Classroom

Was Professional Development the Missing Piece?

Admin1 Comment

This is part 4 in my series about the impact of technology on education. The previous post regarding research was profound. If you would like to read the whole series, you can start with Part 1, which provides an overview before subsequent posts dive deeper into the nuances.

What if the problem was never the tool, but the lack of sustained support? Or support from the onset?

For years, classrooms have been flooded with platforms, programs, and promises. New tools arrive with excitement, urgency, and often good intentions. Teachers are (sometimes) trained briefly, then sent back to their classrooms to “make it work.” Sometimes there is no training, and expected to “make it work”. When outcomes fall short, frustration follows. Fingers point in every direction.

But perhaps the most honest explanation is also the least controversial: we asked educators to transform instruction without giving them the time, space, or support to truly learn how to do so.

One-Time PD vs. Sustained Learning

Most teachers recognize this pattern immediately.

A new tool is introduced. There’s a short training – here’s what it does, here’s where to click – and then: Go use it. Sometimes there’s follow-up, but it’s often months later and/or focused narrowly on features, not instruction. Other times, PD becomes so repetitive that it feels disconnected from classroom reality.

The spacing matters, just like it matters with our students. When training sessions are too far apart, teachers naturally fill in the gaps themselves. They figure out what works (and what doesn’t) through trial, error, and time; often without a shared pedagogical vision guiding those decisions.

Add to that the reality that many schools roll out multiple new tools or curriculum adoptions at once, sometimes with little dedicated time at the start of the year to learn them deeply. And sometimes there’s too much information coming at the beginning of the school year. The result isn’t resistance, it’s overload.

There has to be a better way.

Pedagogy Must Come First: We Can’t Pretend the Clock Rewinds

In theory, most educators agree: pedagogy should come before platforms, curricula, and pacing.

In practice, that train has already left the station long ago.

Teachers are knee-deep in platforms that were adopted years ago. Pedagogy often became secondary, not because educators didn’t care, but because survival required learning to manage the tool with students in the classroom in real time before reflecting on how it shaped instruction.

So the question isn’t Should pedagogy come first?
It’s How do we re-center pedagogy now, given where we are?

One possible answer isn’t adding more tools, but pressing pause. Limiting new adoptions. Creating space for a pedagogical reset using the platforms already in place. Asking not What else do we need? But how can we use what we have better? Or how can I use what is already available? How will it help me/my students?

This isn’t easy. It can feel overwhelming. But if the goal is student thinking, understanding, and transfer, not just task completion or student compliance, then the work is necessary.

What Meaningful Tech PD Actually Looks Like

I know, this is a loaded question. We want it, we know we need it, but are often loath to attend, myself included. This is especially true when it’s district-provided. Why is that? (That was more of a question to myself, no sarcasm, just a real thought/question)

If professional development is meant to change classroom practice, it must be manageable, relevant, and immediately useful.

That starts with focus. If a district introduces three new tools, meaningful PD might center on just one—and even then, on one or two high-leverage instructional uses, not every feature. Depth matters more than breadth. I’m a fan of showing how it is relevant to you, right now.

PD also needs to be differentiated. Some teachers are ready to explore advanced applications. Others need a strong foundation. Meeting teachers where they are isn’t a luxury; it’s how learning works. The trick is to do this well. I’m not sure what the answer is, but I know it should be a goal.

And perhaps most importantly: teachers need to be able to use what they learn immediately. I am passionate about this point. If something isn’t implemented within a week, it often never will. This isn’t a failure of commitment; it’s the reality of teaching in a system filled with mandates, assessments, and competing priorities.

Ongoing support matters too. Not once a semester. Not when schedules allow. Consistent coaching, collaboration, and feedback help teachers refine their practice at a pace that feels sustainable rather than rushed.

Teachers invest in what moves their students forward. When the impact is visible, the motivation follows.

The Cost of Not Investing in Teacher Learning

When professional learning is shallow or fragmented, classrooms tend to drift toward extremes. Again, this isn’t a criticism of teachers; it’s a reality.

In some cases, technology becomes a digital babysitter, students consume, click, and complete without deep thinking. That’s the compliance factor. In others, technology is avoided altogether. Of the two, opting out may be the more responsible choice, but it still leaves potential untapped.

A middle ground exists.

