Latest news with #CenteronReinventingPublicEducation
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
AI Makes Quick Gains in Math, But Errors Still Worry Some Eyeing Reliability
While artificial intelligence has made remarkable gains in mathematics, its well-chronicled shortcomings in the subject continue to frustrate those keen on finding new ways to help kids learn. 'Big picture, AI is not very good at math,' said Alex Kotran, co-founder and CEO of The AI Education Project. 'Language models just predict the next word. You get mixed results using language models to do math. It's not yet mature enough to where it can be trusted to be scaled.' And even if it were to improve, critics worry it might hurt kids' ability to try — and fail — on their own. Much would be lost, Kotran said, if 'we get rid of productive struggle and we build this instinct where the first thing you do is go to AI for help.' Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter But students in the United States and the United Kingdom have a different view. A recent survey found 56% believe AI could go a long way in reducing math anxiety. Fifteen percent of the 1,500 16- to 18-year-old students surveyed said they had already experienced this relief themselves and slightly more than 1 in 5 said their math scores improved because of the technology. Related The survey also included 250 teachers. Sixty-one percent suggested students view AI as 'a mentor or study partner rather than a crutch', while nearly half 'see value for students in using AI for help with the process of learning math concepts, rather than to give answers.' Nicole Paxton, principal of Mountain Vista Community School in Colorado Springs, said her teachers use AI in many ways. Tools like MagicSchoolAI analyze student responses to math prompts, with AI generating 'specific, standards-aligned feedback for each student, focusing on their reasoning, accuracy, and math vocabulary.' Paxton said the tool highlights strengths and misconceptions, 'which helps teachers give timely and targeted next steps.' The practice saves educators time so they can 'more easily differentiate their re-teaching or follow-up, especially when addressing common errors across the class.' Robin Lake, director of the Center on Reinventing Public Education, recently looked at the evidence base for using AI in math instruction, including whether it can help the 'shocking number of students' with foundational skills' gaps like those identified in a recent 'Unlocking Algebra' study. The May 13 analysis by TNTP found that almost half of the students sampled started the class with only one-third of the concepts and skills needed from earlier grades. Lake said AI can be used by schools to identify children who are struggling — and, at least to some degree, by the students themselves. 'AI can be very helpful in analyzing data and identifying gaps in student learning,' she said. And, if a student wants to learn a mathematical concept in a different way than what they've experienced in class, she said, AI can provide a valuable alternative. 'A lot of students are already doing this,' Lake said. More districts are training staff to use the technology, though many educators remain reluctant. Terrie Galanti, associate professor at the University of North Florida, said AI success in student learning depends on how teachers are prepared to use it. 'AI can be more than an explainer or an answer giver,' said Galanti, who teaches secondary mathematics and STEM integration/computational thinking. 'With thoughtful prompts, AI can become part of interactive, collaborative conversations to deepen mathematics understanding.' The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics said in a February 2024 position paper that teachers have long been accustomed to technological advances that change the way students learn. Related They had already adjusted to the availability of pocket calculators in the early '80s and, more recently, to the widespread use of PhotoMath, a mobile app that recognizes and solves math problems. It notes that advancements in AI make teachers more, not less valuable, in student learning. Latrenda Knighten, the organization's president, told Education Week in March that students will still need to rely upon their own discernment to solve mathematical problems — regardless of what tools become available. 'We know that children learn math from being able to problem-solve, being able to use reasoning skills, critical thinking, having opportunities to collaborate with each other and talk about what they're doing,' Knighten said. Irina Lyublinskaya, professor in the department of mathematics, science, and technology at Teachers College, Columbia University, distinguished between chatbots like ChatGPT and computational knowledge engines like WolframAlpha. She noted math specific AI-powered applications — including WolframAlpha and Symbolab — work very well. 'AI chatbots can help students learn math, and they can help teachers to support students, but this is not about asking ChatGPT to solve a math problem,' she said. 'I know of research-based initiatives that use AI to adapt learning materials to students' learning styles and abilities and these definitely help students learn.' One, she noted, was EvidenceB, developed by researchers and educators in Europe, and is now being tested in NYC. Related 'Chatbots can be trained as teaching assistants or tutors that can provide students proper scaffolding and feedback, helping them to learn math the same way they would with a real person,' she said. Zachary A. Pardos is an associate professor of education at the University of California Berkeley where he studies adaptive learning and AI. He found, in a study conducted a year ago, that 25% of the answers provided by ChatGPT in algebra were incorrect. 'That's pretty high,' he noted. 'Much higher than you would want.' But the technology has improved since then. 'With the right techniques — at least in algebra — from an error perspective, I feel it is ready for real-time intervention in math,' he said.
