bailey comes to mind, who have really been advocates of the education savings account approach. Because it really allows for a more learned everywhere way of thinking about our schooling, so that a family and a learner can be savvy consumers and draw their learning from multiple, diversified sources. In this environment, they can choose to get their math learning from this space, or they can get their career training from this exciting internship or apprenticeship.                        That they can be truly hybrid in the ways that they pull together their education. The reality of this though, is that the reasons that education savings accounts are supposed to be better than school vouchers. Is that you should be able to use an approach where you're drawing your learning from a learn everywhere universe of different ways of learning. So often, our private schools and there are some really talented educators, who are really doing inspiring things in non-public education.                        But so often, private schools are so heavily regulated. They're so heavily reliant on systems like the accreditation system, that in some places it can work quite well. But when we are relying on these sorts of structures all in the name of protecting our learners against bad actors, it really limits the transformational opportunity to give learners what they feel in this day and age, in this economy. At first, I think microschooling was largely jump-started by the pandemic and the pandemic circumstances.                        I think since then, it's moved to a place where it's more motivated by the new economy. I think families at the more fragile ends of the income spectrum, are more likely to be willing to look critically and thoughtfully at the education system and think, "Is this where I want the learner that's important to me in my life to get all of their preparation to succeed in this new economy, or can we do better?" I think all of those reasons are contributing to an environment where families are just reconsidering their historic relationships with the institutions that they've relied upon to meet their education needs.                        And looking to be much more active consumers of their learning. When you have an active learner, Michael, as you know from all of the incredible work that you've done exploring the personalized learning models that are really making the biggest difference in this country. When you can shift from a passive to an active learner paradigm, the sky's the limit on the growth that you can witness, and the potential to really make an impactful difference. I think that's what's driving microschooling as much as anything else right now.Horn:                Super interesting on a number of levels there. I agree, by the way, that the shift from passive to active is maybe the most important part of this equation in my judgment as well. I've increasingly come to believe that. I want to stay on this outcomes or conversation just for one more beat. Which is there's some sense in the argument that I suspect some people will hear, which is pitting, if you will, private progress versus a public accountability or a public minimum progress. I don't know exactly the right way to frame it.                        I guess I'm just curious to hear, I'm not going to make you education secretary. But if you were education czar for a school year, how would you think about that tension between the private goals of individuals and families making those choices for themselves versus the public interest? When there's public dollars at stake of some let's even just say minimum accountability, how do you think about those trade-offs? Or do you think it's a false trade-off in your view?Soifer:              That's a great question on any number of levels, Michael. First of all, microschooling is about what you can create, not what you're leaving. When we look at establishing microschools in an environment like many states and many communities that I've worked in. Where for instance, more than half of Black boys are scoring at below basic skills in math in eighth grade, to cite one example. It's hard for me to look at the monopolist approach and think that this is a fail safe way to ensure that we're delivering a quality set of opportunities to the learners that we're being entrusted to serve.                        That said, this should be about what we're creating and not about what we're leaving, because that's really where the potential for microschooling lies. When the pandemic started and you would read in particularly the New York press about pandemic pods. To me, those stories raised more questions than they answered about are these things effective? Are these things equitable? That's why when we launched our own microschooling, we wanted to make sure that what we were doing is measurable and is equitable. In doing that, we were focused on pandemic learning loss. Certainly, there are microschools that do a terrific job measuring the academic growth of kids over time, because that's the way that you set them up.                        Microschools don't have to be set up with those goals in mind. One of the important areas that, I think, we've made good progress in the last three years, is that if you really want to show academic growth in a meaningful way, that we no longer are in a place where you need to rely upon the state standardized testing regime to do that. We did a fantastic case study with the Rand Corporation that validated the opportunity that if you want to use learning tools that are able to use their embedded assessments to measure the academic growth over time. And it can be aligned with state academic content standards or common core, or there's lots of choices that you can choose.                        