When teachers are supported in learning how and why to use tools, technology can amplify good pedagogy rather than replace it. Tools that provide immediate feedback, surface misconceptions, or help analyze student thinking, like Snorkl or Wayground, can lighten the instructional load while keeping learning active and visible. I know I keep bringing up these two tools. They are ones I have available in my district. There are other tools that achieve the same things.

But even the best tools can’t compensate for a lack of investment in teacher learning.

A Shared Responsibility

This isn’t about blame. We are where we are, and reflection is necessary.

Teachers didn’t ask for constant change without time to adapt. Administrators didn’t design systems to overwhelm. Policymakers didn’t intend to sideline pedagogy. Everyone involved is operating within constraints and doing what they feel is best.

But if we want classrooms where students think, explain, and truly understand, then professional learning can’t be an afterthought. It has to be central to how we implement change.

Teachers and students deserve better than “I have to do this.”
We’ve tried that. It doesn’t work. It’s time we try something different.

So, my question to you is, if professional development were designed around learning rather than compliance, what would change, for teachers, for students, and for the system as a whole?

Coming Next:
If professional learning is the bridge between research and practice, the final question remains: what does balance actually look like in real classrooms? In the next post, we’ll step back to examine what sustainable, thoughtful technology integration can, and should, feel like for teachers and students.

What Science Says About Technology

Admin1 Comment

As we continue this series, it’s important to ground our reflections in the science of learning and brain research. Teachers make daily instructional decisions that research can illuminate but not fully prescribe. What neuroscience and educational science show us are principles that help explain how students learn best and how certain practices support long-term understanding. Previous post

Active Retrieval Is More Powerful Than Passive Re-Exposure

Cognitive psychology has consistently found that retrieval practice, that is, actively bringing information to mind, deepens learning more than simply re-reading or re-exposure. Research spanning laboratory and classroom settings shows that engaging students in retrieval (quizzing, explaining, recall exercises) leads to better long-term memory retention than repeated study or review alone. (source 1, Source 2)

This is often referred to as the testing effect or retrieval practice effect. The retrieval practice effect is an effective strategy for combating the Ebbinghaus Effect, aka the Forgetting Curve. While it is sometimes misinterpreted as “more tests,” it is really about effortful recall, getting students to retrieve and rethink information. It’s retrieval itself, not just repetition, that strengthens memory traces.

In other words, this means that asking students to produce explanations, to summarize in their own words, or to write and discuss thinking aloud builds deeper learning than simply having them repeatedly read material or answer DOK 1-type questions. This aligns closely with production-based approaches like #MathReps and #EduProtocols, which encourage students to reveal their thinking rather than simply select answers.

Cognitive Load Matters Both With and Without Screens

Science also reminds us that our brains have limited working memory capacity. Cognitive Load Theory explains that when students are overwhelmed with too much information or poorly structured tasks, learning suffers. This is why #EduProtocols recommends starting with a fun, low-cognitive load (non-academic) subject when introducing a new protocol.

Some research on multimedia learning, how information is presented with visuals, audio, and text, suggests that poorly designed digital content can increase cognitive load, making it harder for students to focus on what matters.

Importantly, cognitive load is not caused by screens themselves, but by how information is presented and how much unrelated or distracting material competes for attention. Even when we don’t use technology, we have all experienced cognitive overload from information, especially when it is new or ‘meaty’. This is why it is important to use well-designed tasks that chunk information, reduce unnecessary complexity, and scaffold thinking, helping students allocate mental energy to deep learning, whether on paper or on a device.

This is where tech can help: platforms that analyze student errors, present information in multiple representations, or guide students through step-by-step reasoning can reduce unnecessary load and help students focus on what matters most. Tools like Snorkl and Wayground (which provide instant feedback and class-wide analysis) can lighten the teacher’s load while still requiring students to produce and explain their thinking. This isn’t to say that the use of technology is better. If a teacher needs to learn a platform to lighten their load, it can lead to cognitive overload; that’s not good either.

It’s about balance for both students and teachers.

Explanation Strengthens Learning Across Contexts

Research and classroom evidence agree upon a central idea: students learn better when they must explain their thinking. This is true whether explanations are verbal, written, visual, or recorded. Explanation forces students to organize, articulate, and refine their understanding, something that passive or consumption tasks rarely do.

This finding is supported by the English Language Development (ELD) standards, which highlight explanation as crucial for language learners; I would argue the same holds for all students. The act of explaining requires higher-order thinking, connecting ideas, making meaning, and justifying reasoning, and is linked to stronger understanding across domains. We know that if a student can accurately explain their thinking, they understand the concept. And if, while they explain their thinking, they have a misconception, we, as teachers, can address the issue immediately.

