The tragedy hit close to home: My kids’ preschool is blocks away and I drove past Annunciation School minutes before the shooting, then heard waves of sirens go by. Two young lives are lost and many others in my neighborhood are physically injured, countless more psychologically scarred.

And yet this sudden proximity to tragedy is an illusion. All of us—all of our children—live with this risk every day. Since Columbine, nearly 400,000 students have been impacted by gun violence at their school. Our country sees magnitudes more school shootings than other industrialized nations.

Along with so many others: We grieve. We are angry. We demand change.

Now, we must direct these feelings into the question: How? As Minnesota prepares for a special legislative session in response to this attack, we must ask: How do we build a future where this doesn’t happen?

That future, experts understand, requires evidence-based solutions and a multi-pronged approach—action on common sense gun laws, on mental health, on designing safe and nurturing schools. No action, no change.

As I hugged my kid goodbye this morning and saw him disappear into his classroom for his first day of American K-12 education, I was overwhelmed by the magnitude of what I was doing. I was entrusting him to a system that I deeply believe in—but which I know is not safe.

Policy cannot heal wounds or bring back the children we lost. But we must ask how policy can make the next act of violence less likely. Demand serious answers. And then take action.

The post A message from Education Evolving’s Executive Director on the Annunciation tragedy appeared first on Education Evolving.

But some literacy instruction experts worry Minnesota may fall short of the Act’s objectives if we fail to hold students to high expectations and engage them in materials they find relevant and meaningful.

We spoke to leaders at the Network for the Development for Children of African Descent (NdCAD)—whose longstanding literary instruction programs buck the state’s slipping scores—to hear what lessons they would share. But first:

What’s in the READ Act?

Passed in 2023, the READ Act requires schools to provide “evidence-based reading instruction” focused on foundational reading skills. That means instruction that emphasizes phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension—core components of what’s called “the science of reading.”

These components are backed by decades of cognitive science and represent the most effective way to ensure students learn to read words accurately and fluently.

The Act requires districts to:

• Provide specific training and ensure reading interventions are made by trained teachers.
• Administer reading screeners to all students grades K-3.
• Develop and adopt formal plans for how they’ll have all students reading at or above grade level.

The law addresses some crucial gaps—and sets a high bar for schools to clear. But there’s a risk of reducing literacy to technical proficiency if relevance and meaning get left out of the equation.

Lessons from an integrated, culture-centered approach

[NdCAD’s programs] include all the core components of the science of reading—but through a culture-centered, or integrated, approach.

Since 1997, experts at NdCAD have honed literacy instruction programs that include all the core components of the science of reading—but through a culture-centered, or integrated, approach.

Now, “culture-centered” does not mean “the science of reading with a cultural flavoring.” Nor is NdCAD’s integrated approach an alternative to the science of reading—but a powerful extension that makes it stick. NdCAD founder and executive director Gevonee Ford explains.

“[Our approach] is integrated into a larger endgame [which] is, ‘I understand why reading is important. It’s important because it helps me succeed in school. But it also helps me understand who I am. And who my family is. And who my community is. And my responsibility and place in the world.’”

2025 NdCAD Summer Training Institute
August 18-19

Broaden how you think about education, reading instruction, and strategies to ensure all children succeed in school and life. For parents, teachers, early childhood providers, school administrators, and more.

Learn more

The Sankofa Reading Program at NdCAD serves K-8 students in afterschool and summertime settings. Sankofa students make critical connections between reading and cultural identity development through culturally-specific texts, individual learning plans, and complementary “Parent Power” literacy workshops for parents and caregivers.

The program aligns with state standards and assessments, but as its tagline goes: We don’t teach the reading, we teach the reader.

Ford expands on it: “We teach the reader to master the thinking parts of reading, and the skills so that they can read and make meaning with any text.”

Sam Ramos, a longtime training and program coordinator, talks about making meaning by drawing identity connections, so that we and our ancestors become living texts.

“Our stories are things that our children need to hear. From the small minutiae to the story of how we got here.”

