The Symbiosis Between Scaffolding and Differentiation

A while back I wrote a long post redefining scaffolds and examining their connection to success criteria.

I then wrote a post drawing a distinction between scaffolds and differentiation, and I cast some shade on differentiation.

But I’m no longer quite as opposed to differentiation, and I can now see how there can be a strong symbiosis between scaffolding and differentiation.

I’ve been working with a school in the Bronx where we’ve been talking a lot about these concepts, and they’ve helped me to think a little more deeply. So I figured it would be worth sharing my updated learning.

Why it’s important

Teachers are often criticized by school and district leaders for not “differentiating” enough, yet rarely provided any clear guidance on how to do so. And there’s furthermore a lot of vagueness out there in the field on the distinctions between scaffolding and differentiation.

I want to share my revised thinking on the connection between the two concepts in the hope that I can help to clarify, rather than muddy, the use of these terms.

Here’s a visual model of how I now view scaffolds and differentiation:

Scaffolding = Steps

As students practice a skill or develop knowledge of a concept, their ability and understanding increases in complexity. A master teacher breaks down a skill or concept into smaller components, all the way down to the most basic and fundamental level, so that students can accelerate up the ladder towards mastery (just as jump school recruits do with a parachute landing fall).

Those sequential steps are the scaffolds.

Scaffolding, therefore, requires a teacher to be deeply knowledgeable of what is taught (content/skills).

Differentiation = Where each student is on those steps and what they need to progress

Differentiation, on the other hand, requires a teacher to know their individual students well enough to know what each student requires at every step on their trajectory towards mastery, and where they are on that trajectory.

Differentiation requires a teacher to be deeply aware of each of their individual student’s needs and current level of performance.

Distinguishing between Scaffolds and Differentiation

  • Scaffolding is aligned to a concept or skill.
  • Differentiation is aligned to the individual student.
  • Scaffolds are the sequential steps that lead to mastery of a skill or a deeper understanding of a concept.
  • Differentiation is in what manner and how much time a student may need to practice or review a step, as well as how much feedback may need to be provided.
  • Scaffolding requires a teacher to be deeply knowledgeable of what is taught.
  • Differentiation requires a teacher to be deeply aware of each individual student’s needs and current level of performance.

The two thus work in tandem.

A sidenote on how all this relates to personalized learning

This brings out something interesting about the edtech industry’s drive for “personalized learning.” The concept of personalized learning arguably aligns most strongly with differentiation.

What is not frequently discussed is that in order to personalize something, you must first define that “something” and break it into its component parts. How you do this and the decisions you make and the feedback you provide are just as important as matching that content to a student’s needs.

In other words, whenever you hear about personalized learning, ignore the inspirational student-centered rhetoric and home in on the content itself. What platform or curriculum is being used? What trajectory is presented by that content? Does this trajectory align with widely respected standards or guidance from national or international professional organizations.

Definitions and Characteristics

Scaffolding

Definition

A scaffold provides opportunities for performance and practice of the component content and skills that a student requires to achieve success in a unit of study.

Characteristics

  • Smaller, sequential components of a complex concept, task, or skill
  • Requires a teacher to be deeply knowledgeable of what is taught
  • At the right level of “desirable difficulty” for practice; in other words, a scaffold isn’t about making something “easier” for students
  • Must be mastered at each step along the way. Students shouldn’t move along or have a scaffold removed until they have demonstrated mastery of each component
  • Doubles as performance-based formative assessment

Differentiation

Definition

Differentiation provides an individual student with the targeted practice or thinking, and with the necessary feedback, in order to progress towards defined learning goals.

Characteristics

  • Adjustments in environment, content, process, or product to account for an individual student’s current level of knowledge, ability, or interest
  • Based on the trajectory of scaffolding for the current topic or unit of study
  • Requires the teacher to be deeply aware of an individual student’s needs and current level of performance
  • At the right level of “desirable difficulty” for practice; in other words, differentiation isn’t about making something “easier” for the student

You’ll notice that there is a key characteristic that is shared between these two: neither are about making something easier for a student — they are both about moving learners closer to mastery of whatever it is that they are practicing and studying.

This is important because unfortunately there is a strong tendency by educators to deem some students as incapable of achieving mastery of success in academic learning.

