Season 2, Episode 19: Shifting mindset to upend grade levels

Hey, Michael.

Hey, Diane. How you doing?

Well, Michael, it's May, and last week, the CDC changed their guidance for fully vaccinated adults. So it's now okay to be outside without a mask, which is making my daily dog walks so much more enjoyable. And honestly, it's made me realize the importance of a smile, which is fun. I get to see you smiling right now on Zoom. You know, there's so many people, people in my neighborhood who I've been seeing for over a year, and I have not seen them smile or their face. And. And that's happening again, and I'm really grateful. It changes. It changes so much.

I'll just plus one you there, Diane, because it's been wonderful to go on daily dog walks without wearing the mask most of the time and actually be able to breathe the beautiful, fresh spring air that's around us. And it's been a good feeling, and one that leads me to just keep smiling today because we're carrying into May an approach that we began in April, which grew out of us noticing that a number topics that we were discussing kept recurring over and over again.

Exactly. And so we decided to do a callback to our first season and invite a series of experts to the show to do some deep dives.

And today, Joel Rose, the co founder of Teach to One, is joining us. And, Diane, I'm really excited to have Joel with us today because for over a decade, he's been focused on middle school math. And so much of what Joel has learned and proved, frankly, through the work that he and his team have done and the stuff that they've thought through is incredibly relevant to all that's happening in education today. And Joel's someone I refer to a lot, Diane, when I'm trying to think through these complicated problems that our system is grappling with right now.

I couldn't agree more. You know, decades ago, in Joel's work with New York City public schools, he noticed that an extraordinarily small number of middle school students were on grade level in math. And as a former math teacher, Joel understood the challenges and couldn't believe that there was something wrong with almost every student and every teacher, which is something we talk about often. He set out to figure out what might be going on with the system and the approach as opposed to blaming the people. He followed the science of learning, again, something we talk about often and wasn't afraid to think differently about how to use time and space and personalization and technology. You know, today Teach to One is working with schools across the country and getting extraordinary results. And like you, I think Joel's insights and experiences are directly related to the conversations happening right now in the pandemic. And so I'm thrilled. And he's also a really great friend. So it's always good to be with friends.

So, yeah, so let's, let's get to it. And likewise on the sentiment. So, Joel, first, welcome to the show.

Thank you for those very kind words. And it's great to be with two friends today.

Joel, we wanted to just kick off because Michael and I have been pretty vocal about our concerns of this concept of learning loss during the pandemic and how we think that that's sort of deficit thinking and not the way we would like to be leading. We are curious, you know, how do you think about learning loss? How are you grappling with that framing and that, that language? And what are your thoughts?

Yeah, well, I guess when we think about the term learning loss, to some it can mean that kids knew something before the pandemic and then because they were out of school for so long, they've forgotten it. I knew how to factor trinomials and I just don't remember. And by that happens to me because I forgot a lot of the stuff that I learned in middle school and high school math as well.

I'm glad to hear you say that.

To others, it can mean the loss of an opportunity to learn. Like now I'm in seventh grade, but I didn't have an opportunity to learn everything I was supposed to learn in the sixth grade. And so it's going to make it harder for me to actually succeed in the seventh grade because some of the stuff I was supposed to learn in the 6th grade, I need to actually apply now in the 7th grade. Regardless of which definition or another one you pick, the reality is, in math, because it is so cumulative, there is a series of unfinished learning that kids have from prior years. This is not new, by the way. This was a problem before the pandemic. It's become worse, but it's not at all new. What is new is now. There is now, I think, a much broader recognition of the fact that students are coming in with this unfinished learning and we need a plan to actually address it. We can't just say to the teacher, hey, have high expectations. Expectations, use grade level material and get them all there. And that never was a plan. It was more of a hope than anything else. And now I think people just fully recognize that we need something much more strategic than just expecting teachers to have high Expectations, and that being the beginning, middle, and end of our approach.

Yeah. So, Joel, digging into that further, you've obviously learned a significant amount about building math skill and knowledge. As you think about applying that into a strategic approach toward the challenge in front of us. And as you pointed out, a challenge that predated the pandemic, what would your recommendations be about how to tackle that strategy?