Vox
14-04-2025
- General
- Vox
The end of 'college for all'
is the host of Explain It to Me, your hotline for all your unanswered questions. She joined Vox in 2022 as a senior producer and then as host of The Weeds, Vox's policy podcast. Is college for everybody? According to Chelsea Waite, a senior researcher at the Center on Reinventing Public Education, the answer is no. And more students, parents, and educators are realizing it. Waite spent two years speaking to administrators, teachers, parents, and students at six high schools in New England to learn more about post-grad desires. The study, for the Center on Reinventing Public Education, specifically concerned New England high schools, but Waite says she's heard from school leaders across the country that the findings resonate. 'What we found is that the vision that they painted was that they want every single student in that school to have a pathway to a good life,' Waite says. What does it mean to have a 'good life' in this context? And what does a path that doesn't include college look like? That's what we tackle on this week's episode of Explain It to Me, Vox's weekly call-in show. Check out the conversation between Waite and host Jonquilyn Hill; it's been edited for length and clarity. You can listen to Explain It to Me on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get podcasts. If you'd like to submit a question, send an email to askvox@ or call 1-800-618-8545. When I was a kid it felt like the purpose of high school was to prepare every single person to go off to a university. Has that changed now? Let's go back to the beginning of high school, because I think that will help us answer where we are now. When high schools first started in the US, they were not universal and they were really designed for elites: largely white, male, middle- and upper-class students who would go to high school as a way to get them to higher education in order to then go into these leadership roles in society. Then from the 1910s to 1940s, there was a big high school movement that basically made high schools kind of like, mass education for everyone. The idea there is that we have a responsibility as a society to make sure that young people are prepared for the world. For some of them, that might mean college. For others, it might mean they're better working with their hands and they should be in a different kind of job or career. As time went on, it became very clear that there was major inequality in who got access to what path. Yeah, I remember my dad telling me his school counselor said, 'Maybe you should just join the military.' That phrasing feels weird for a number of reasons. (He eventually got his doctorate.) Take your dad's experience and then compare it to sort of how you described your experience. I think that's a great representation of what changed from the 1950s to '70s all the way to the '80s, '90s and early 2000s, where there was really this recognition that we are not giving young people equal opportunities to get into college, which is associated with economic and social mobility and opportunity and higher earnings over your lifetime. There were lots of schools — including a number of charter schools — that opened with this 'college for all' mission. Now fast-forward to sort of where we are now. There has been a lot of reckoning about how pushing every student to go to college and take on the cost of college without necessarily being really clear about what they want it to do for them means that we have a lot of students who enroll in college and then never complete a degree, take on a ton of debt, and generally kind of struggle to make college really work for them as a path to the rest of their career. Now we're in this place where it's a little more holistic: If you want to go to college, you can. If you want to join the military, you can. If you want to do a trade or start working, you can. Is this shift coming from the students themselves or is it coming from somewhere else? Some of it's from students themselves. Students are genuinely questioning if college is worth it and if college is really the right thing for them, knowing what they know about themselves. Related The incredible shrinking future of college What we're hearing from students is that choosing to go to college has financial risk. There's social pressure and social dynamics that students are not sure that they really want to take on, especially coming out of the pandemic. Some students didn't even get a real full high school experience. They described not necessarily feeling ready to just jump into the college experience. I think it's really a testament to students knowing what they themselves need. Parents are saying they just want their kids to be happy. I think every generation of parents to some degree would say that. But are parents really okay if that means their kids aren't going to college? It's mixed. We're in a moment right now where a lot of people are kind of wrestling with this question. What we heard from many parents is that they really wanted their child to make the best choice for them. Parents are also seeing the data. There still is clear evidence that more education over your lifetime does mean more lifetime earnings on average. But the average is key there. If you actually look at the spread from the lowest to the highest earners at different levels of educational attainment there's a whole lot of overlap. Do you see any resistance from high schools? We hear some. And here's where I think it's coming from: Teachers all went to college. So everybody in a school, for the most part, has gone through a path that's included college at some point. So it is hard to kind of get out of your own experience and really recognize that taking an alternative pathway. Some parents and even teachers that we talked to said that they had some concerns about this shift to celebrating a bigger spectrum of post-secondary opportunities; that [it] means that the school is lowering doesn't have to be true. We are seeing schools where expectations remain really high. Every student graduates both prepared to go to college, if they choose it, and really knowledgeable about the kind of careers that they might want to pursue, including some that don't involve a degree right away. However, I think the concern about lowering expectations is totally legitimate. There's a big risk to guard against going backwards in time to that period where teachers and even some parents are saying, 'some students are made for college and others are really better to go to the military or to go with their hands.' Related Applying to college today is incredibly public and incredibly isolating Are we still asking too much of students? Looking back, I was very fortunate that at 15 I wanted to become a journalist and I'm doing it as an adult. But that's so rare. How are kids supposed to know what they wanna do with the rest of their lives? Are we asking too much of kids?
