New WonkyFolk is out
(Well not really, here’s a link to a sneak preview of the episode coming later this week). Jed and I talked with College Board president Jeremy Singer about the future of college assessments like the SAT, and AP, his work helping overhaul the FAFSA after the botched rollout, and a host of other things, including his time in post-Soviet Russia. Listen to the end (and subscribe) if you want the part where he gives away the secret to getting your kid a 1600 on the SAT.
ICYMI
I talked with the Chalk and Slate podcast (Karen Nussle and Jeff Pestrak) about the education scene and what might be next.
Kirsten Baesler, Amy Dunkin, and Jasmine Walker joined me for a discussion about outcomes-based contracting on a Bellwether LinkedIn Live.
And here with Teach For America’s Aneesh Sohoni about the recent Bellwether project about how TFA alums fueled education change in three cities.
Last month I wrote about Nikole Hannah-Jones education choice article and Jed Wallace and I talked with Derrell Bradford about it on WonkyFolk.
Coming attractions
This week I’ll be at UVA and at EdTech Week in New York City. Come to our session on what to expect from the new federal education tax credit. Next week I’m in Boston and Miami, and at the end of the month I’m back in Boston for two talks at Harvard, one of which is open to the public. If you’re around, let me know.
On the 30th Erin Mote and I are talking AI, techlash, and what’s happening on a Bellwether LinkedIn Live. Sign up and join through that link.
Teachers and AI
I spend a lot of time these days in rooms (real, Zoom, and otherwise) with educators working with AI, with the people trying to support them, and with the people trying to sell to them. A pattern keeps showing up: teachers seem to sort broadly into four groups. I can’t tell you what share of teachers fall into each one. I don’t have data to really size these groups outside of broad strokes, and I’m skeptical of anyone who claims they know right now. I would recommend RAND’s work surveying teachers in the meantime and if someone wants to pay for that survey work, I’d really like to find out. But I see all four consistently, and the differences between them matter for policy, for practice, and for where all this is heading.
The Power Users. Forty years ago these were the teachers with an Apple IIe, tinkering and writing their own programs because it was fun. Now they’re running agents, building tutors and lessons, and creating tools to help with workflow, admin, paperwork, and grading. They’re chaining tools together and figuring out on their own what works. I don’t know if it’s all FERPA compliant because they are unsupported at the ragged edge. They are not waiting for permission. Vendors say these teachers sometimes just show up and sign up for free tools, regardless of whatever their district is doing. These teachers are a real asset. They understand both the potential and the limits better than most, and we should be leveraging them a lot more and learning from them more.
Their hero: Steve Wozniak. Or maybe Larry Berger.
The Scaffolded. These teachers are having a good experience with AI, and it’s not an accident. Someone is training them, supporting them, and giving them time to learn and practice. The focus isn’t on specific tools but on the broader technology. You know, scaffolding. Works for adult learners, too. But this isn’t systemic. These teachers just happen to work in places that are approaching AI thoughtfully and intentionally. Right now, that’s mostly luck. That’s a problem, and it’s hard to overstate how poor implementation and change management are right now in general.
Their hero: Nick Potkalitsky.
The Dragon’s Teeth. These teachers didn’t start out opposed. They got handed a tool with little to no training, no time, and maybe a vague mandate, and it went badly. Or they got a pile of tools with no idea how to use them as a cohesive whole. Or conflicting guidance from different directions. Or guidance they took seriously, only to find everyone else ignoring it. Now they’re frustrated and skeptical, and they have good reasons to be. The haphazard approach to AI in too many school districts is sowing dragon’s teeth.
Their hero: Not sure, maybe Peter Gibbons from Office Space?
The Objectors. These are the principled opponents. Some worry about cognitive offloading and what happens to learning when students outsource their thinking. They don’t think this can be mitigated by different instructional approaches; they think it’s inherent to the technology. Some worry about what AI means for teaching jobs, or jobs generally. Thier concerns may be about AI more generally, for example the environmental or social impact. Good implementation won’t win them over, because they just don’t like where things are headed. And, rightly or wrongly, they’ve decided it’s not inevitable and they object.