Sankofa translates to “go back and get it.” That spirit of connection to the past and belonging permeates not just NdCAD’s literacy programs, but their office and tutoring space. “Welcome home,” every person is greeted upon entry.

Centering students aspirations, not skill gaps

A core tenet of NdCAD’s approach involves reframing how we think about student strengths and aspirations, particularly when building individual learning plans.

Sankofa tutors analyze robust pre-assessment data looking for student strengths. They don’t start with the skill gaps.

“Now you build an individual learning plan for you. What are you trying to learn from that child about the strength that they bring?” describes Ford.

“What are you intending to learn from the child about what turns that switch on? Because that’s what you need in order to introduce them to the skill areas that are not as strong.”

Transformative outcomes for students and families

Family members of Sankofa students are strongly encouraged to participate in Parent Power. Staff talked about a Parent Power graduate’s a-ha moment in a conversation about building identity connections.

100% of Sankofa students increase their reading skills and 65% finish the program meeting or exceeding grade level reading.

“Now I understand how in nine weeks my child went from ‘I can’t read and I don’t want to,’ to now I can’t stop them from reading and wanting to show off all the different phonograms they know.’”

NdCAD has the receipts: 100% of Sankofa students increase their reading skills and 65% finish the program meeting or exceeding grade level reading.

And it’s not just the kids. An evaluation by Ramsey County found that Parent Power was instrumental to improving families’ stability, well-being, and self-determination.

Ramos draws parallels between his young daughters and the scholars he has seen grow during his 15 years at NdCAD.

“They’re looking for the answers to those questions of why, especially at that age range of six through eight. Everything is why. ‘Why this? Why that? Why do I have to brush my teeth? Why do I have to do this?’ The why is so important,” Ramos explains. “But without the answers, they’re going to think it’s just another thing to do.”

“Understanding the importance of what [reading proficiency] means to them as individuals, as family members, as community members, as a people is why we see the gains that we see in our programs.”

Pushing expectations beyond the baseline

The READ Act compels schools to use culturally responsive instructional materials, though the provision seems likely to yield more cultural flavoring as opposed to the integrated approach proven successful by NdCAD.

While NdCAD uses highly culturally responsive materials, too, Ford believes teachers must be culturally responsive by recognizing who children are and where they come from. But he pushes them further.

“How does that translate into how you think about your instruction, how you think about what you hope to learn from the children and, most importantly, what you hope to learn about yourself from the delivery of your instruction?”

The READ Act sets new expectations; educators must determine how they will help students meet them. But Ford and Ramos urge us to aim higher than baseline standards and expectations. This comes back to reframing how we think about student strengths and aspirations.

“If we raise the standard and intrinsically motivate, they will meet the higher standard,” Ford says of students, before turning the spotlight back to the adults. “If we lower the standard, they will meet that as well.”

As schools implement the READ Act, we must teach kids to decode words. And, they must also learn how to decode the world in which they live. We adults must believe they can.

The post Building on the READ Act: Teaching readers, not just reading appeared first on Education Evolving.

Below are a few of the top policy priorities we’re working on right now.

Student-Centered Learning Designs

OUR ASK: Enable, encourage, and equip educators to shift learning from one-size-fits-all, to personalized, learner-driven, and culturally affirming.

• Ethnic Studies & Academic Standards: Teach a more honest & inclusive shared story.
  Support schools and districts as they prepare to implement high quality ethnic studies learning experiences starting in 2026—so that students are better able to see themselves and their peers reflected in what they learn.

• Personalized, Competency-Based Education: Prioritize outcomes & growth, not ticking boxes.
  Develop a model state “Portrait of a Graduateˮ that centers future-ready knowledge and skills like collaboration, creativity, and critical thinking. This would assert the stateʼs support for such skills, and provide a grounding framework that could be adapted at the local level.

Educator Talent Pathways

OUR ASK: Advance policies, programs, and pathways that recruit, prepare, and retain innovative and talented educators who reflect the communities they serve.