That these are also ways that hold validity when they're done with integrity. And are able to be used in a meaningful way to help families stay informed about the learning progress that their child is making. That you really can use tools that everybody has access to that are not incredibly expensive. That if you do them in the right and thoughtful way, that you can use these to measure the academic growth of kids over time. Which has always to me, been the most important measure of being a good steward of the taxpayer's dollar and the child's time. Because growth over time, it tells you more about the value added that you're bringing to this as a provider.                        And less about the household that the child woke up in the morning, which is what proficiency ratings to me are so often about. That there's lots of ways to get this done. And that education technology, this is the golden age of digital content in so many ways. That what this creates is a flat earth environment where everybody has access to these incredible tools, that in the past only large government monopoly providers were able to access. That's a game changer to me in so many ways. And to bring this back to your question, it provides an opportunity that we just haven't had before that's enabled by technology, by everything we know about teaching and learning.                        Some microschools or Montessori microschools that don't even rely on technology very much at all. But everything that we've learned about everything that has to go into how we learn. And how teaching and learning can really live up to its potential, has a real place in microschooling that it's really hard to find in a much more traditional, institutional government school space.Horn:                So many good insights there, Don. I like it just because these are the questions that, I think, are so important to be wrestling with and asking right now, so I appreciate your insights and wisdom. As we wrap up here, I'll just offer a reflection of my side and then a question for you. Which is, I think, one of the mitigating things that should make people less concerned goes to what you were saying, which is that these point in time assessments that while you're learning they don't distract from learning, can show me the growth of my child.                        Are incredibly powerful and they answer the question that almost all parents I talk to ultimately want to know, when they choose these options or any school. They want to know, "How's my kid doing?" They want the answers themselves and they can see that sadly, the existing system or whatever it is, is often not working. You alluded to it there, which is that you have a microschool in Las Vegas as well, that you're part of that community. I'm curious, what have you learned from the parents through all this, that maybe you didn't expect when you got started down this path, as we wrap up here?Soifer:              Families that really experience a rich microschooling environment never want to go back. Something that really got jump-started during the pandemic, is now much more about what's possible in schooling. If a family within a robust, diversified, dynamic microschooling ecosystem wants to move from one microschool to another for a period of time, they can absolutely do that. They can have a microschool that fits their schedule, so that they can see their kids more often if they work shifts.                        Or they can really adopt a learning model that works well for their learner, and change that model in December rather than wait until the end of the school year to make those changes. When families understand what's truly possible and that they really can build an education around their own learner's needs, they don't ever want to go back to a system where they give that up. There are some families that might be happy in a large public school, where they can play football or play tuba.                        Maybe that's the best choice for them, and that's often the case. But as microschooling is gaining a bigger and bigger and more diversified market share, we're really seeing the innovative ways that it can live up to its potential. I think it's exciting.Horn:                Incredibly exciting. I love the work that you're doing, Don. I'm hoping when I'm out in Vegas, that I get to see you and see some of the work that you're doing.                        Just really appreciate you shining a light on this working to support so many educators, as they trailblaze this path. Then in turn, the parents and the students who are taking advantage of it. Appreciate your leadership so much.Soifer:              Thanks, Michael. Likewise. Thank you for subscribing. Leave a comment or share this episode.

As readers of my newsletter know, I've long seen assessments as one of the biggest barriers to moving toward a future in which all individuals can build their passions and fulfill their potential in a positive-sum, mastery-based education system. Arthur Vanderveen is CEO of New Meridian, which is helping to redefine assessments that are valid and reliable, bite-sized and can be taken as students learn, and can be aligned to the content on which they're actually working so that they are helpful to students, teachers, and policymakers. As always, you can listen above, watch below, or read the transcript.Michael Horn:                In my mind, assessment is single-handedly both one of the significant barriers that is holding the education system back but it's also one of the biggest opportunities for innovation that can propel it forward, the learner-centered education system that our students need, our society needs, and so forth.                        And I would just say as a bit of prelude before I introduce my guest on today's episode, the problem with today's assessments in brief are that they really are a reification, if you will, of today's time-based learning system. In today's system, we offer learning experiences, we test and assess, students make progress to the next unit, the next subject, the next grade level, whatever it might be, and only afterwards do they get the results with very little ability to do anything with that feedback.                        