But what is most often the case is that the educator doesn’t know what they are teaching well enough in order to provide specific and targeted supports for their students.

There’s still a lot more to dig into on this topic — specifically how it relates to formal education plans (IEPs) for students with disabilities. But I think this is more than enough for one post!

Please push back on any of this to help me further clarify and refine my thinking on scaffolding and differentiation.

Advertisements

Smorgasbord: Back to school pep talks and charter accountability

It’s back to school week in New York. As teachers and students dust off their summer-laden books and brains, they head back under the increasing haze of chaos and uncertainty that Trump and his rich minions have ushered in as they slice and dice regulations and public services and norms and institutions willy nilly.

Yet there may be one thing that the Trump “administration,” if you can call it that, is right about when it comes to protections of the children of undocumented immigrants: it really should be on the shoulders of Congress to pass legislation, rather than be based on the whims of the Executive office. Look to advocates from both sides of the aisle to begin applying pressure to Republican legislators to actually create legislation for once that will work for the American people, rather than further subdivide them.

Sara Mead gives ed reformers a pep talk

It may be more comfortable to believe that educational outcomes are fixed and there’s little we can do to change them – but it’s also a moral failure.

Progress Over Pessimism, US News

Are students of color over- or under-identified as having a disability?

A researcher is pushing back on the conventional narrative, which has been formed around raw numbers. Controlling for poverty and academic achievement skews it the other way.

What’s left out this conversation is the fact that kids in the US are over-identified in general, in comparison to top performing countries, with little performance gains to show for the additional money and services.

Many worry that students of color are too often identified as disabled. Is the real problem the opposite?, Chalkbeat

Even when identified, students of color in poorer communities may not receive services

The city’s data show students from underserved districts in the south Bronx and Brooklyn are most likely to be deprived of the services they need to learn in comfort and safety.”

NYC denies nearly 9,000 kids with disabilities the services they need, NY Daily News

Oklahoma prioritizes oil companies over the education of its children

Just goes to show you what happens when you prioritize short-term interests over that of the long-term. A lesson for America.

Big Oil, Small Schools, US News

John King suggests that actual leadership from Department of Ed would be nice

“The department spokeswoman said Moran asked DeVos for ‘any resources we may have,’ and in response, officials provided a seven-page readiness and emergency management guide drafted by the department to specifically address Charlottesville.”

A readiness and emergency management guide? King slams Devos for her tepid tweets and bureaucratic response:

“The job of education leaders, whether it’s secretary or state chief or superintendent, is to every day be a voice for equity and civil rights protections, and we haven’t seen that from this administration.”

John King: DeVos, Trump Administration Not Doing Enough After Charlottesville, US News

Sony envisions a future of AI harvesting student data off a blockchain

“In the future, Sony believes student data can be analyzed using artificial intelligence to suggest improvements to specific educational institutions’ curriculum or management.”

Sony and IBM Team Up to Make Education Data More Secure – and Easier to Share — with Blockchain System, The 74

Bullying on social media is a real problem. Maybe it’s time to hold those platforms accountable like we hold schools accountable

unnamed.png

Most schools–you know, the ones that care about their children–stick their noses in kids’ private business because that’s where all the trouble happens. But as bullying increasingly moves into online spaces, where it’s more difficult for nosy administrators and teachers to monitor, maybe we need to start applying more pressure to those platforms to actively monitor the activity of minors.

This is a part of a bigger problem–that we’re increasingly ceding both our private and public lives to private platforms that are unaccountable to the public.

New Teen Survey Reveals Cyberbullying Moving Beyond Social Media to Email, Messaging Apps, YouTube, The 74

Can you imagine if this was the culture of school districts?

Elon Musk sends a message to his employees about the problems with communication as a chain-of-command:

“Anyone at Tesla can and should email/talk to anyone else according to what they think is the fastest way to solve a problem for the benefit of the whole company. You can talk to your manager’s manager without his permission, you can talk directly to a VP in another dept, you can talk to me, you can talk to anyone without anyone else’s permission.”

Sure would be nice to work in an organization like that!