• Teacher Licensure: Clear barriers to licensure for talented, diverse teachers.
  Preserve and improve the new cohort-based licensure pathway for heritage language teachers (created in 2023). The pathway removes systemic barriers and recognizes the expertise and lived experience for immensely talented educators. Expand the cohort-based pathway to other fields.

• Teacher Preparation: Build innovative & accessible on-ramps to teaching.
  Fund and clear barriers for innovative preparation models like Apprenticeships, Grow Your Own programs, Teacher Residencies, and Microcredential-based programs. Preserve and support Alternative Teacher Preparation (per § 122A.2451).

Outcomes That Matter

OUR ASK: Push schools, districts, and states to define, measure, and be accountable for broader forms of student academic, social, emotional, and civic success.

• Better State Assessments: Provide more timely, actionable data on deeper student learning.
  Make the MN Comprehensive Assessments a more equitable and relevant tool. Score it on a “vertical scaleˮ and measure granular, off-grade growth to value the learning of all students, involve youth in test development and prioritize cultural relevance of content, and accelerate the user-friendliness and release timelines of results. Pilot a “Badging Systemˮ that covers deeper, applied skills—and helps students gain access to college credit and employment post-graduation.

• Broader, Richer Data: Capture a more holistic picture of student experiences & development.
  Improve the MN Student Survey—a key tool for elevating the voices of youth and a source of data on factors like school culture, student engagement, safety, mental health, and social-emotional growth. Make it shorter, focused on topics that matter to youth and educators, given more frequently, more quickly available, and easily digestible.

Autonomy & Shared Power

OUR ASK: Move decisions closer to students and support educators sharing power with their teams, students, families, and communities.

• Autonomy Inside Large Districts: Enable school communities to be drivers of change.
  Help school districts shift power to school communities. Create frameworks for autonomous schools where power is shared among students, families, and educators (for example, by building on § 123B.045).

• Equity, Innovation, and Quality in Chartering: Preserving an important space for educator and community led schools.
  We support a high quality, charter sector thatʼs rooted in communities, centered on students, and driven by teachers—and works in partnership with the district sector.

The post Our 2025 policy priorities appeared first on Education Evolving.

The 2023 legislative session gaveled in this week. In the coming months legislators will decide the fate of the state’s two-year budget—and its eye-popping $17.6B budget surplus.

While education funding priorities rank high for DFL governor Tim Walz and others in his party, the policy wins we seek for Minnesota students don’t require tugging at purse strings. Many involve rethinking and redesigning outdated rules and programs, or implementing existing education policy.

Below are EE’s policy priorities for 2023—at the legislature and beyond:

Student-centered learning designs

MN must shift learning from one-size-fits all to personalized, learner-driven, and culturally affirming, by:

• Greenlighting social studies standards that teach a more honest, inclusive shared story so students find relevance in learning that reflects them.
• Prioritizing outcomes and growth—not ticking boxes—through competency-based learning legislation that already enjoyed support from the governor last session.

Educator talent pathways

MN must recruit and retain innovative educators who reflect the communities they serve, by:

• Clearing barriers to licensure for talented, diverse teachers. This includes working with heritage language and ethnic studies teachers facing licensure hurdles on their way to classrooms that need them.
• Building accessible on-ramps to teaching, through alternative prep programs and other innovative preparation models.

Outcomes that matter

MN must define and measure broader forms of student success—and be accountable to them—by:

Out this winter: Our recommendations to improve the Minnesota Student Survey.

• Rethinking state assessments to provide timely, actionable data on deeper student learning.
• Collecting broader, richer data that captures a holistic picture of student experiences and development.

The post EE’s 2023 policy priorities appeared first on Education Evolving.

Minnesota’s legislative session ended Monday without a deal for students.

Last minute proposals raised hope agreement could be found—in particular, on curtailing the special education cross-subsidy and bolstering literacy instruction. But time ran out.

A special session is possible. More likely, a new legislature will decide the fate of education items tabled this year. (In addition to record retirements, every seat—House, Senate, governor—is up for election in the fall.)

Here’s what we hope to see back in play next session.