Their hero: Ben Riley and Audrey Watters.
Here’s the point: the Scaffolded and the Dragon’s Teeth are often the same kind of teacher. What separates them isn’t temperament or tech savvy. It’s whether anyone invested in informing and supporting them and their experience as a result. That’s the group up for grabs. Right now too many districts are sowing dragon’s teeth, turning teachers who could have been Scaffolded into Dragon’s Teeth, If you’re a district leader, state leader, funder, or vendor, it’s worth thinking hard about what kind of teachers you’re producing and how to support and grow the kind you want. Soon.
Want Eduwonk.com in your inbox via Substack? Sign up for free newsletter version here.
The Science of Reading’s Gym Membership Problem
Stop me if you’ve heard this before: one of the biggest problems in our sector is weak implementation of promising ideas that then get discredited. We’ve seen it recently with tutoring. It’s a risk for outcomes-based contracting. And it’s a pronounced risk for the science of reading.
Consider this scenario. It’s mid-2028. Gavin Newsom has locked up the Democratic nomination and is touting his commitment to the science of reading as one of his bona fides as a reformer and different kind of Democrat. Meanwhile, everyone this side of JD Vance and anyone whose last name is Trump wants to put this era behind us as quickly as possible. Problem is, California’s SOR law isn’t strong. Everyone close to it says it was dictated by the teachers’ union and, as a result, isn’t a high-fidelity science of reading bill. (Even his allies say this in private.) The only real disagreement is about the counterfactual: what was realistically possible in California’s reform-averse political environment.
So who is going to speak up then and say the California law isn’t really genuine science of reading and Newsom should dial it down a few clicks? And who, then, has the credibility to do it without looking like a partisan hack attacking the other party’s nominee on anything and everything?
To be clear, the politics around the “Southern Surge” and science of reading are complicated. Some of the states doing the best work on reading are also doing things that many people, including me, find deeply problematic. Some are doing great work on reading and knowledge rich curriculum but are also in court fighting to put the Ten Commandments in classrooms. Appreciating the good work behind the Southern Surge while also recognizing the more troubling aspects of education in 2026 requires holding multiple ideas in your head at once. We don’t excel at that! To his great credit, former Chicago Mayor, congressman, and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is pushing through that to make a strong case for prioritizing reading instruction. It’s not clear the education community has gotten the message about how important his efforts are, on the substance and the politics.
Which brings me to the urgent part. If we don’t define the science of reading quickly, in clear and understandable terms, we’re in trouble. It’s more than just phonics, sure, but some elements of effective reading instruction can’t be optional. That’s balanced literary with a new veneer.
Without clear definitional understanding, there are two looming risks. The first is political, the scenario above. The second is that someone will study all the states supposedly doing the “science of reading” and conclude there’s little difference among them. And if there is a storyline that is catnip for publications it’s the ‘everyone thought this reform was great but it’s not’ story.
So you can call it the gym membership problem. Two people belong to a gym. One works out regularly and eats right. The other goes to the steam room and then the juice bar. Technically they both belong to the gym, but comparing their results tells you nothing about the benefits of exercise.
We are barreling toward both problems. It’s unclear enough funders see the risk. But we’ve all seen this movie before.
What They’re Saying
Fish On (Tuesday)
With my schedule lately if I wait to only publish fish pictures on Friday’s then the pile is too big. So because she was name checked above, here are National Parents Union President Keri Rodrigues’ kids wet wading (full contact they call it in her family) a Massachusetts pond.
I post pictures of education people with fish, mostly on Fridays. In this one of a kind archive you will find hundreds of pictures of education types with fish. Send me yours!
Want Eduwonk.com in your inbox via Substack? Sign up for free newsletter version here.
View the original article and our Inspiration here