This Email From Elon Musk to Tesla Employees Describes What Great Communication Looks Like, Inc

How schools are governed determines their effectiveness

One has to look beyond the averages to see the truth: In states where charter authorizers close or replace failing schools—a central feature of the charter model—charters vastly outperform traditional public schools, with students gaining as much as an extra year of learning every year. But in states where failing charters are allowed to remain open, they are, on average, no better than other public schools.

What matters is not whether we call them charter schools or district schools or “innovation schools” or “pilot schools,” but the rules that govern their operation.

David Osborne, in the introduction from his book, Reinventing America’s Schools: Creating a 21st Century Education System; To Save Public Education We Must Reinvent It, The 74

Because charter systems with no accountability can be devastating for children

Michigan’s K-12 system is among the weakest in the country and getting worse.

Michigan Gambled On Charter Schools. It Lost., NY Times

And we should not give up on public schools, because it’s not only about performance — it’s about serving our democracy

Our public-education system is about much more than personal achievement; it is about preparing people to work together to advance not just themselves but society. Unfortunately, the current debate’s focus on individual rights and choices has distracted many politicians and policy makers from a key stakeholder: our nation as a whole.

Americans Have Given Up on Public Schools. That’s a Mistake., The Atlantic

CREDO and Clown Shows have equal weight in education world

…the larger problem is that chaos is a ladder and too many people in the education world see a clown show article by Valerie Strauss in The Washington Post and an RCT or CREDO analysis as all having equal weight.

Great Moments For School PIOs, State ESSA Reviews, Buried Voucher Ledes, Charter Funding, Success At Success, RCTs V. Credo, Screaming Armadillos! Much More…, Eduwonk

Scaffolding vs Differentiation

My recent post on scaffolds and success criteria seemed to be useful to folks, so I thought I should share something more on scaffolding that can help to further clarify the term.

Scaffolding and differentiation are both words frequently thrown around in schools, often interchangeably and without precision. But there’s a clear distinction between the two that must be made, most especially as teachers are increasingly pressured to “differentiate” their lessons by school and district leadership with little guidance and concrete models.

So what is differentiation?

Differentiation asks teachers to plan different tasks or learning experiences for different groups of students, with the idea being that we can better meet the needs of diverse learners.

So for example, if we had our “high” student, our “medium” student, and our “low” performing student, we might provide a different text for each one in order to ensure they would be reading something at their “level.”

But there’s a problem with this. If the so-called “low” students only ever receive less complex and challenging expectations, texts, and learning experiences, they will continue to perform at a lower level.

This is why too many of our kids end up in “remedial” classes if and when they make it to college. This is why too many students consigned to a segregated “self-contained” program rarely even make it to graduation.

There’s another problem with differentiation. It demands quite a bit from a teacher to design (at least) 3 separate tasks or resources for any given lesson — time and energy that could perhaps be more effectively spent elsewhere.

To acknowledge these problems is not to say that differentiation can’t be applied effectively nor that it is universally the wrong thing to do. Structures for guided reading, for example, draw from this model and can be very effective in a school and classroom that have developed the necessary systems and routines. But these problems are big enough that they should give us strong pause before mindlessly evaluating and chiding teachers about whether they are adequately “differentiating” their lessons.

What is scaffolding, and how is it different?

The concept of scaffolding shifts how we approach meeting the needs of diverse learners.

We may have students coming into a learning experience with differing levels of knowledge, ability, or background, but rather than providing them with something different, we instead consider how we can provide the scaffolding necessary to ensure they can work together in grappling with a common task or text.

This is a shift offered by common standards, which demand a shared set of expectations for all students. For our students who may struggle in meeting these more rigorous demands, we must consider how to scaffold the concepts, procedures, and environment to support their engagement in practice with the texts and learning experiences that can enable them to meet those expectations.

This is certainly not an easy thing to do, either. But if I had to take a pick about what is going to give me the most bang for my buck, designing access and practice with common vocabulary, tasks, and texts is where I would ask educators to more wisely invest their time and energy.

For more on what that scaffolding should look like, take a look at my prior post, Scaffolding and Success Criteria.

Student Grouping: What is Effective?

How do we leverage student grouping to best promote achievement?