Promoting positive identity, relevance with ethnic studies

The House education omnibus bill would have established ethnic studies graduation requirements, alongside existing social studies subjects like economics and geography.

Ethnic studies enable all students to better understand the rich cultures, heritages, and histories of our people told from multiple and diverse perspectives.

Not just another mandate, schools would enjoy flexibility in how to satisfy the requirement. And the emphasis on ethnic studies would clear barriers for students otherwise disengaged—those who struggle to find relevance in their learning precisely because they aren’t reflected in it.

Applying Covid-era lessons for student-centered learning designs

The governor’s education bill came out strong for competency-based education. Another bill, adding flexibility around seat time, would have similarly encouraged development of more innovative, personalized learning programs.

As we’ve written before, these proposals capitalize on pandemic-era lessons for what we can do in education when we discard outdated learning models, in favor of flexible innovations we know serve students better.

A greater focus on measuring outcomes that matter

A few bills this session sought to improve how we define and measure student and school success. We’re interested in how we can improve state assessments to be more useful for educators and students. And the conversation should include other measures of student success worth scrutinizing—like data collection systems on rigorous coursework, improved student state surveys, and even more innovative approaches like performance assessments.

Meeting students’ foundational needs so they can learn

The House and Senate education committees passed an identical provision for free menstrual products for students. Even so, it got left on the cutting floor. Let’s pick it back up.

And since the start of the pandemic, federal dollars have guaranteed all students free school meals. Proposals this year would have made free meals permanent in Minnesota. Students perform better when their foundational needs are met—and we have the capacity to meet those needs. Next session, we hope legislators have the will.

Sign up to receive Education Evolving blog posts by email.

The post Legislative session is done; what must be back in play next session appeared first on Education Evolving.

Two months into Minnesota’s legislative session we have a clearer picture of the education policy landscape. The omnibus education bill has taken shape as has legislation representing Governor Walz’s education priorities.

Today, we look at two pieces of legislation we’re supporting—and why.

Moving away from seat time

Schools must provide 1,020 hours of instruction for high school students each year (less for younger students). Our mental models of “what school should look like”, as we’ve written before, are unfortunately steeped in the outdated concept of seat time.

New bipartisan legislation (HF 2726/SF 3744) would expand what counts as hours of instruction for high schoolers beyond that traditional measure. If adopted, Minnesota would codify innovative learning opportunities—such as supervised internships, blended, digital, project-based, work-based, and service learning—as legitimate components of a quality education.

The bill text authorizes districts to determine their own educational process, provided it is:

“designed to support students to be prepared to succeed and lead by having the knowledge and skills to learn, engage civically, and lead meaningful lives through implementation of evidence-based practices, quality instruction, and personalized learning supports.”

Throughout the pandemic, teachers have adapted instruction to be accessible for all students. They’ve found new and creative ways to track student progress with seat time out the window. We cannot limit such innovation to only our crisis response. Looks like lawmakers agree.

This legislation opens a personalized pathway to academic success for all students. One that is flexible, engaging, and relevant to their lives—on which they can advance anytime, anywhere.

Toward a focus on outcomes

The governor’s education finance bill (HF 4300/SF 4113) comes out strong for personalized, competency-based education. This learning approach focuses on outcomes—mapping to the pace of students’ mastery of knowledge and skills—instead of moving lockstep through time-based lessons and grades.

Competency-based education gives students equitable opportunity to attain and showcase learning where traditional approaches fall short. And it can be a lifeline for those facing disruption, hardship, or who struggle with traditional school.

EE has long advocated that Minnesota authorize and support schools and districts looking to develop competency-based learning pathways. This legislation makes that a reality.

Specifically, it permits schools to:

“adopt a locally developed competency-based education plan to allow students to satisfactorily complete both required academic standards … and advance to higher levels of learning by demonstrating mastery of required state standards, regardless of the time, place, or pace of learning.”

The bill also proposes $6.65 million for planning grant dollars to encourage schools and districts to pursue a competency-based approach.

EE supports legislation that eliminates rigid expectations set around outdated learning models, in favor of flexible innovations we know serve students better.

