Really, really appreciate this article.
It highlights some of my pet peeves about CRP, SEL, and UDL AND acknowledges their value (e.g. UDL for students with disabilities) while noting gaps in research.
We need more of this — dealing with complexity vs. rabidly promoting silver bullets.
“School choice” is a long con by right wing corporate interests and every Democrat who played a part in selling it should never know a moment’s peace.
www.npr.org/2026/04/19/n...
I’m starting to wonder if we need headlines like this from all 50 states before people realize “school choice” doesn’t help kids because it’s an ideological project that’s indifferent to actually educating children in any substantive way…
There's a very good essay to be written about the profound emptiness of *winning* when your project itself is joyless and cruel.
am endlessly fascinated by these guys as humanities students
People are who not teachers may never understand that there are students who etch themselves on our souls.
It’s rare that we can predict who they’ll be, but there’s no mistaking it when it happens. For good or for ill, that’s my kid and their existence impacts how I see my job and the world.
I hesitate to say we’ve reached a turning point in this horrific time. But something profound seems to be changing. Let me explain. robertreich.substack.com/p/sunday-thought-a-chang...
This article captures a lot of what I’ve been thinking about this year in terms of reducing (student AND teacher) tech use.
My current position, drawing on John Wooden’s wisdom: we often mistake tech engagement for academic achievement instead of evaluating the value added.
But key points here:
not only is this exciting — the lt. governor’s office should, uh, contact me — but it is a not so subtle way to claim some of virginia’s most potent historical symbols — its universities and the affiliated figures, like madison and jefferson and george mason — for the libs
I totally agree! I do wonder how much of the problem is a chicken & egg problem…
One challenge I run into with newer Ts: they don’t feel they have enough of a handle on the content to get to a place of deeper pedagogical engagement. For some, we need more support for that to unlock creativity 🤷🏾♂️
Something I’ve been grappling with this year as we’ve all been figuring out the role of AI, canned curriculum, and SoR is how to help teachers see the job as an intellectual activity vs. mere content delivery…docents vs couriers, if you will.
I loved this framing and will hold on to it:
Genuine question: who’s the audience for this article?
People in the Budapest Metro, Hungary, shouting: “Russians, go home!”
What I think Putnam’s work/doc makes clear is that these really shouldn’t be divisive questions; Glaude (from Begin Again) might argue we shouldn’t even concern ourselves with those who might see them as divisive because we simply must answer these (basic) questions to move forward.
I agree.
(/🧵)
Ultimately, I guess I’m begging the question of how we all imagine ourselves engaging the big questions related to Putnam + Glaude’s work:
1️⃣ Who are we as a society?
2️⃣ What are our collective aspirations as a diverse society?
3️⃣ What responsibility do each of us have for the common good?
(6/7)
There’s been a ton of discourse about Science of Reading/Learning, book lists, and AI + ed tech broadly…but I really think the question of how the things we traditionally hope kids get out of “social studies” can be supported by ALL educators is a worthy inquiry / next focus in this landscape. (5/7)
Sane people have spent/wasted so much time challenging insane claims about CRT/DEI that we haven’t spent enough on what we want to meet …again… whatever this timeline is. Glaude did a great job arguing for Reconstruction as a starting point for analysis, which fits the Join or Die questions (4/7)
At the intersection of Bowling Alone/Join or Die and Glaude’s work (Begin Again + the History Is US podcast) is the foundation for a really rich discussion about what a high school social studies curriculum should look like; these three questions central to Join or Die could be central that. (3/7)
Bowling Alone was all the rage as I completed my grad program in Human Computer Interaction in the early aughts. Many were grappling with how tech would impact social interactions — ALL my graduate work was focused on that. But I’m not sure anyone could’ve predicted whatever this timeline is (2/7)
Image is of a description of the Netflix documentary, “JOIN or DIE”: “In this Emmy-nominated feature documentary, follow the half-century story of America's civic unraveling through the journey of legendary social scientist Robert Putnam, whose groundbreaking "Bowling Alone" research into America's decades-long decline in community connections could hold the answers to our democracy's present crisis. “Flanked by influential fans and scholars - from Priya Parker, Pete Buttigieg, and Surgeon General Vivek Murthy to Jane McAlevey, Hillary Clinton, and Eddie Glaude Jr. — as well as inspiring groups building community in neighborhoods across the country, join Bob as he explores three urgent civic questions: What makes democracy work? Why is American democracy in crisis? And, most importantly...What can we do about it?”