Sure. And we've written extensively about this, both in the iceberg problem, but then more recently in solving the iceberg problem, we go into great detail. So I'll give you some of the highlights. At the highest level, what is so critical for every student is to have their own path, their own academic path that connects where they're starting from to where they ultimately need to be. They need that path, especially in math, because math is so cumulative. Now, that path for some kids may be a year, depending on how far behind they are. For some kids, they may need two years. For some kids, they may need three years. But we are not compromising one inch on getting kids to proficiency into college and career readiness. What we are doing is giving ourselves different timelines to get there based on where students are starting from. What that means practically is, let's say there is a seventh grader who's multiple years behind where they otherwise should be. Rather than spend one year focused on getting that kid to seventh grade proficiency and then the next year trying to get that kid to 8th grade proficiency. We know how this movie ends. We've seen it dozens and dozens, hundreds of times. Instead, we could actually have that student spend two years focused on getting to 8th grade proficiency. In other words, raise the bar, but give that student a very different learning progression of everything that relates to eighth grade over multiple years, as opposed to trying to play this one year game of seventh grade one year and then eighth grade the next year.

Fascinating. So what do you. What do you find is blocking schools from. From taking this type of approach? And given how effective it is, I mean, you literally can watch students with this approach achieving math mastery that they have not achieved previously. So what blocks schools from taking this type of approach even when they can see they know it's going to work, right?

Well, there's. There's three. The first thing is just mindset. I'm the seventh grade teacher. I'm supposed to teach the seventh grade material. If I don't cover all the seventh grade standards, I'm not doing my job. We have this paradigm in our minds that all of the kids who are the same age learn the same thing at the same time. And the teacher's got to teach that. That's the first challenge. Just a different mindset of what it is we're trying to do. The second are in many ways the structures of schools and grade levels themselves. The way schools are organized, all of the 14 year olds are going to go to Mrs. Smith, who's going to teach the seventh grade curriculum. That basic construct is in many ways going to make recovery that much more difficult because it locks in grade levels and tells the teacher to teach the standards as opposed to teaching the child. And then the third thing I think are much more strategic use of tools and models. Tools for schools that think they have a lot of the ingredients, but they need some specific tools to help kids accelerate. Then models for schools that say, you know what, the whole way we do school, the basic delivery model needs to change in a new model that integrates multiple learning modalities, multiple different ways kids learn, and reimagines the classroom so that teachers can meet the needs of every student every day.

So, Joel, I think that's a really strong framing of those three things holding us in place. If we shift to starting to think about solutions, how do we escape some of those? Let's focus in perhaps on the grade level structures and age based cohorts. Like why can't we easily escape some of those assumptions and how do we make that leap?

Well, one reason that we've had a hard time escaping those assumptions is because there hasn't been a lot of design work to create something new and better. So we're stuck in the old because it hasn't been a better solution that's been brought into the world. If you're an investor, schools want grade level stuff. So you're going to fund tech solutions that build grade level stuff. Schools now that want to break the grade level paradigm are going, what's out there? And there's not a ton. There's some work we do, some work others do, but there's not a ton. So the first thing you have to do is invest in the kind of R and D to build new models that actually break the classroom paradigm. Then I think the second thing is for schools to actually take a step back and say, wait a second, before we dive right into the seventh grade curriculum, what is the purpose of school? And this goes back to Michael, the piece that you wrote fairly recently. Why are we here? What is it that we're trying to do? Should we not think about just for a moment, is there a better way of accomplishing that objective that addresses students academic and social emotional needs and truly meet students where they are. What I think schools will realize is the answer to that question is yes, but not if you try to do it by yourself. A teacher can only teach one thing at a time. But if through new learning models and through these more advanced tools, there are ways for schools to think very differently about how to meet each student's unique strengths and needs.

Super helpful, Joel. And, you know, we've had a number of conversations about what I think is maybe a related blocker. And I'm really curious your perspective on, you know, the testing and accountability system, because is that, you know, I'm going to say you're not an anti test person, you're not an anti accountability person, just like I am not. But I know that you have done some real work that calls into questions that approach and how it might be a blocker. Can you talk to that a little bit?

Sure. Let me say first that expectations really matter. And we understand why the assessment accountability system came into being because there are just too many schools that didn't expect enough of students and gave them materials that were well below where they actually were and really held them back. So I think we understand the origins and we're fully aligned with the objectives that those that support the current assessment accountability system promote. At the same time, I have been in schools where the seventh grade teacher says, I know that Johnny is two years behind and I need to go back and address these gaps, but he ultimately needs to take the seventh grade test and it's my job to teach him all of the seventh grade standards. There's a conflict between what's in the teacher's best interest and what's in the student's best interest in that case. And that's because of the assessment accountability system and how it's been operationalized, particularly in math. Right now, assessment accountability is a blocker to these new learning models, these new approaches that really put students on their own path to proficiency. And I think what states like Texas are starting to do is adopt things like math innovation zones that create the space for these kinds of innovations to really emerge, because that's what's required now is we just have to make sure that these policies aren't blockers to innovations that could get much better outcomes over the longer term.