Or maybe, it's a formative assessment that they get in the context of their learning, but it's not something that really helps with their transparency around their learning. It's often not a high quality assessment of any sort, so they don't really get credit for those sorts of learning experiences in any meaningful way.                        What's interesting is as a result, assessment often becomes synonymous with an autopsy in our education system. It's just basically a view of what the student did, but not an opportunity to improve their learning, which frankly is a shame. Because in a mastery-based learning model, we would offer learning experiences to students, we'd still do testing and assessment, but that testing and assessment would essentially be almost real time or interactive to inform what a student did next, and only when they truly demonstrated mastery would they move on. It's a very different model for assessments, and it requires a very different model of thinking about validity and reliability and so forth.                        In that model, assessments could be shorter, they could be more frequent, and they could be both for and of learning. So break this trade-off between that formative and summative by performing both. Our guest today, Arthur Vanderveen, the CEO of New Meridian, knows a heck of a lot more about all of this than do I. He's in my mind helping create these innovations in assessment to really propel the system forward toward this much more learner-centered vision that I have outlined. Arthur, first, welcome to the Future of Education. It is great to see you. I'm excited for you to talk to us, teach us, and correct everything I just messed up about the future of assessments, but thanks so much for being here.Arthur Vanderveen:     Michael, it's great to see you and a real pleasure to be here with you.Horn:                So let's just dive right in. Tell us a little bit about your own background, and what is New Meridian?Vanderveen:     So I've been 25 years working to improve K-12 education in the US, both in the for-profit, non-profit, public sector, private sector, and a few things have animated me over those 25 years. I developed my expertise with assessment when I was at the College Board, and when I led assessments for the New York City Department of Education, where I also had the opportunity to help launch and run the Innovation Zone under then-Chancellor Joel Klein, an interesting intersection because the I Zone was all about how can we develop and support schools in developing more student-centered, personalized learning models? Doing that work while also running all of the assessment programs for New York City Department of Education.                        So you just hit the nexus of my career passions about how can we make assessments better support innovative, new, more personalized, student-centric learning models?Horn:                So it's a fascinating background. Again, to my mind, it's maybe the most important topic in education, to think about how we actually move meaningfully forward. I'm curious, just to start with a little bit more history which is No Child Left Behind ushers in the mind of the public at least these high stakes assessments. Arguably, they'd been going on for a decade at least before No Child Left Behind in the States and so forth. Then there's the Common Core, there's SmarterBalanced, PARCC, all these innovations on top of those summative assessments.                        And then people start to say, "Well, gee, maybe we want a little bit more innovation in this space," but they restrict it to grade level assessments and things like that. I'm just curious where in your mind is the state of state assessments at the moment as you look at the landscape?The Future of Education is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Vanderveen:     Starting from the end and working backwards perhaps, I mean, we've all just experienced perhaps the biggest disruptive shock to our education systems in the pandemic over the last two, two and a half years, which I think put in question many of the assumptions around the NCLD era accountability models.                        We as a county just had a crash course in hybrid and blended learning, where the locus of education instruction moved from school-based standardized central education instruction into our dining rooms and our dining room tables. And that has been... I think will have a lasting disruption. Technology enabled, more personalized learning models have been anchored into not only our schools, but our parents' and our families' expectations. So I think it's opened up space for real innovation.                        NCLB did tremendous things. It's part of the original 1965 ESEA, which was commitment to civil rights. We need to know that every school is serving all of our students equitably and fairly. NCLB helped us move along that path tremendously. But there's room for improvement, to be sure in our state level assessment and accountability models. And they are a constraint on innovation as we try to get to more student-centered learning and assessments supporting those models.Horn:                So I'd love you to just dive in, and then in a moment, I want to get into what you all are doing at New Meridian to break that down, but just stay there with us for a beat on that, which is how are the current assessments still holding us back from these personalized models that you've advocated and tried to push the Innovation Zone, and elsewhere in your career, how are the current assessments holding us back from that specifically in your mind?Vanderveen:     I think it's the power of the accountability regimen that we operate under. So we currently have a single end of year snapshot of student learning, which reduces a student essentially to a single score, and that's not in the spirit of student growth and learning.                        