Whether students are explaining mathematical reasoning, composing a paragraph, or teaching a peer through a screencast, the cognitive work of explanation activates deeper learning processes.

What Neuroscience Says About Screen Use

Neuroscience research and cognitive development studies paint a layered picture of screen use, especially in early childhood and developing brains. As teachers, we have all seen our fair share of young children passively watching something on a phone or tablet. I have my own personal thoughts on that.

Some findings suggest that excessive screen time, especially passive, unstructured exposure, can be associated with reduced development of executive functions (such as working memory, inhibitory control, and attentional networks) and changes in brain connectivity during critical developmental periods. (Source 3) Other work points out that heavy screen exposure in young children can replace activities like conversation, play, and social interaction that are essential for the development of attention, language, and executive skills. (Source 4)

I will acknowledge the limits of this research:

  • Most studies on screen use and brain development focus on quantity and context of use, not technology per se.
  • Research does not support simplistic claims that screens alone “ruin attention” or permanently damage cognition; effects depend heavily on the type of engagement, content quality, and context. (Source 5)
  • There is no consensus that screens are inherently worse for learning than other media; rather, the design of tasks and interactions matters most. I would be curious to see any studies on the effects of social media on attention spans, how they relate to perseverance and productive struggle.

Screens can be part of effective learning when they prompt students to think, produce, interact, and explain, not just watch or click. I still advocate for common sense. Personally, I don’t think plunking students down in front of a computer for extended periods of time every day is healthy.

What Research Doesn’t Claim

As educators, we must be careful not to overinterpret research into simple slogans like “technology is harmful” or “screens destroy brains.” The science shows that how we use technology matters far more than whether it exists in the classroom.

Studies on cognitive load don’t condemn all digital tools. They simply remind us that well-designed tasks that minimize the load and maximize meaningful engagement lead to better outcomes.

It’s all about balance.

What This Means for Classrooms

The science of learning supports production-based work, tasks that get students to retrieve, organize, and explain content. It also supports varied modalities and repetitive practices, whether via paper/pencil or smart tools that help with feedback and analysis. This was discussed in the Consumption vs Production post of this series.

Here’s what teachers and leaders should keep in mind:

  • Retrieval practice (active recall) strengthens long-term retention more than repeated exposure.
  • Cognitive load matters: thoughtful design matters more than screens.
  • Explanation builds understanding: making students’ thinking visible is powerful.
  • Tech can help, but only when it supports thinking, not replaces it.

Tools like Snorkl and Wayground illustrate this well: they can provide instant feedback and class analysis, helping teachers target instruction while students practice articulation of thinking. But these tools are most effective when teachers know what they want students to produce, not just consume.

Educators deserve systems that support this deeper work—not just devices to fill time. They also need support to accomplish this successfully. Leaving teachers to figure things out on their own time isn’t an acceptable solution. Schools and districts need to invest in their teachers.

What are your thoughts on this research? What have your experiences been?

Coming Next:
Research may tell us what works, but oftentimes, teachers are left to figure out how to put it all into practice successfully. Post 4 explores what happens when pedagogy is expected without proper time, training, or systemic support.

Consumption vs. Production: What Do We Actually Mean?

Admin1 Comment

This post is part of a series exploring how technology, pedagogy, and system-level decisions shape classroom learning. In this entry, the focus shifts to a distinction that often gets overlooked: the difference between students consuming information and producing understanding. Previous Post

When conversations about technology in classrooms come up, they often sound like this:
“Kids are on screens too much.”
“Students don’t think like they used to.”
“Technology has ruined learning.”

These statements reflect genuine concern, but they don’t dig deep enough. The problem is not technology itself. The problem is how students are asked to engage with learning when technology is involved.

To move this conversation forward, especially with the general public, we need a shared language. One of the most important distinctions we can make is between consumption and production.

What Is Consumption?

When I talk about consumption, I’m referring primarily to passive learning experiences. These are activities where students receive information or interact with content in limited ways, often without having to explain or construct their thinking.

Examples include:

  • Watching a video and answering surface-level questions
  • Clicking through digital practice or assessments
  • Playing educational games that reward speed or completion
  • Navigating programs where the main task is selecting answers

Consumption isn’t inherently bad. Students need exposure, modeling, and opportunities to practice skills. The issue arises when consumption becomes the default – especially because technology makes it easy to assign, track, and justify. And with the load on teachers’ plates, it is understandable.