Joel, implicit in that, and I've actually, the last time you and I got to connect, you were telling me about Texas as well, and it was, it was new to me, but implicit in that is really escaping from, I think, the seat Time based system and moving to a mastery based one where students make progress when they actually demonstrate mastery. And you know, that doesn't mean that they can't move on to another concept if they haven't quite gotten it. They can spiral back to something, but just that they're not going to leave it behind if it's critical to future learning. Right. And I guess what I'm curious about is against that backdrop of what you're painting, I'm hearing a bunch of people at the same time saying, well, the last 14, 15 months have shown that like we can't just let people out into the wild and not have seat time requirements because we don't have a better thing in place. And so we just need to return to normal while we continue to work out this sort of innovation thing. What's your perspective on that?

Well, what was normal before the pandemic worked for about a third of kids in this country who graduate high school, college and career ready. So let's start there. It worked for about a third of students. So the idea that that is now best case scenario is not something that I can accept. We have to create the space for these new models to emerge. Now, standards matter and we've got to make sure that we create a floor so that students are getting a basic level of education under any theory. But if that floor creates a ceiling that could give students an otherwise far more impactful learning experience, then I'm not so sure it's worth the floor. I think the challenge and what Texas is doing, and I think what other states are going to do is say, okay, let's create a floor. Maybe for the vast majority of schools, we have seat time requirements and credit requirements because there isn't enough yet to replace them. But we need to have a set of schools. If they can demonstrate their capacity to be truly innovative and demonstrate a viable floor that can ensure all students are served properly, we've got to create the space in our policies to let that begin to emerge.

Joel, are you seeing anything hopeful on the horizon in terms of policy work that you think might be opening up this type of taking down some of these blockers and. Or if you're not seeing it, what are your thoughts on what the policies should look like?

Well, here's what I am seeing. I am seeing more states asking Texas about math innovation zones and how they get innovation zones opened up in their states. I've talked to a number of states in the last few months who've said this unfinished learning is a big problem and damn the torpedoes. We got to do what's best for students so that even if the policies don't change, they may just do a wink, wink, nod, nod. Our kids will take the test and we'll do what we have to do. But we're going to tell them what really matters. They're trying to find these workarounds around the existing system, which isn't a long term solution. But the reality is ESSA is not going to be modified anytime soon. I don't think so. That is, I think, probably the best we could hope for at the federal level. I've heard folks on both the left and the right talk about amending iada, which is the innovative assessment design. And I think that is certainly encouraging. And I'm hearing a lot of scuttlebutt about the need for federal funding for research and development around innovation around new learning models. Ultimately, we can talk about how challenging the grade level construct is, but it's really hard to do competency based instruction without a model that can enable that to be operationalized. And we need more models and more subjects and more grade spans. And that's, I think, going to best be accelerated through significant federal investment in that kind of R and D. Joe,

quick question actually on that. The, the, you know, innovative assessment design that you were just talking about, if that gets opened up, would that be allowed to escape some of the grade level restrictions that ESSA has so that we could really, you know, model out an assessment, an assessment system that truly was mastery based and following the individual growth of a child, as opposed to what passes for growth at state levels right now.

So the current IADA basically allows for innovation so long as you're still measuring grade level content. And of course there aren't enough items to do anything but grade level content. So it doesn't really provide the flexibility that one would think given its iada. So the answer to your question is it depends on how it's modified and if it's truly modified and if there's a political will to sort of open up any part of ESSA at this stage. So the answer is. It's unclear. Before the pandemic, there was some interesting work. NWA had launched an initiative where they had the MAP assessment and they were giving it three times a year and then aggregating the items that related to grade level. And that would allow a school to both provide growth data, true multigrade growth data, and grade level material. I know that's an initiative that's still undergoing, so there may be more of that, but the Devil's going to be in the details in terms of what actually it says. Yeah.

Oh, goodness, that's an understatement. We got a little bit wonky there. And so I actually wanted to just wrap up this piece with you because I realized that we talk a lot about competency and mastery, and I think it seems like it's logical to people, but, like, what does that mean to you and your world and how you think about it with real kids and teachers and parents?