And yet our states, our districts, our schools, they are so constrained in order to meet the technical requirements to ensure that those scores are valid and reliable and comparable, all the things they need to be, but wouldn't it be great if we could develop a model that is more instructionally valuable, more closely aligned to what's taught in the classroom, deliver more data and information to teachers and students and families along the way, and then in aggregate, try to build that technically valid summative score from those multiple assessments that provide a more holistic view of student learning throughout the year. That's the vision that we're working on here at New Meridian.Horn:                So let's go right there, which is New Meridian is trying to build these valid, reliable pictures of student learning it sounds like much more frequent throughout the year. What's the actual work look like? What's the product look like? Who do you work with? Is that at the state level, district level, and so forth.Vanderveen:     We're piloting what we call instructionally aligned assessment system right now in Montana and Louisiana. Both states, each won a Competitive Grant for State Assessments grant, CGSA grant, to help fund that work. And philanthropy has been also helping us fund the design and development of this early pilot. The challenge if you can imagine of aligning assessments to what's taught throughout the year from a state's perspective, they can't impose a single curriculum on districts. There's too strong a commitment in this country to local control.                        So it's always been the challenge of how do you align with what's been taught, when you're trying to get that summative score, that's why we do end of year assessments, because at least we know based on the standards, students should've mastered this by the end of the year. Once you start to press into what's taught when, then you start to get challenges. So the way we've tackled that is we take grade level standards and from an instructional perspective and curriculum perspective, how can we create mini-assessments? A collection of maybe 18 to 20 mini-assessments, micro-assessments that can be flexibly selected, sequenced, stacked, and administered throughout the year.                        So irrespective of what curriculum you're using, maybe it's high quality instructional materials, a green rated curriculum, or maybe it's something that's put together locally at the district, you can create a configuration of assessments throughout the year that cover the standards and support that end of year summative score.Horn:                So let me just make sure I understand. So basically, you have a body or almost a library of assessment modules, if you will. And based on the curriculum and what a student is working through, and I guess if I've chosen to go a certain content approach, another district or state has gone a different content/curriculum approach, we can pull off in modular fashion almost different assessments, or packages of assessments it sounds like, that have been vetted, they're valid, they're reliable, and deploy them alongside the learning so that we can get that instant feedback, it sounds like, about how the students are learning. Am I starting to get that right?Vanderveen:     Absolutely. In Louisiana and in Montana, we're working with selected districts for this first year who are using different curricula, because we want to show that each district can select in sequence according to their instructional plan, and we want to do the research and development then to validate the cumulative score and see that it serves for those summative purposes.Horn:                So that's super interesting, because now I guess that's the other question I have, which is what are the role of the traditional end of year in this version? Is it something that they're sampling against to just say, "Hey, did the score that New Meridian put together for the student predict accurately and in line with, and so we don't need this end of year summative assessment?" Are you expecting maybe more precision? What's the benchmark and the role of those old assessments if you will as you move into this new model?Vanderveen:     For a transitional phase, we will use them as a benchmark. It's part of the validity research. We want to see how we categorize a student in terms of mastery of grade level standards versus how they do on the end of year state summative, and we'll do those analyses to see how reliably both approaches determine whether that level of mastery... Ultimately, the ideal is that we don't need that end of year summative, because we've proven out that this approach both provides that real time instructional value back to the teacher and student and provides that comparable, reliable level of grade level mastery by the end of the year.                        And there's some other advantages of doing multiple measures throughout the year. Of course as you started to describe earlier, in a mastery based learning model, you want the feedback. You need the feedback, because it informs how you correct and adjust, where you go next, what precursor standards or understandings a student doesn't have, you want that real time information in a mastery model to move the student along.                        So that's the value of doing this throughout the course of the year, and then building that cumulative measure as well will dramatically reduce overall testing time, and that's a real goal for this whole design, is we want to have a single, coherent system of assessments that both support instruction throughout the year and provide that summative score?Horn:                My head's going a number of different directions, because there's some exciting features here. I'm just curious in terms of the day to day work of New Meridian, are you all building the actual assessment items and checking them for bias and all those things to make sure that they're valid and reliable, or are you taking assessment items from others?                        