What’s next?

In the coming weeks we’ll share more about other legislation we’re following, including a bill supporting ethnic studies in Minnesota.

Sign up to receive Education Evolving blog posts by email.

The post MN education bills de-emphasize seat time, put focus on outcomes appeared first on Education Evolving.

Gatewood Elementary (Hopkins Public Schools) is in the spotlight. This MLK Day photo of kindergarteners embracing went viral after their principal, Dr. George Nolan, tweeted it. And local news outlets are taking turns featuring the suburban Minnesota school’s new outdoor immersion program.

The stories warm the heart. (Though images of outdoor winter learning may provoke a vicarious chill.) But we see more than human interest pieces. We see the fruits of the educator team’s labor—and evidence of the trust placed in them—to serve their evolving student population.

Similar to many Minnesota suburbs, Gatewood’s student demographics have changed over the last few years. School leaders knew that to better serve their students they needed to change their approach to learning.

That’s where outdoor immersion comes in.

Stoking curiosity by heading outside

The kindergarten teachers had been moving bits and pieces of class outside for years. They started with designated “Forest Fridays”. It was a chance for kids to literally get their hands dirty with learning. With Covid, it was safer and easier to social distance on their large, nature-filled campus. Even kindergarten distance learners took part in special outdoor learning days.

“Anything I thought I could do outside I would,” shared Katie Schmidt, one of Gatewood’s kindergarten teachers. Finally, Schmidt asked Dr. Nolan straight out, “Can I just teach outside next year?” He said yes without hesitation.

(Students aren’t outside all day—far from it. But as much learning as can safely and effectively take place outdoors does.)

Schmidt once helped adopt a rigorous kindergarten curriculum for Gatewood. It offered little flexibility, they found, while failing to help students meet academic standards.

Schmidt said the curriculum now is more inquiry-based, “moving toward kids being active, letting them talk more than the adults, caring about their interests. Taking the academic pressure off while still achieving the standards.”

Gatewood is scheduled to become a full outdoor immersion school by fall 2023. A team of teachers at the school are currently designing that expansion.

Outdoor immersion, they’re finding, stokes curiosity—helping students learn how to learn, build confidence, and develop social skills.

These skills are crucial two years into a pandemic.

The SEL team in Gatewood’s green room, named for the Zones of Regulation (red being angry, yellow being agitated and upset, green being calm and steady). Photo by Bruce Silcox.

Meeting foundational needs by looking inward

“Younger students are experiencing their first normal year, and it’s not even that normal,” said Christopher King, longtime counselor at the school.

King shared how Gatewood was doubling down on social-emotional learning. The SEL team now has two full-time counselors (unheard of for an elementary school their size), three restorative culture specialists, and a few paraprofessionals rounding them out.

The team size enables many touchpoints for students: “Cocoa with the Counselors”, lunch groups with games, a staffed green (a sensory space to help students regulate back to a calm state where they can learn) open to all who need the space. And they’re able to integrate more with other staff—restorative culture specialists co-teach social-emotional curriculum with classroom teachers.

“It’s not just the number of people but the talent they have,” shared King, crediting colleagues he admires for all their team is able to do for kids. These themes of peer trust, collaboration, and shared leadership are present across Gatewood.

Katie Schimdt wishes more teachers and staff could enjoy the same autonomy to try new ways of serving students. “There’s so much teacher burnout. People are so stressed. My team—we’re not stressed. We’re rejuvenated.”

With funding from the Leon Lowenstein Foundation, Education Evolving is partnering with Gatewood this and next school year. We’ll share more as they continue their student-centered journey.

The post At Gatewood Elementary, serving students means looking inward (and heading outside) appeared first on Education Evolving.

The Minnesota legislature reconvenes today, eyeing a projected $7.7 billion budget surplus. Last week, Gov. Walz shared his proposed budget recommendations focused largely on children and families.

Some standout K-12 items? A proposed 2% increase to the per-pupil formula that determines minimum funding levels for districts. The governor also wants to guarantee free school breakfasts and lunches for all Minnesota students.