Students can look busy. They can even look engaged. But that doesn’t always mean learning is happening.

Engagement Is Not the Same as Learning

A student can be entertained, compliant, or focused on a screen without deeply understanding the content. Learning requires effort. It requires retrieval, reasoning, explanation, and sometimes productive struggle.

This is where production matters and why it’s crucial.

What Is Production?

Production-based learning asks students to create something that makes their thinking visible.

That “something” might be:

  • A written explanation
  • A visual model or representation
  • A verbal explanation
  • A collaborative document
  • A screencast or short video

For example:

  • A student creates a short video explaining how to add two-digit numbers using expanded form
  • Students read, collaborate on shared notes, and write synthesized paragraphs (such as in a Cyber Sandwich)
  • Students explain why a strategy works, not just apply it

These tasks require more than clicking through DOK 1-type questions. Students must organize ideas, make decisions, and communicate clearly.

And contrary to popular belief, production does not always require more time.

Production Doesn’t Mean More Work

Many teachers already build production into their classrooms, often without labeling it that way:

  • Asking students to explain answers to a partner
  • Requiring written justification
  • Having students represent ideas visually

These are small shifts, not massive overhauls.

Technology can support this work, but only when it’s used intentionally. Which leads to a critical question educators must constantly ask:

How is this technology enhancing the learning goal?

Not:

“I have this tool, now how can I use it?”

That distinction is subtle but powerful. I admit, there were times when I asked myself, “How can I use this tool?”

Revisiting an Old Idea: SAMR

Years ago, many educators used the SAMR model (Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition) to think about technology integration. Over time, I’ve noticed it has faded from conversation, but its central idea still matters: technology should enhance or transform learning, not simply digitize existing tasks.

But frameworks alone don’t change practice.

For many teachers, there is little time or support to deeply learn new pedagogy alongside new tools. Professional learning is often brief, optional, or disconnected from classroom realities. Teachers are expected to “innovate” while managing full classrooms, mandates, and shifting expectations.

As in the early Chromebook rollout, teachers are once again left to figure it out on their own.

The Reality Teachers Are Working In

This conversation cannot happen without acknowledging the conditions teachers work under.

Teachers navigate:

  • District-adopted programs and initiatives
  • Pacing guides and curriculum mandates
  • State testing and accountability pressures
  • Constant shifts in platforms and expectations

At the same time, teachers are frequently blamed for:

  • Low student motivation
  • Declining reading levels
  • Weak math fluency
  • Poor reasoning skills

Teachers have students for six to seven hours a day. They do not control screen time outside of school. They cannot undo every societal influence within a single classroom.

Yet they are often expected to do precisely that.

Understanding consumption versus production is not about criticizing teachers’ choices. It’s about recognizing that many of those choices are/were made within tight constraints, often without the time or support needed to explore better alternatives.

Technology as an Enhancer, Not a Requirement

Production does not require technology. In many cases, paper and pencil work beautifully. Research consistently supports the cognitive benefits of writing and drawing by hand.

Take MathReps as an example. I often prefer students to write their thinking on paper or use plastic sleeves with whiteboard markers. Writing, revising, and representing ideas physically supports understanding.

Once students are familiar with the routine, technology can enhance the experience.

Tools like Snorkl allow students to demonstrate and explain their thinking while receiving immediate feedback. Used intentionally, perhaps a few times a week, it can amplify learning rather than replace it.

The goal still remains the same:

  • Show your thinking
  • Explain your reasoning
  • Make understanding visible

Technology is one pathway, not the destination.

Starting With the Right Question

Whether using technology or not, the most important question is always:

What is the learning goal?

Only then should we ask:

  • Can technology enhance this?
  • Does it deepen thinking or just speed things up?
  • Are students producing, or merely responding?

Consumption and production are not enemies. Both have a place. But when consumption dominates, we risk mistaking activity for understanding.

As we continue navigating teaching in a digital age, the challenge is not choosing between technology and tradition. It’s choosing practices that can meld the two.

I leave you with this question:

When you think about the learning experiences students spend the most time on, inside or outside the classroom, would you describe them as primarily consumptive or productive? And what slight shift might move the balance? If you see balance already, what does it look like?

Coming next: Post 3 explores what learning science really says about technology and student thinking without hype or oversimplification.

When Technology Entered the Classroom, What Did We Lose Along the Way?