This is a question teachers and administrators ask themselves almost daily. Unfortunately, there are few clear or easy answers. But we can draw out a few general principles from recent research and other sources of knowledge that may help to inform our instructional practice.

It’s important to acknowledge there’s often a steady pressure on teachers to utilize group work. And for some teachers, grouping students by ability can make serving a wide disparity of different levels of students more manageable.

But there’s an often unstated assumption: group work is inherently superior to whole class or independent learning. But is group work always better than other modes of learning?

Tom Bennett, a British behavioral specialist, argues in an article in American Educator, “Group Work for the Good,” that there is little research to suggest group work is better for academic learning. Bennett cautions teachers to only “use group work when you feel it is appropriate to the task you want your students to achieve, and at no other time.

OK, but what are the times when group work is appropriate? Douglas Fisher and Nancy Frey, in their book, Guided Instruction: How to Develop Confident and Successful Learners, offer some important insight. Here’s a short passage from their first chapter:

“. . . an understanding of memory systems has profound implications for instruction, which include creating systematic and intentional scaffolds of students’ understanding rather than leaving them alone to discover information independently. That’s not to say that students should not work together in collaborative learning; they should. We have argued for productive group work in which students interact with one another and generate ideas to produce individual works (Frey et al., 2009). But this work must center on the consolidation and application of content that students already know. It’s neither the time nor the place to introduce new information. Doing so would overload the working memory system and fail to ensure learning(Bold added).

In other words, new concepts and information should not be introduced during group work. Group work should be used for reinforcing, consolidating, and applying information students have already been exposed to.

So now we’re only selectively and strategically using group work to reinforce content we’ve already introduced to our students. But how do we ensure students are productive during the times when they do work as a group? Here it can be instructive to look at some of the analysis coming out of the business sector. Fostering productive teams, after all, is critical to the success or failure of many modern businesses.

One finding from the business realm that will make immediate sense to educators is that creating a context that fosters shared identity promotes productivity. You can read more about this research in “Spaces the Signal Identity Improve Workplace Productivity,” in the Journal of Personnel Psychology. We know that giving our students a sense of belonging and recognizing who they are and what they bring is critical to fostering a positive school community. But it’s good to know that it also can improve group performance.

Another finding is that how a team communicates is what determines its effectiveness. As presented in an article, “The New Science of Building Great Teams” in Harvard Business Review, effective teams communicate more equitably and with higher engagement. And even more critically for consideration in a school context, socialization outside of formal meeting time has a huge influence on team effectiveness. What this means for educators is that fostering effective group work requires time and training. Furthermore, as described in a passage “Group Dynamics for Teams” by Daniel Levi, this training requires norming, socialization, and building cooperative skills. Educators know that many of our students struggle with social skills and working productively together. These skills must be taught and developed.

Similarly, moving into research from higher education, in “What makes a ‘good group’? Exploring the characteristics and performance of undergraduate student groups” the authors argue that if “team working skills” are “important as a learning outcome, they must be assessed directly alongside the task output.” In other words, if a teacher is going to utilize group work for a task, they must establish explicit learning objectives for the skills practiced in the group work itself, not only for the content of the task. This again reinforces the idea that when we do use group work, we must do so strategically.

This builds off of Robert Slavin’s review of educational research, as outlined in an ACSD article, “Cooperative Learning and Student Achievement,” which suggests that not only must effective group work have group goals and rewards, but also must hold each individual accountable for their contribution. Group work which incorporates only one aspect of those two critical components (group goals and individual accountability) demonstrates little benefit to learning, whereas group learning which incorporates both is far more effective.

Even adult research teams require training and practice to develop intrapersonal awareness, foster shared norms, and to understand that conflict is normal, as suggested by a paper “Creating and maintaining high-performing collaborative research teams: the importance of diversity and interpersonal skills.” The authors further suggest that fostering diverse teams is essential to productivity.

This latter insight, that diverse teams are more productive, may be one of the most useful within a classroom context. Various studies, as presented in an article on Harvard Business Review, “Why Diverse Teams Are Smarter” by David Rock and Heidi Grant, suggest that ethnic and racial diversity makes for more effective, deliberative, and innovative teams. This is an important consideration for teachers when forming groups.