Senate Republicans balked at the 2% proposal, noting formula increases already passed last summer. They want to bolster parents’ rights and student literacy this session.

Where we see opportunity

This is the third legislative session (and school year) under the cloud of Covid-19. Students are being thrust in and out of school due to closures and quarantines. Teachers too—already in short supply.

EE’s policy priorities speak to the needs we see this year. But in them we see opportunities that would outlast 2022. Lessons applicable beyond the present moment. Remedies for systemic flaws in our education system.

Namely, we see opportunity for learning by:

• Focusing on academic outcomes over time in seats. Like these Spring Lake Park high schoolers using competencies to weather disruption.
• Improving data and assessment systems to capture more dimensions of student success. And shifting how we administer the MCAs to capture more than snapshots.
• Codifying and expanding flexibilities with Innovation Zones.

And we see opportunity for teaching by:

• Simplifying the route for teachers earning a license via portfolio.
• Increasing Teachers of Color and American Indian Teachers to reflect the student population.
• Supporting alternative teacher preparation programs.

We’ll keep readers updated on our advocacy in these areas.

What else we’re watching in ed policy

Teacher licensure standards

This month, Minnesota’s teacher licensing board formally submitted the revised Standards of Effective Practice (SEPs). The standards set forth what knowledge and skills teachers must demonstrate to receive their license.

The new SEPs emphasize anti-racism, culturally-sustaining teaching practices, social-emotional learning, and serving students with special needs. They now move to the final phase of legal review before adoption.

MN social studies standards

In November, the Minnesota Department of Education submitted revised K-12 Academic Standards in Social Studies for rulemaking.

EE has spent a year working to make social studies standards more relevant to students’ lived experiences. The addition of Ethnic Studies standards creates opportunity for all students to better understand the histories, cultures, and lenses of historically marginalized groups.

If adopted, implementation could start as early as 2026-27 school year.

Sign up to receive Education Evolving blog posts by email.

The post MN legislative session a chance to apply pandemic-era lessons appeared first on Education Evolving.

This is the final, concluding post in a year-long blog series looking at strategies student-centered schools have used in the pandemic.

This post is part of a series exploring practices and success indicators of student-centered learning in a pandemic—and beyond.

» Learn more and see other posts

In the kick off post, we asked: were student-centered schools more ready for the challenge of Covid-19? Over the last 10 months—through case studies and analysis—we found that to be true.

Our follow-up question was: “Why?” Schools cited a series of student-centered strategies. These included both pedagogical practices, as well as indicators and evidence they use to gauge their success. We review those below.

But this post also explores a deeper truth we discovered: while specific strategies were important, more fundamentally student-centered schools were prepared because educators embraced a culture of quickly and continually adapting.

In short, a truly student-centered education looks different from school-to-school, from student-to-student, and even from day-to-day. Student-centered schools are those built to accommodate that reality.

Why were they prepared? Some key student-centered strategies they use.

The schools we spoke with described using a few key common practices, both before and during the pandemic. The most common were:

1. They checked-in regularly with each student. Whether multiple times a day or every other week, each student had regular touchpoints with a caring adult. Such “advisors” documented and communicated academic and social/emotional learning needs with other adults who could help support them.
2. They fostered learning at students’ own pace. Schools adopted competency-based approaches to learning and grading that encouraged mastery on an individualized (and where needed, flexible) timeline.
3. They nurtured the whole student. Schools developed systems to ensure that students’ basic needs (food, healthcare, housing) were monitored and addressed.
4. They leveraged student passions and interests. Student input drove the design of projects and learning experiences, encouraging their engagement and ownership.
5. They reimagined the schedule to be flexible by design. While sometimes students participated in courses as part of a more standard course/hour schedule, in other cases, they managed their own time per their in-the-moment learning needs.