Yahoo
13-03-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Opinion: The Pandemic Was a Sputnik Moment for Rethinking American Education. We Blew It
The pandemic gave the country a chance to rethink how states and school districts deliver quality education. When schools shut down, there was an opportunity to create more flexible, innovative learning models tailored to students' varied needs. America had a chance to build stronger connections between schools, families, and communities. In March 2020, resilience, innovation and adaptability became urgent priorities, backed by billions in federal funding. It was a Sputnik moment for American education. We blew it. Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter We failed to take advantage of the moment. Instead of embracing lasting change, most school systems rushed back to 'normal' — as if normal had ever been good enough. The results are horrifying. Student achievement is in free fall. Fewer than one-third of students scored proficient in reading and math, according to the latest National Assessment of Educational Progress. These declines predated the pandemic but were exacerbated by prolonged school closures. Given these realities, can policymakers still pretend the traditional education model works? A system designed over a century ago to train students for farm and factory labor is woefully inadequate for today's needs. It cannot deliver the personalized learning students require in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. Related This outdated system relies on one-size-fits-all solutions while assuming teachers can somehow provide differentiated support for every student. It rests on an increasingly fragile social contract: that students will attend school daily, that marginalized families will trust and wait for better service,and that schools are the sole places for learning. The pandemic shattered these assumptions. The U.S. must rethink education. On this, the fifth anniversary of the start of the pandemic, the Center on Reinventing Public Education has launched Phoenix Rising, a forum for exploring bold, new ideas. Phoenix Rising looks back on the root causes of the disastrous pandemic response and articulates a vision for a more nimble, personalized, joyful and evidence-based public education system. Five years after the pandemic began, we reflect on the failures and propose a path forward. Our research identifies key failures in the pandemic response and recovery: Schools lacked incentives, autonomy and capacity to deliver the personalized instruction needed to accelerate learning. States and the federal government provided little leadership, leaving districts to fend for themselves. Politics, not science, dictated too many decisions. Federal aid was distributed without clear expectations or accountability, offering only temporary relief. The consequences are clear: declining test scores, wildly varied student needs within classrooms, disruptive behavior, chronic absenteeism and increasing mental health challenges for both students and teachers. Parents remain unaware of the full extent of learning loss, and public trust in education is eroding. Related Rather than blame educators or school districts, we at CRPE diagnose a deeper problem: The education delivery system is fundamentally overmatched by its challenges. It cannot deliver the outcomes today's students need. We propose a future-ready system that prioritizes: Providing flexible, personalized learning pathways: Schools should act as portfolio managers, offering students personalized learning options rather than delivering all the instruction and support themselves. Core academics would remain in assigned schools, but students could use public dollars for apprenticeships, enrichment programs, tutoring and mental health support. Breaking down barriers in schools: Schools must dismantle rigid structures that limit student potential. Advanced coursework should be more accessible. Universal design for learning and individualized pathways to college and careers should be the norm, not the exception. Preparing students for the future: Success after high school requires more than career pathways, internships or college applications. Schools must emphasize durable skills like critical thinking, communication and leadership. By high school, students should be immersed in career exploration and have universal access to early college. Rethinking teacher roles and instruction: New schooling models should encourage team-based teaching. Evidence-based instructional practices must become standard. Research-based methods for reading, writing, math and behavior regulation should be integrated into teacher preparation and school support structures. Forty years ago, CRPE advocated for a portfolio system of governance, where school boards diversified their offerings — traditional public schools, magnets and charters — while focusing on core services like funding and accountability. Managing personalized pathways requires going further. It demands not just new governance structures, but also transformed instruction and student support. States and localities must unlock funding, teacher assignments and student intervention strategies to enable innovative approaches. They should empower new governing bodies, whether independent boards, mayors or state-appointed leaders, to integrate ideas from outside the traditional district framework. Related This transformation required bold action. Simply calling for more patience, more money and less regulation is not enough. Schools need sustained state leadership. With the federal government pulling back from education oversight, states must step up. Empty declarations of emergency won't suffice. Top-down mandates won't work. Students can and will learn if given the chance — but only if educators rethink how they learn. That means transforming classroom instruction, teacher roles, technology use and more. States must reallocate federal funding flexibly, revamp laws to incentivize innovation and create new opportunities for experimentation beyond the traditional system. Above all, the next wave of education reform must look forward, not backward. American schools cannot afford to cling to outdated structures out of a misguided allegiance to the past. Policymakers must empower schools to embrace new ideas, act on evidence and be bolder in pursuing better outcomes. Students' futures — and the country's economic and social prosperity — depend on it.