I made a commitment to read more in 2026 and finished Begin Again by Eddie S. Glaude this week. I then coincidentally watched Join or Die on Netflix about Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone (a classic!), which Glaude is featured in.
Good food for thought about how we talk about our own history (🧵 1/x)
While working with a district during grad school, I watched a board meeting where they approved a list of recommended (but not mandated) books. The plan was to provide curriculum for books on the list, but allow teachers freedom to choose others.
I think that’s the right balance for these things.
So, deleted Substack and have moved my subscription to Beehiiv.
My domain is still my home: christianmooreanderson.com
Beehiiv will do subscription newsletters for new posts.
If you're interested/invested in substack, it's worth translating this post:
www.viernesenkiribati.com/p/la-mierdif...
“This is not an argument against the use of education technology. During the pandemic, millions of students relied heavily on virtual learning platforms to facilitate access to education while schools and colleges were closed. This is just one of many positive examples of how technology can be used well. “However, in its aftermath, some schools rely upon screens for most aspects of learning, even for children as young as five. One-to-one screen availability has been heralded as an achievement, but we have no awareness of how student learning and socialization may be affected by prolonged screen time. “Schools and colleges are rapidly embracing Al as though they are in a race, with little understanding of how it will impact the quality of learning experiences. Many students are already using many of these tools and are often more adept with them than their teachers, who are also using them. Meanwhile, tech companies actively market their services and tools, and sometimes even give their products away for free, in the hope that such investments will lead to further penetration of the education market in the future.”
“Computer scientist Cal Newport has demonstrated that many ed tech tools are undermining our ability to concentrate and think deeply. We need more research and feedback from practitioners to assess the impact of ed tech tools on learning before they are widely adopted and implemented. “The education sector helped create the social media crisis by looking the other way as kids became addicted to screens. We now have an opportunity, and an obligation, not to repeat these kinds of mistakes with artificial intelligence. Let's proceed thoughtfully, with an awareness that our future is at stake.” “Pedro Noguera is dean of the USC Rossier School of Education.”
Although Noguera explicitly states he isn’t arguing for a moratorium on all ed tech, he really seems to be making a pretty good argument for it here …
… and I’ve definitely been thinking about what some sort of “reset” for students AND teachers might look like … thehill.com/opinion/educ...
Very good to get someone like Khan on record like this—we need more of this (and yet another reason that we need to demand substantive results before massive investment/roll-out with all EdTech)
At least one of those is gonna end up being as catastrophically bad as Fyre Festival.
So … this is precisely the point: this might seem unbelievable, but things like this and very similar happen all. the. time. And it’s not doing a child any favors — it’s simply meaning that they won’t get their needs met by someone relying on the IEP to prepare for them bsky.app/profile/joan...
For me, what’s missing from conversations about strengths-based language is how to build rapport with families such that we can agree on language that’s both respectful and honest. What I sense a lot of times is we’re trying not to offend when what’s needed is to document needs to move kids forward.
If I know, for example, that a kid will become violent when they’re overwhelmed by academic or social stimuli, it helps to somehow make that as clear as possible. And since that segment is especially transient, it has to be clear to ppl *outside* the current team, which is the big challenge.
It’s important for me to acknowledge that I work with a relatively small subset of extreme behaviors that include trauma-based behaviors like assault, self-harm, and other destructive acts… but far too often we get IEPs that cloak those behaviors in language that doesn’t help us serve a kid.