Admin2 Comments

Technology was introduced into classrooms with the promise of innovation, access, and equity. Chromebooks became commonplace, and suddenly every student had a screen. On paper, it looked like progress.

What rarely came with those devices, however, was a shared vision for how technology should support learning.

Years later, many educators and families are noticing something unsettling. Teachers are detecting declines in certain skills: critical thinking, problem-solving, perseverance, a sense of wonder, and even basic fluency, such as memorizing math facts or understanding procedures deeply.

This is not a claim rooted in blame or panic.
It’s a reflection grounded in lived classroom experience.

And it’s critical to say this clearly: teachers did not cause this shift.

Teachers Were Put in a No-Win Situation

When Chromebooks were first rolled out, many teachers were handed powerful tools with minimal training, limited pedagogical guidance, and enormous expectations. The message was often implicit: Use the technology. Figure it out.

What followed was predictable.

Most available tools at the time were consumption-based:

  • Students practiced skills through programs
  • Computer-generated assessments
  • “Learning” games
  • Watch videos and click through content

These tools promised efficiency, and in some ways, they delivered. Teachers could quickly gather data, assign differentiated work, and manage classrooms stretched thin by increasing demands and limited time.

For many teachers, this wasn’t laziness or lack of creativity.
It was survival, as they were told to use technology, follow pacing guides, differentiate, improve test scores, etc.

When Consumption Became the Default

Photo by Ryutaro Tsukata on Pexels.com

Over time, consumption-based technology became mainstream. Students spent more time interacting with screens and less time explaining their thinking, constructing arguments, or grappling productively with struggle.

This matters because consumption alone does not build deep understanding.

Selecting an answer is not the same as defending one.
Completing digital practice is not the same as reasoning.
Engagement is not the same as learning.

Still, teachers used these tools because they were what districts purchased, what schedules allowed, what was expected, and what, if any, professional development supported.

Arguments for the Opposite Can Be Made

Some teachers pushed against this trend. I was one of them. This was a luxury and an interest for me.

Technology has always interested me, and I had the time, energy, and inclination to learn how pedagogy and technology could work together. I gravitated toward production-based uses of technology: students explaining, creating, representing, and discussing their thinking.

When tools like Prodigy became popular, many teachers saw motivation and engagement. I saw more game than practice and chose not to use it. Instead, I decided to use programs like Fog Stone Isle to help build capacity with fractions. That doesn’t make one choice morally superior; it highlights how context, interests, and capacity shape decisions.

Many teachers did see value in those tools for their students. And for those teachers, it made complete sense. There are times when consumption-based technology is appropriate and works. As teachers, we do what we feel works best for our students.

The Larger Systemic Issue

The deeper issue isn’t about individual tools. It’s about a system that often invests in products instead of practices.

Districts and lawmakers frequently purchase or mandate programs, platforms, and devices without funding the time and training teachers need to use them well. Pedagogies like HyperDocs and EduProtocols emphasize student production and thinking, but learning them is often left entirely to individual teachers.

And teachers already carry an impossible load.

Technology changes yearly. Research evolves. Expectations increase. Teachers are asked to adapt constantly, often without sustained professional learning or structural support.

When systems fail to lead with pedagogy, companies fill the gap. Many tools genuinely aim to help, but convenience can quietly override cognitive demand if we aren’t careful.

What Research Actually Tells Us (And What It Doesn’t)

To be clear: there is no definitive research proving that technology has caused a universal decline in student skills. What we do have is:

  • Research showing that active learning and retrieval are more effective than passive consumption
  • Cognitive science emphasizing the importance of productive struggle, explanation, and practice
  • Multimedia learning research (like Richard Mayer’s work) demonstrating that technology must be intentionally designed to support learning, not overload it
  • Large-scale assessments (such as PISA and NAEP) showing stagnation or uneven growth, which educators interpret through classroom experience

What teachers are reporting should not be dismissed, but it should be understood as contextual, nuanced, and systemically influenced, not a simple cause-and-effect story.

Moving Forward: Balance, Not Backlash

This is not a call to remove technology from classrooms.

It’s a call to use it differently.

Production-based strategies don’t have to be complex. They can start small:

  • Choice boards instead of one-size-fits-all programs
  • Students explaining their thinking orally or visually
  • Simple routines that prioritize reasoning over speed

These changes can be technology-based or not technology-based. For example, explaining thinking can be done in a class setting, in groups, or with the use of tools like Snorkl.