This series also sought to understand the success indicators and evidence-gathering strategies schools were using to know how they were doing. Some key characteristics were:

• They integrated diverse data sources to inform decision-making. Educators developed mechanisms to link data about students’ interests, learning progress, and social-emotional needs. When the right software wasn’t available, they created their own tools (for example, using Google Sheets).
• They attended to “lead” measures, not just “lag” ones. Educators acknowledged that data from academic assessments was often too little, too late to address barriers to learning. “Lead” measures—like attendance and Zoom participation as proxies for engagement—were flagged early to drive intervention.
• They valued qualitative evidence alongside traditional measures. Student reflections, stories of impact, portfolios of work, and survey responses provided rich evidence of student growth at a time when test scores alone failed to adequately capture it.

When “learning practices” and “success indicators” are deeply intertwined

In our initial research questions for this series, we conceptualized learning practices and success indicators as distinct. In practice, we found that they were often intertwined, even inseparable.

Take, for example, the regular check-ins with students described above. They commonly yielded data on learning progress and needs, which educators logged in a shared spreadsheet or student database. Relevant staff members could then respond in real time to support students’ particular needs.

Is this a learning practice or a way to gauge success? Or both? In student-centered schools, the two are often melded together, enabling in-the-moment adaptation for individual students.

The deeper key ingredient: a school-wide culture of adaptation

It wasn’t just approaches used with specific students that were adapted on short notice. Over the last 18 months, student-centered schools were continually adjusting their core school-wide designs and practices.

For example, many of the systems we described above for logging and responding to student needs were created in real-time, in response to student needs. They weren’t dreamed up in a strategic planning session years before, or adopted after formal resolution of a school board.

Rather, they emerged from a culture where change is seen not as a source of fear, but a source of opportunity. Educators had the capacity and support to change and adapt. While they certainly had constraints—such as state and district requirements—they found ways to work within them.

Foundational to this culture is a high level of trust among colleagues and students, the sense that “we’re in this together.” We’re going to adapt. It’s going to be hard. But it’s what we need to do.

New circumstances reveal an old truth

It’s tempting to conclude: the agile, adaptive, responsiveness exhibited by student-centered schools was crucial in this present time of Covid.

But the reality is, to equitably serve all students—during times of broader world turbulence and times of relative stability—our system has always needed to be and will always need to be more agile, adaptive, and responsive.

Covid-19 merely made the need for a student-centered future unmistakably apparent.

About This Series

This blog post is part of a larger series exploring the practices and success indicators used for student-centered learning in a pandemic—and beyond. We are grateful to the Leon Lowenstein Foundation for their generous support for this series.
Read More & See Other Posts

The post Key student-centered practice in a pandemic? None. Rather: a culture of adaptation. appeared first on Education Evolving.

This post is part of a larger blog series looking at strategies student-centered schools have used to respond to the pandemic.

In this series, we looked at strategies student-centered schools use to gauge their own success—things like surveys, observation rubrics, and student portfolios. These school-level measures capture important dimensions of success, and are clearly useful to the educators and students we spoke with.

But, many policymakers and advocates argue that we also need some system-level measures, comparable across students and schools, that provide an overall picture of how we’re doing as a state and country, and accountability that students aren’t falling through the cracks.

This post is part of a series exploring practices and success indicators of student-centered learning in a pandemic—and beyond.

» Learn more and see other posts

The problems of bias and low expectations are long documented, and are an enduring way that racism, classism, and ableism show up in public education. Having appropriate, comparable system-level measures and accountability is a key part of challenging systemic inequities.

While we have some system-level measures right now (such as current state assessments), they capture only a partial picture of the goals students, families, and society have for education. And, they don’t yield enough data that is useful for actually improving schools.

In short: we need comparable system-level measures and we need accountability. But they must support, rather than detract, from student-centered learning.

What would that look like? Let’s explore.

Capture academic learning in a better, more student-centered way

Student-centered schools value learning that falls within conventional academic disciplines—like math, science, and ELA. But, policymakers must find more student-centered, asset-oriented ways to measure this learning for system-level accountability.

One strategy is to shift state assessments (e.g. Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments or MCAs) towards what are called “through-year assessments.” Rather than one long MCA at the end of the school year, states would offer several shorter assessments that schools could give on-demand throughout the year.