Yahoo
30-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion: The New NAEP Scores Are Alarming. Hope Is Not a Strategy for Fixing Them
The latest National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results are alarming, but they do not surprise me. If anything, they confirm what we at the Center on Reinventing Public Education have been seeing for years — and what we documented in our latest State of the American Student report. Pandemic recovery has been inadequate and uneven, with the most vulnerable students falling even further behind. This is not a new problem, nor is it one that will resolve itself without bold action. NAEP also offers insight into why achievement gaps are widening. Survey results show increasingly lower expectations and higher absenteeism rates among both students and their teachers. Nearly 60% of high-performing students said they were asked more than five times to write long answers to questions on tests or assignments that involved reading last school year, compared with only 32% of low-performing students. Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter No one should dismiss these results or try to explain them away. American students are not receiving the educational opportunities they deserve or the preparation they need to succeed in an increasingly complex society and changing economy. The current system is failing them, and the consequences will be severe and long-lasting. Related Our analysis in September was clear: Unless something changes dramatically, this trend will continue for years. The current struggles are not just pandemic-induced: There has been little sustained progress in student achievement since the early 2000s; in fact, in some areas, progress has backslid. Some states and cities have managed to make progress, and they may offer useful lessons, but the overall picture remains bleak. There are no quick fixes, but there are certainly steps that can and must be taken. The first is acknowledging the scale of the problem and responding with urgency. Policymakers and educators can implement evidence-based strategies to help students recover. We and others have consistently documented the positive impact of: High-dosage tutoring; Summer school programs; High-quality curriculum; Excellent teachers. None of these are fundamentally partisan issues. Red and blue states alike are adopting these interventions, and they should be implemented everywhere. These are the basics. Are the decisionmakers who fail to put these proven interventions into place truly serious about solving the problems at hand? Let's be honest: The NAEP scores make their own case that what's needed are fundamental reforms — not just tinkering around the edges. This is not just about playing catch-up from the pandemic; it is about redesigning an education system that has been failing too many students for too long. This means embracing bold, evidence-based reforms, even when they are politically difficult: Expand high-performing public charter schools. The best charters are delivering results for the students that NAEP shows are falling farthest behind. The nation needs more of them. Redesign high school. The current model is outdated and ineffective for too many students. The nation needs schools that are more relationship-based, relevant and engaging. Leverage emerging technologies. Tools driven by artificial intelligence that support personalized learning, tutoring, curriculum and assessment can help ensure all students get the support they need while empowering educators to be more effective. Provide families with honest data. Parents deserve to know how their child is really doing, not just receive meaningless report cards that obscure academic struggles. Hold adults accountable for student outcomes. Education leaders and policymakers must be responsible for results through thoughtful and fair accountability mechanisms. Every city and state in this country has work to do, and that has been clear for a long time. The inertia, political resistance and implementation fatigue that have held back so many students must be confronted head-on. Now is the time for leadership. Related If you have been paying attention, the NAEP results should not shock you. What should shock you is that education systems are not, on the whole, changing course. Isn't the very definition of insanity doing the same things while expecting different results? The data are clear. Young kids are not catching up. Gaps were widening even before the pandemic. The crisis is real, and it is not going away on its own. Believing the NAEP results means acting on them. Hope is not a strategy. Strong leadership, political courage and a commitment to evidence-based reforms are the only paths forward. Governors, state chiefs, mayors and federal officials must commit to the long, politically challenging work of ensuring that all American students can realize their full potential. If they do not, this will be yet another opportunity squandered — and the cost will be measured in the futures of millions of children.