What do these assessment items look like? One of the criticisms obviously of No Child Left Behind, your state assessments was that they tend to be "low level, multiple choice, not performance-based." So there's a bunch of questions in there, but I'm just curious what the work is and what the output of those assessment items looks like?Vanderveen:     We're designing and developing the items ourselves entirely, so New Meridian, founded in 2016, and since 2017, we've been supporting the former PARCC states with their assessment design and development for their state level summatives. One of the reasons I founded New Meridian, because early when I was in New York City, was close to the design of the PARCC assessment, it really did push forward, advance the field in terms of the quality of assessments, focusing on critical thinking, problem solving, deep engagement with content, and strong emphasis on writing.                        And it's because I believe the PARCC assessment was such high quality, I wanted to start New Meridian to ensure that legacy continued. So we bring that history, that commitment to deep engagement with content and more authentic tasks to all the work that we do. There are some new challenges here when you start to try to give more timely information through the course of the year. You do need machine scorable items. The field there too has advanced dramatically over the last eight to 10 years in terms of technology-enhanced items that create a more authentic or deeply engaging task, but provide an immediate score.                        And then in our design, we'll still have open-ended tasks that require scoring. We'll do those at certain periods within the year, because we think it's important. Not only in writing, but also in mathematical modeling, in showing your reason, in solving open-ended problems quantitatively. Those are important performance tasks, and we will be using AI scoring to support the quick turnaround of those scores as well.Horn:                Super interesting. It sounds like you're going to address what your former boss Joel Klein always complained about, which was he used to always tell the story that it was December 1st, and he liked to joke that he probably went to you actually in the story and said, "Hey, Arthur, how we doing this year?" And you'd say, "Well, when the assessments come out next year in December, I'll tell you how we were doing at this point last year." And it always frustrated the heck out of him.Vanderveen:     And he's not alone. We've got to get scores closer to the point of instruction, if they're going to have any real value. Politically, I think families, state education agency leaders, chiefs, they recognize that. So I think there's more momentum now to get more utility out of state level assessments than there ever has been in the past.Horn:                Two other buckets of questions that I'm curious about, because you alluded to the fact that how you can design these assessments for different curriculum or content choices to yield to the local control desires of districts. Obviously, Louisiana has said, "We're going to be super centralized in terms of the content," as I understand it, and make sure the assessments are aligned around that.                        As a result of that, it sounds like you're trying to transcend the challenge that interim assessments have played in this world of accountability, which is to say interim assessments that are relatively content-agnostic have propped up to try to predict how a student is going to do on the end of year summative assessments, and give the school a lot more information, but instructionally not super helpful because they haven't been content aligned. It sounds like you're trying to disintermediate, or get rid of that system as well, if I'm understanding correctly. Is that an accurate portrayal?Vanderveen:     Not super helpful is I'd say an understatement. I would say actually quite problematic in terms of the impacts that interims have on curriculum and instruction. They primarily support a growth measure and prediction to the end of year state assessment. The way they do that is they essentially measure the same end of year blueprint three times a year, even at the beginning of the year.                        That creates a rather artificial measurement of growth, because they're measuring stuff the student hasn't seen yet. They haven't had the opportunity to learn that content. That's frustrating for the student. The other impact that interims have on instruction is too often, it tempts teachers to focus and drill on the skills that are tested by the interim assessment, which pulls them out of a coherent instructional plan.                        We want rather to let the dog wag the tail by creating these modular micro-assessments that can be flexibly aligned to what's being taught. All high quality curricula are aligned to standards. You can look at the standards in instructionally coherent clusters, and you can align to 80 to 90% of a district's scope and sequence, or an adopted curriculum, if you have enough of these micro-assessments to support that kind of flexible alignment. That's the approach we're taking.Horn:                It's incredibly exciting, frankly. Doing away to your point with the deviation from coherent scopes and sequence of curriculum for low level drill and kill that doesn't actually have much value in frankly boosting learning or test scores ultimately, as I read it, would be a welcome departure. I'm curious. You're not just doing this in the ELA and math areas. You're also doing innovative things with science assessment, as I understand it. Can you tell us a little bit about that work?Vanderveen:     Yeah. Two years ago, we launched the science exchange, driven by the fact generally, it's ridiculous how much money states spend on customized end of year assessments that are all essentially measuring the same standards, yet every state creates their own custom assessment. Underlying our model in all subjects is states should be able to share assessment items and realize those efficiencies by licensing content and using that in their state.                        