Frameworks like MathReps and EduProtocols offer powerful examples, but they are not mandates. They are models. Entry points. Proof that technology can amplify thinking when pedagogy leads the way.

A Message to the Public and to Decision Makers

Teaching today is not the same as “when you were in school.”
Technology has changed. Research has evolved. Students’ needs are different.

Educators are not resisting change; they are navigating it in real time.

If we want technology to improve learning, then teachers need more than devices. They need time, training, and trust. Districts and lawmakers must invest not just in tools, but in the pedagogy that makes those tools meaningful. And all of this needs to be done without adding more to teachers’ plates.

The goal isn’t balance sheets or dashboards. It’s thinking.

And the question we should all be asking is not whether technology belongs in classrooms, but whether we are brave enough to demand that it truly serves learning and teachers are put in a position of power, not left scrambling to figure it all out.

This has been a subject that has been weighing on me heavily lately. I think this will be the beginning of a series. I would love to hear your thoughts. I am not here to persuade anyone one way or another, but rather have open discussions on where, as a community, educators, parents, districts, and policymakers, we can do better.

Celebrating Creative Teaching Techniques in Classrooms

AdminLeave a comment

One of the things I love most about my role as an instructional coach/tech TOSA (Teacher on Special Assignment) is the opportunity to visit all the elementary sites in our district. Each school has its own rhythm and energy, and every teacher brings something special to the table. I get to see it all – the creative ideas, the quiet moments of connection, and the unique ways teachers make their classrooms feel like home for their students.

For example, at one school, a teacher sets out a small chalkboard outside her classroom each day. On it, she writes a Joke of the Day – something silly and lighthearted, but always guaranteed to get a few smiles and spark conversation. (Today’s joke: “What do you call rotten eggs, rotten fruit, and spoiled milk in a bag? Gross-eries!”) I love how she’s zhuzhed up the board, complete with a festive skeleton and a splash of color. It’s such a small thing, but it builds community and connection.

Another teacher has found a meaningful way to help students express themselves through emoji writing. I’m still learning exactly how she structures it, but I know students get the chance to write about their thoughts and feelings, and share them if they choose. It’s such a beautiful example of using something familiar and fun to help students build emotional awareness and voice.

Then there’s a teacher at another site who’s rethinking her approach to reading. She’s diving into novel studies, aligning them to the standards while keeping student engagement and learning front and center. It’s exciting to see teachers continually reflect, innovate, and take risks for the sake of their students.

Every week I’m reminded that innovation in education doesn’t always come from big changes—it’s often found in the small, thoughtful touches teachers bring to their classrooms.

The teachers in our district are doing amazing things every single day. I feel incredibly lucky to have a front-row seat to their creativity and care. One of my favorite parts of my job is being able to share these ideas, anonymously, of course, across the district. When I visit another site and a teacher says, “I’ve been wanting to try something new; any ideas?” I get to say, “Actually, I saw someone doing something really neat…”

I love this perk of my job. I love celebrating great teaching and helping ideas spread from one classroom to another. Because when we share, we all grow, and our students benefit most of all. And if you know me, you know that I’m a chronic over-sharer!

Your turn: What’s something small but meaningful you’ve seen or done in a classroom that builds connection or joy? Share it in the comments or with a colleague—it might just spark an idea that makes someone else’s classroom shine a little brighter.

The Power of Practice: Why MathReps Are the Missing Piece in Math Education

AdminLeave a comment

MathReps are more than just a worksheet—they are a targeted, daily instructional frame designed to leverage the science of learning to create genuine mathematical mastery. Here is a look at their inherent power and how they succeed where traditional, rigid curriculums often fail.

The Power of MathReps—What Makes Them Effective?

MathReps are powerful because their structure is built on proven principles of cognitive science and student-centered learning. (Note: MathReps are not a curriculum, rather a powerful tool that can enhance any curriculum.)