These more frequent assessments provide more timely, actionable data to educators. They are more flexible and less disruptive in terms of when they are given (for example, at the end of a course) and provide multiple data points per year (which is both more representative than a single point-in-time test and also captures learning growth across the year).

The latest federal education law, ESSA, allows states to use through-year assessments (especially states that apply for Innovative Assessment Demonstration Authority waivers). For example, Georgia has partnered with NWEA to offer three assessments on-demand throughout the year. The tests both yield timely, actionable data, while also generating a student “proficiency” score for state accountability.

Another even bolder strategy for measuring academic achievement is to use performance assessments rather than traditional multiple-choice assessments. In performance assessments, students complete complex, applied tasks (such as a research paper, a science project, a presentation, etc.). Their results are scored against state standards using carefully developed rubrics.

One such example is the PACE initiative in New Hampshire. Students take several performance assessments throughout the year as part of their normal classwork, which collectively cover all of the standards for their grade. Teachers score their work, and local scoring is calibrated across districts to improve statistical reliability. In some grades, performance assessments replace the conventional state assessments to generate “proficiency” scores for state accountability.

Beyond academics: system-level measures of the “less quantifiable”

In this series, we looked at how schools are measuring dimensions of student success beyond academics—things like engagement, wellness, and social-emotional development.

Such assets are highly valued by families, employers, and society at large. And while schools we studied collect data around these concepts that has been useful at the local level, it hasn’t necessarily been aggregable up to system-level measures. Is it even possible?

One way policymakers can do this is to collect data on “proxy” measures. Common examples include student attendance and/or mobility (for engagement), teacher retention (for school culture and leadership); and safety or disciplinary incidents (for welcoming school environments). Policymakers must improve systems for collecting, aggregating, and displaying this sort of data.

Another common approach is to use surveys. For example, in Illinois all students take the 5Essentials survey, which yields data on things like whether students feel engaged, safe, and supported. In Minnesota, we do have a student survey, but policymakers must improve it; the survey is only given once every three years and is not consistently taken by all students.

System-level measures for what purpose? Reframing accountability as a “mirror.”

Imagine: Policymakers have acted on the above recommendations. We have richer data on the full picture of what matters. And the data is more consistent, timely, and actionable.

But what then? The question remains: what purpose should that data serve?

In short, system-level measures should be used to hold up a “mirror of accountability” to support local school improvement efforts. Policymakers provide a mirror that helps schools, families, and others candidly and transparently answer the questions: “How are we doing—for all our students? Where can we improve?”

Concretely speaking, holding up a mirror of accountability means policymakers provide data systems, dashboard websites, and/or performance frameworks that show clear, comparable data on those system-level measures. In Minnesota, some of these pieces are in place, but they must be more straightforward and accessible.

And what would using that mirror of accountability look like? For schools and educator teams, the system-level measures would help identify particular subjects, grades, or areas of culture that need improvement.

For those outside of the school—families, districts, charter authorizers, and state departments of education—the mirror would show places the school may need outside support or, in some cases, a firm insistence that it address a recurring challenge or inequity.

Comparable and student-centered: the delicate dance

This piece has emphasized the importance of comparability in system-level measures. Their comparability makes them an important complement to the many other forms of data and evidence used at the local level by schools, and a helpful check against bias and inequity.

But we also can’t forget: students are unique individuals. They have different assets that must be documented, celebrated, supported in different ways.

In short, our education system must do both. It must honor the unique differences among students and schools. And it must use system-level measures as a “mirror of accountability” to check our perspectives and keep them grounded in the broader world in which students and schools inevitably exist.

In some ways, this is the same delicate dance we step each day as adults. We learn to be our own selves. And we learn to exist and find our place in that broader world.

About This Series

This blog post is part of a larger series exploring the practices and success indicators used for student-centered learning in a pandemic—and beyond. We are grateful to the Leon Lowenstein Foundation for their generous support for this series.
Read More & See Other Posts

The post What should accountability look like for student-centered learning? appeared first on Education Evolving.