However, it’s important to note that research on homogeneous vs. heterogeneous grouping is mostly unclear. Ultimately, how a teacher chooses to group students must be strategic and based on the task and learning outcomes. But the findings on diversity seem to suggest that our default should be mixing students of different backgrounds and ability.

A synthesis of findings on effective group work

Ok, so we’ve reviewed a fair amount of information on grouping. Let’s summarize what we have so far:

  • Use group work only when it is necessary to achieve the task you are planning
  • Use group work only to reinforce and apply content students are already familiar with
  • Create a classroom and school environment that fosters a shared identity
  • Provide norming, time for socialization, and training in the cooperative skills students will require to work productively as a team
  • Set explicit learning targets for group work skills when engaging in a group task, while holding each individual student accountable for their work within the group
  • Group students heterogeneously to promote greater critical thinking and creativity

Sources

Bennett, T. (2015). Group Work for the Good. American Educator. Retrieved from http://www.aft.org/ae/spring2015/bennett

Channon, S.B. (2017). What makes a ‘good group’? Exploring the characteristics and performance of undergraduate student groups. SpringerLink. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10459-016-9680-y

Cheruvelil, K. S., Soranno, P. A., Weathers, K. C., Hanson, P. C., Goring, S. J., Filstrup, C. T. and Read, E. K. (2014), Creating and maintaining high-performing collaborative research teams: the importance of diversity and interpersonal skills. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 12: 31–38. doi:10.1890/130001. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/130001/abstract

Greenaway, K.H., Hannibal A. Thai, S. Haslam, A., and Murphy, S.C. (2016). Spaces That Signal Identity Improve Workplace Productivity. Journal of Personnel Psychology. 15(1), 35–43. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301277968_Spaces_That_Signal_Identity_Improve_Workplace_Productivity

Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (2010). Scaffolds for Learning: The Key to Guided Instruction. ASCD. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/111017/chapters/Scaffolds-for-Learning@-The-Key-to-Guided-Instruction.aspx

Levi, D. (2001). Group Dynamics for Teams. Sage Publications, 322 pp. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.840.9487&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Pentland, A.S. (2012). The New Science of Building Great Teams. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2012/04/the-new-science-of-building-great-teams

Rock, D. and Grant, H. (2016.). Why Diverse Teams Are Smarter. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/11/why-diverse-teams-are-smarter

Slavin, R. (1988). Cooperative Learning and Student Achievement. ASCD. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198810_slavin.pdf

Wang, Z. (2013). Effects of heterogenous and homogenous grouping on student learning. Chapel Hill. Retrieved from https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/indexablecontent/uuid:ac391807-1cca-447e-801d-d65183945ad0

Yee, V. (2013.). Grouping Students by Ability Regains Favor With Educators. NY Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/10/education/grouping-students-by-ability-regains-favor-with-educators.html

Group Work Decision Tree

Student Grouping: What is Effective? by Mark Anderson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Based on a work at https://goo.gl/z6zDwJ

Smorgasbord: A National Lack of Knowledge

“’Tempus omnia manifestat’: Allegory of Art and Knowledge” by Johann Melchior Füssli (Swiss, Zurich 1677–1736 Zurich) via The Metropolitan Museum of Art

E.D. Hirsch, Jr on how a lack of shared values and culture relates to poor literacy

“I believe that our current schools have not understood how great a quantity of specific knowledge is needed to gain mastery of the written and spoken national language.”

A Sense of Belonging – Democracy Journal

A nation that barely reads has elected a president that barely reads

“When President Trump began receiving his intelligence briefings in January, his team made a request: The president, they said, was a visual and auditory learner. Would the briefers please cut down on the number of words in the daily briefing book and instead use more graphics and pictures?”

This deficit in knowledge and reliance upon shallow sources of visual information means that many people are easily manipulated by propaganda—whether from Russia or marketers.

‘Horrible’ pictures of suffering moved Trump to action on Syria – Washington Post

Speaking of a deficit in knowledge

Chester Finn highlights the difficulty in reforming curriculum

“Curriculum, therefore, is generally left to districts, which frequently leave it to individual schools and often to individual teachers or departments within them.”

“In other words, however much importance an education reformer or public official may place on curriculum, in America it’s hard to find and grasp any levers that enable one to do anything about it.”