ReasonExplanation
Systematic Spaced Repetition (The Forgetting Curve)The daily repetition directly combats the ‘forgetting curve,’ a term that describes how quickly we forget new information. By consistently allowing students to revisit skills, MathReps move concepts from short-term memory into long-term mastery (fluency) in a way that end-of-unit tests or once-a-year review packets cannot.
Reduced Cognitive LoadThe basic lesson frame/graphic organizer is predictable and familiar. When the structure is constant, students don’t waste mental energy figuring out the assignment’s format, allowing them to dedicate all their cognitive load to solving the problem, making connections, and mastering the skill.
Connection Between Concepts and StrategiesMathReps are designed to promote a deeper understanding by requiring students to connect multiple representations (e.g., area models, partial quotients, and the traditional algorithm) on a single page. This helps them bridge the ‘how’ (procedural fluency) with the ‘why’ (conceptual understanding).
Daily Spiral Review of Multiple StandardsUnlike unit-by-unit curriculums that drop a topic once the unit is over, MathReps embed daily spiral review for several standards at once. This ensures that skills learned in September are still being practiced and reinforced in February, building confidence and preventing skill degradation.
Customization and DifferentiationThey are fully customizable, allowing teachers to select skills based on student data and individual needs. This makes MathReps a personalized learning tool that meets each student exactly where they are—a crucial advantage over a standardized textbook.
Fosters Long-Term SuccessReal-world evidence shows their success. One 3rd-grade team, for example, reported an increase in fraction proficiency from 19% to over 82% after implementing the daily repetition of MathReps.

How MathReps Do What Traditional Curriculums Fail To Do

Traditional math curriculums, whether purely procedural or heavily conceptual, often fail in three key areas that MathReps are specifically designed to address.

Failure of Traditional CurriculumsHow MathReps Solve It
Failure to Ensure Skill RetentionTraditional curriculums move on too quickly. If a student misses a concept or needs more time, they “fall off the train” and develop a learning gap that a built-in review system can’t fix.
Failure to Bridge Conceptual and Procedural FluencyCurriculums often lean too heavily in one direction: either “drill and kill” (rote memorization without understanding) or purely conceptual (understanding the theory but lacking computational skill). Often focusing on one skill at a time and never showing the connections.
Failure to Adequately Address Learning GapsStandardized, one-size-fits-all textbooks cannot accommodate a classroom where students may have learning gaps spanning multiple years. Pushing “high expectations” without addressing prior knowledge often leads to student failure.

MathReps provide the crucial daily rhythm of practice and reflection that students need to connect, internalize, and ultimately master their math skills, setting them up for success when confronted with more complex material.

You can find the full collection at MathReps.com.

You can see a deeper dive into the format and utility of these organizers in this video: MathReps is Where It’s At!.

Public Education: More Than a Viral Post

AdminLeave a comment

Lately, it feels like my social media feed has been sprinkled with negative takes on teachers and public education. Over the summer, I noticed an uptick in posts that painted educators in an unflattering light. Some parents shared that they didn’t want to purchase back-to-school supplies, suggesting that the teachers should go buy them themselves or go to donation drives and do the legwork themselves. Others shared stories of classrooms that weren’t ‘cute enough’ or didn’t have rugs, implying that the lack of decoration somehow reflected poorly on the teacher – “how dare they not make the room perfect for my child.”

And then there are the posts about rules and policies – things like cell phone bans in classrooms that teachers have no control over. In some cases, parents have gone as far as encouraging their children to disobey those rules, placing teachers in an impossible position.

Viral posts don’t tell the whole story of public education: our communities do.

I’ll be honest, when these posts go viral, it can feel disheartening. But here’s the thing: I don’t believe they reflect the majority of families across the United States. Instead, they seem to be part of a louder narrative that seeks to chip away at public education and those who dedicate their lives to it. And this is a problem.

The truth is, public education is one of the cornerstones of our country. It has always been, and should always be, a place where every child has access to learning, growth, and opportunity. Funding cuts at every level – from Kinder through universities – have made the work harder, but the mission remains the same: serving students and setting them up for future success.

And here’s the good news: in my community, I see something different from what goes viral. I’m sure you do too. I see families who send their students to school with supplies. I see kindness, collaboration, and a shared commitment to doing what’s best for kids.

That’s the story we need to remember and share. Viral posts may grab attention, but they don’t represent the heart of our communities. Let’s not fall prey to negativity; there’s already too much of that. Instead, let’s lift up the good, celebrate the work being done, and continue to build strong schools for our students. They deserve the best, no matter their zip code.

Because in the end, when we support public education, we’re not just supporting teachers, we’re investing in our children and in the future we all share.

Navigating Adult Cliques: Cultivating Kindness in Schools

AdminLeave a comment

The idea that cliques exist as an adult is weird. Don’t get me wrong, I get that there are people I would rather hang out with, but being cliquish about it is a whole other thing.