Yeah. So from the time a student gets past basic numeracy to the time they're through algebra one, there are approximately 300 mathematical skills that they need master. And when I say skill, I mean the procedural, the conceptual, and the applied. Think of it like a chapter in a textbook. Now, in a typical year, school year, a student will learn maybe between 50 and 70. And so the question is, during that school year, what is the right 50 to 70 for each student? And that requires diagnosing exactly which ones they know and they don't know, understanding the work that we do, what are the predecessor successor relationships among those particular skills, then effectively assigning students to learn those skills in different modalities, sometime from a teacher, sometimes collaborative, sometimes independent, and then tracking their progress along the way and having them own their own learning. Because what's happening now is people are recognizing this challenge of unfinished learning. And there's three options. We can add more time, which some schools are doing through summer or through tutoring. We can lower the bar, which we don't want to do, or we can make much better use of the time kids are otherwise in school. And that's where these new models and personalization can really help kids to accelerate. Because what we're focused on is really knowing for every single student what lesson will give that individual student the best chance to accelerate tomorrow based on what he or she knows as of today.

Such an inspiring place, I think, to leave it with that vision of the three choices, the one we can't accept in the middle, and then the opportunity to rethink through these models. Joel. So, as we wrap up, we end each podcast with a few words about what we're reading, listening to, watching, often far outside education. And so we're just curious if you join us and if you're up for sharing what's got your attention right now.

Sure. Delighted to. Well, one, I'll say. I've been working with my own daughter. We released a home version of the program, which is called Teach to One Roadmaps, and we've been doing math Together she finished seventh grade and she's finished algebra. So that's been a total thrill to work with her in math using this new tool that we've created. The book I just started reading now, which I'm fascinated by, is about the history of transatlantic flight. So 1919 is the first transatlantic flight, but it doesn't get commercialized until 20 years later. Like, why? Why is that? And so what you start to learn when you hear about the story is that there was a huge desire to commercialize transatlantic flight, but they couldn't quite figure out the weight of the plane and the engine and like, how to make it get that far. And they would take out rows, they take out seats, they would try all these different configurations of the plane. They just couldn't get there. And then the jet engine was invented. When the jet engine was invented, it changed everything, but it required the fuselage and all the sort of infrastructure of the plane to change, to actually take advantage of the jet engine. And then we had transatlantic commercial flight. And it just makes me think about the analogies that we're talking about here, where there's a lot of work around optimizing the existing delivery model. Let's use this new rubric. Let's train the teachers, let's hold them accountable, let's have a better test. All these things are the equivalent of trying to get the plane to do the transatlantic flight without the jet engine. What we need are more jet engines and that we need the jet engines to fit into the planes so that ultimately planes can make it across the Atlantic.

I love the parallel, Joel. And bringing it there. It also, by the way, gives me even more hope, dare I say, because that was a 20 year process, right? So as Diane knows, I often read history as well because it helps give me perspective on a lot of these questions. And that is a good perspective 1. As for me, I'll just say, though, this time I'm not sharing a fiction. Excuse me, a history work. I followed Diane into fiction this past week, and the books that my girls have been reading have expanded in length and depth quite a bit over the pandemic. And so, like you, Joel, I guess I decided to drink our own Merlot, if you will. I prefer that phrase to eat your own dog food. And I decided I needed to catch up. So last weekend I read one that they had recently finished called when the Sea Turned to Silver by Grace Lin. And I'm just, just. I'll just say I'm thankful that the literature for children has expanded in a number of ways. Over the last couple decades. And this story is a beautiful one based in China that incorporates some of their folklore into the plot itself in quite a clever way. And Grace Lynn is a local author, I've learned, a few towns away from me, who writes across a lot of genres in children's literature that we've enjoyed, but she always brings her heritage into all of them in a really effective way. So that, that's, that's what I enjoyed this past week, and I think I've got two more now on my bookshelf.

Michael I fondly remember the point when I shifted from reading to Rhett, to listening to him read to me, to essentially joining a book club with him because his books got so long and I had to really carve out time to read to keep up with him. For me, I just reread Love in the Time of Cholera by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, classic. I first read it many, many, many years ago when I was much younger, and I'm so glad that I returned to it now. I actually wonder how I even understood it back then, quite frankly. I really, this read through, I appreciated the nuance and the sort of delicate exploration of aging and, you know, this interesting new lens I bring, thinking about public health and epidemics and pandemics and, and all of that. Said, at the end of the day, it's just such a beautiful book. The language is exquisite, the pace, every page is a joy. So that's what I've been into lately.

Well, it's a beautiful book and a beautiful place to leave off this podcast. So, Joel, first, thanks again for joining us. We appreciate it.

Thank you for having me.

Yeah, absolutely. And thank you all to joining us and listening to class disrupted Will Smith. See you next time.