Curriculum becomes a reform strategy – Flypaper

Middlebury professor who was attacked for interviewing Charles Murray speaks out about the need for civil discourse

Professor Stanger’s NY Times piece on the “Middlebury affair” is worth reading. I wonder what, exactly, student protestors at Middlebury found so extremely frightening about Murray’s work that they couldn’t even bear to read, let alone rebut, his actual research and arguments. Perhaps they are afraid of their own racism and prejudice, and attack him to make themselves feel righteous and morally upright.

As Stanger suggests, the real enemy here is “ignorance empowered.”

Middlebury, My Divided Campus – NY Times

High school muckrakers out their principal’s lack of credentials

“[The principal] declined to comment directly on students’ questions about her credentials, ‘because their concerns are not based on facts,’ she said.

In an emergency faculty meeting Tuesday, the superintendent said Robertson was unable to produce a transcript confirming her undergraduate degree from the University of Tulsa, Smith said.”

There is still hope for our future.

These high school journalists investigated a new principal’s credentials. Days later, she resigned. – Washington Post

The New York Times mistakenly equates absolute test scores with school quality

“To attribute test scores solely to ‘school quality’ ignores the powerful role that family background plays in shaping opportunity,” Reardon writes in his comment on the Times story. Research has found that although schools are important, out-of-school factors, including poverty, have an even greater influence on student achievement levels.”

New York Times Misuses Their Data When Linking School Quality to Home Prices, Researchers Say – the74

Personalized learning platforms ≠ school-based autonomy

I’m not at all opposed to efforts to marry individual student performance data with automated feedback mechanisms. There’s plentiful space for innovation and advancement there. But I also believe we need to be clear-eyed about what such systems may entail.

A Providence superintendent reveals what may be a common fallacy around what a “personalized learning” platform really means:

” ‘Providence is committed to school-based autonomy, with each school involved in choosing its own technology and instructional methods to support personalized learning,’ says Christopher N. Maher, the district’s superintendent. ‘By owning these choices, school leaders and teachers truly buy into personalized-learning concepts and practices.’ “

A “personalized learning” platform developed by Facebook does not equate with greater “school-based autonomy” beyond the ability of a school to “choose” that platform (and curriculum). But the platform itself necessitates reliance upon a non-public system, which dictates the content that students are exposed to and which collects and houses that student data. So put the stress there on “buy,” rather than on “autonomy.”

If a school truly wants to be “autonomous”, they would not cede their content and instruction to a non-public platform. Just saying.

Will Personalized Learning Become the New Normal? Inside Rhode Island’s Statewide Tech Initiative – the74

Seattle shows us how to battle privileged NIMBYism

“By emphasizing outreach to underserved groups such as renters, immigrants and refugees, Nyland is shaking up traditional notions of community engagement and redefining community as something based not on geographic proximity, but on personal and cultural affinity.”

…”For the first time since its inception in the late ’80s, the city’s neighborhoods department would spend as much time engaging with underrepresented communities as it did listening to the concerns of white property owners.”

How Seattle is Dismantling a NIMBY Power Structure – Next City

How segregation affects the affluent

“In many ways, students in Lexington are the byproduct of the self-segregation that Enrico Moretti writes about in his book “The New Geography of Jobs,” which addresses the way well-educated, tech-minded adults cluster in brain hubs. For their children, that means ending up in schools in which everyone is super bright and hypercompetitive. It’s hard to feel special.”

It Takes A Suburb: A Town Struggles to Ease Student Stress – NY Times

NY State is making moves to battle segregated schools

Finally.

New York state plans to use new federal education law to help integrate schools – Chalkbeat NY

Rick Hess points to the potential horror of federal involvement in education

“what happens ‘when you get a Democratic administration, an Elizabeth Warren administration, and they decide that eligible schools … need to have anti-bullying programs and other accommodations? ‘“

Yes. Truly frightful.

Conservatives to DeVos: Be careful what you wish for on school choice – USA Today

A reminder from David Kirp: The real work of education is incremental

“The truth is that school systems improve not through flash and dazzle but by linking talented teachers, a challenging curriculum and engaged students.”

Who Needs Charters When You Have Public Schools Like These? – NY Times