This is one of the many thoughts I have as I prepare to return to school. As educators, we strive to instill kindness in our students. We teach them that while they may not get along with everyone, it is important to be kind; inviting peers to play at recess, greeting one another, and engaging with those who are alone are essential actions. However, when we step into the teachers’ lounge, the reality often reflects a different story. Sadly, many can relate to this experience.

As an adult, I have observed cliques, exclusion, and unkind behaviors, which is perplexing. We should strive to be kind to everyone. If we advocate for inclusion, we must also practice it. If we promote equality, we should embody it. When we discuss kindness and compassion, it is essential to implement these values in our daily lives.

As we approach the new school year, it’s important to reflect on our community. This transition brings new teachers, some of whom may be unfamiliar with their surroundings or have just moved to the area for their new positions. In this spirit, let us practice kindness and inclusivity by inviting everyone to join us at our tables. A simple smile or a friendly greeting in passing can truly brighten someone’s day.

One final thought. Many years ago, Ed Campos talked about ways to include others and bring them into our circles. He focused on doing this at conferences. He shared his idea when standing around and talking to others: leave a space open for others to join. Having a closed circle is uninviting, but by leaving a space, that circle is open and inviting. So, I guess I’m drawing inspiration from Ed; leave a space for others to join, you never know what greatness is out there.

Clothesline Math: Engaging Students with Interactive Learning

AdminLeave a comment

For those unfamiliar with clothesline math, think of it as an interactive number line. Chris Shore is an outspoken champion of this hands-on teaching tool that helps students better understand Number Sense. This tool goes beyond placing numbers on a number line. It can be incorporated into most math concepts.

Earlier this year, I introduced a group of 3rd-grade teachers to this concept. We started with a relatively simple concept to acclimate the students to the task. I copied Kristen Acosta’s 2nd Base 10 activity. In it, students were given a card and were tasked with understanding the number being represented. The example below (Kristen Acosta) shows different ways the numbers were represented. The students were then placed in groups of 3-4 and ordered their numbers. Then, each group went to the large number line (literal clothesline stretched from one end of the room to the other) and placed their numbers on the class number line. The slip of paper was folded so that the number ‘hung’ on the number line. You can also use clothes pins to secure the numbers in place. This led to many rich discussions on placement and spacing.

Create Your Own

This was a huge hit with the students and teachers. This led to teachers asking for others. We found a multiplication activity (Kristen Acosta). Then teachers wanted division, area and perimeter. Try as I might, I couldn’t find anything online that was already created. This, then, led to me creating them. This became a labor of love.

Like other math resources I create, I looked at the standard and the framework when I created these. The division clothesline has various representations of division: standard form, number line, and images. In each the missing number could have been the quotient, dividend, or divisor. The missing number (n) is the number that is placed on the number line.

It took me a bit to decide how to approach the area/perimeter. Ultimately, I decided that students should find either the area or the perimeter. I made sure that the students were exposed to a variety of images and challenges in order to find each. Some had a missing side, others only gave two side measurements to find the area or perimeter of a rectangle.

Notes From Grown-Ups Update

AdminLeave a comment

Back in 2019, I was blown away by the incredible energy and enthusiasm that filled the air during Back to School Night! The atmosphere was simply electric as students eagerly walked around their new room. Their grown-ups also had a job to do: write messages to the students. The results were fantastic and I couldn’t help but be captivated by the sheer brilliance and boundless positivity that jumped off the poster. These messages were like shimmering gems, glistening with love and inspiration, ready to guide and uplift the students throughout their entire journey. It was an absolute adrenaline rush of joy and motivation, leaving everyone buzzing with excitement for the amazing year ahead! If you want to relive that thrilling and heartwarming moment, head over to this link to read more about it!

What began as a humble idea in my classroom, born from a fleeting moment of inspiration in 2019, has blossomed into something truly remarkable. The joy that this concept brings has now spread far beyond the walls of my own classroom, reaching other classes, schools, districts, and even states. The impact of this simple idea has been truly astounding.

Allow me to share with you one particularly heartwarming story that exemplifies the reach and power of this concept. Martha Klein Conway, a dedicated educator and member of the EduProtocols Community Facebook Group, decided to implement this activity for the parents of her 5th-grade students. Recognizing the profound impact it could have on fostering a sense of connection and engagement, she eagerly created a space to share messages. The response from both parents and students was overwhelmingly positive, and it served as a testament to the transformative power of this idea.

Message board from parents