That's especially true of science assessments, for states that are aligned to the next generation science standards, really deep set of standards. Multi-dimensional, cross-cutting, and to create high quality NGSS science assessments is very expensive. So some states are farther ahead than others.                        We wanted to set up a mechanism by which states could share those NGSS aligned content. We handle the licensing, the liability, the risk, all of that to let states help states. So we've been using that approach. We have a handful of states who are doing that now, some contributing, some licensing, some doing both, as they can refresh their science assessments using other states, high quality and we do a quality review and give them feedback on that.                        We're also now looking at high quality interim or a more testlets based system for science that has its own challenges, but we think the same things apply in science as they do in math and ELA. If we can get more instructionally valuable information back to the classroom, we're going to help learning outcomes.Horn:                It's incredibly exciting. Last question as we wrap up here, which is you suggested a problem with the growth scores, if you will, that the current state of interim assessments is something I had never thought about frankly. I had always thought about the problem with some of those growth scores is that they're norm referenced, so if you're in the fifth percentile of learners, it's comparing you against the fifth percentile learners, and if you grew "a grade level," well, that's actually compared to the others at the 5%, so it's building in lowered expectations. Huge problems there in my mind.                        But I think the growth question is still an interesting one, in the sense of gee, if I'm really working at a second grade math level even though I'm in the fourth grade, I actually would love to know, am I starting to master those standards over time? And am I growing to a point where I'll be on grade level, so I can keep up? Particularly in math, it's a cumulative subject.                        I'm curious how you think about that in the system, because I know right now, the federal requirements say you can only assess on grade level. But it seems to me that what you've built could be much more adaptable to whatever each individual student is in fact learning, and be assessing that to give a much more robust picture of what they have mastered, and what they have not yet mastered, perhaps. Maybe it's not a growth score, but a more transparent reflection of what each learner knows he can do. Am I reading that right, or what's wrong with that picture?Vanderveen:     No, I think you're reading it right. There's a lot in what you just said.Horn:                Sure.Vanderveen:     Especially on the math side, we're designing around the learning progressions developed by student achievement partners which extend across grades, and there is a, I would say strong emphasis coming out of the pandemic to focus on learning acceleration rather than remediation.                        And that means focus on grade level content, identify where students are struggling, and look at the precursor standards from prior grade or even before and how can you build those knowledge and skills, to help them be successful with the grade level content? That's strongly the model emerging out of the pandemic to accelerate the recovery.                        So since we're building on those cross-grade progressions, we can support the identification of those prior foundational skills, but we want to keep educators focused in the on-grade curriculum. We think that's essential. Too often, students get identified below grade level and they get locked into this cycle of remediation, and they never catch up. So we've been designing for a model that focuses on grade level, helps identify precursor skills when needed, and supports educators with those.Horn:                Super interesting. Arthur, final thoughts as we wrap up here on where this future could go with assessments and what sorts of learning models we might see in the future as a result?Vanderveen:     I do think we're walking through a door where the movement from standardized instruction and assessment is giving way to more student-centered, competency based learning models. The more we can have micro-assessments that are supporting, giving feedback to what students are learning on their own pace, the more we can move to that student driven, student-centered learning model.                        And we right now are designing for the district and school level to configure, but imagine we see the next iteration of this where the teacher and then the student can say, "I'm ready for that assessment now. I'm ready to demonstrate my mastery of that competency. Let me take it." And then build and level up through the course of the year on a true student-centered competency based model. And if we can do that and meet federal accountability requirements from that system, then I think we've really found the Holy Grail.Horn:                Now, that gets exciting. Arthur Vanderveen of New Meridian. Thank you for joining me on the Future of Education, and for the work you are doing. I appreciate it.Vanderveen:     Thank you, Michael, great to be here. Thank you for subscribing. Leave a comment or share this episode.