Fail-Proofing Your Learning Strategy

How to bulletproof initiatives from day one

Prevention beats rework every time

I’ve seen learning initiatives fall apart, not because the design was weak, but because alignment wasn’t locked in. One healthcare client launched a compliance module without manager buy-in. Completion rates lagged for months. We rebuilt with stakeholder interviews, scenario mapping, and clearer metrics. Same topic, same tech, radically different outcome. Why? This time, it was anchored in real context.

Map expectations early and often

Before I create anything, I ask: What does success look like to each group, leadership, learners, and front-line managers? That simple question surfaces misalignment fast. I then design feedback loops into the rollout: check-ins, usage data, short surveys. This helps spot issues while they’re still small. It’s not flashy work, but it’s what keeps programs from stalling post-launch.

Takeaway

The best learning plans aren’t just well-designed, they’re co-owned from day one.

Discussion Prompt

What’s one thing you wish you'd asked before launching a learning initiative?

Posted to LinkedIn

What AI Can’t Do (Yet)

Keeping the human edge in an algorithmic age

AI is a partner, not a proxy

I’ve tested AI tools across course design, feedback loops, and learning analytics. They’re fast, scalable, and occasionally brilliant. But they still don’t understand nuance. AI can suggest a quiz, it can’t read a learner’s frustration. It can tag learning objectives, but not reframe them in language that inspires. In short, AI does pattern. People do meaning. And right now, that gap still matters.

Human insight builds learning that lands

I once used an AI tool to auto-generate course outlines. They looked sharp, but when we tested them with learners, they missed tone, pacing, and relevance. We kept the bones, but had to rewrite for clarity and connection. The real win was combining AI’s speed with a human filter for empathy and impact. That’s where I see the future, not automation, but augmentation.

Takeaway

AI can boost learning delivery, but people still craft the experience that connects.

Discussion Prompt

Where has AI helped, or hindered, your work in learning or design?

Posted to LinkedIn

Data as Dialogue

What learning analytics should actually be telling you

Numbers should spark action, not just reporting

I’ve worked with institutions that had dashboards for everything, course completions, quiz scores, and attendance logs. But the real question is: What decisions are we making with this data? Learning analytics only matter when they trigger meaningful dialogue. I once ran a workshop where we shared quiz drop-off data with faculty, not to critique, but to redesign. That single conversation led to a 16% lift in assessment completion.

My own background is in statistics and data analysis. I love data, sometimes even data for the sake of having data. But data alone will not solve any problems. 

Ask better questions, get better learning

Instead of asking, “Did they finish?” I push teams to ask, “What made them stop?” or “What’s missing in the behavior we expected?” Data becomes useful when it’s tied to experience and outcomes. That’s why I embed reflection checkpoints, pulse feedback, and usage maps into every program I design. The goal isn’t just insight, it’s iteration.

Takeaway

Analytics aren’t the answer. They’re the start of a smarter conversation.

Discussion Prompt

What’s one learning metric you think we overuse, or overlook?

Posted to LinkedIn

Teaching the Teachers

How I’ve trained 100s of faculty to thrive online

Faculty don’t need tech, they need trust

When I started leading online faculty development, I assumed the biggest hurdle would be tools. It wasn’t. It was fear, of losing presence, losing rigor, losing themselves. So I stopped leading with features and started leading with purpose. We built trust first: short workshops, peer mentors, and real demos from real courses. Faculty engagement increased, and course quality followed suit. The lesson? Empowerment beats instruction.

Practical wins beat theoretical best practices

Faculty are experts in their field, not in course design. That’s why I frame every session around impact: What will help your learners this week? What will reduce grading fatigue? What will increase clarity? One professor I coached redesigned her weekly modules with quick videos, an interactive learning object, and FAQs. Student messages dropped by half, and her teaching scores climbed. Most importantly, it allowed her to focus on what she loved, teaching students what they needed and wanted to learn. 

Takeaway

The best faculty training is grounded, useful, and designed for quick wins.

Discussion Prompt

What’s one support you wish you’d had when first teaching online?

Posted to LinkedIn

Scaling Without Losing Soul

Building inclusive programs for diverse learners

Inclusivity isn’t an add-on, it’s the foundation

I’ve worked on projects with massive reach, thousands of learners, dozens of roles, global time zones. The only way it worked was by centering inclusion from the start. Universal Design for Learning (UDL), accessibility standards, and real user feedback weren’t “extra.” They were essential. When we ignore learner variability, we shrink impact. When we design for the margins, we serve everyone better.

Compliance doesn’t equal connection

Yes, we meet WCAG standards. But the real test? Whether learners feel seen and supported. I once led a redesign for a public university serving adult learners. We swapped dense text for chunked content and added multiple ways to engage, videos, transcripts, and interactive quizzes. The course completion rate jumped by 28%. That’s not just good design, it’s ethical design.

Takeaway

Scalable doesn’t have to mean generic. Inclusive design drives outcomes and belonging.

Discussion Prompt

What’s one inclusive design choice you’ve made that changed learner engagement?

Posted to LinkedIn

Stop Training, Start Engineering

How learning strategy aligns with business transformation

Training is not the finish line

Too often, organizations treat training as a box to check once change is announced. However, transformation doesn’t happen simply because someone has sat through a module. Learning must be designed as infrastructure, aligned with academic or business goals, reinforced by curriculum, and measured through performance on assignments, tests, and other authentic assessments. I’ve helped build these systems from the ground up, from onboarding rollouts to program-wide curricula. The key shift? Thinking like an engineer, not a content creator.

Design to drive behavior, not just recall

When I work with leaders, I ask: What behaviors will demonstrate that this learning was effective? Then we reverse-engineer from there. This means integrating tools such as advanced organizers, peer mentoring, and feedback via formative assessments to extend learning beyond “event mode.” It also means building feedback loops that link learning data to real outcomes.

Takeaway

Strategic learning isn’t a one-time intervention; it’s the soul of the curriculum.

Discussion Prompt

What’s one problem you wish L&D teams were invited to solve earlier?

Posted to LinkedIn

Curriculum Without Borders

Designing for agility in both higher ed and healthcare

Curriculum needs to move faster than content

In both university and corporate settings, I've designed learning programs that needed to stay relevant amid constant change. Academic institutions often focus on rigor and legacy, while healthcare and tech demand speed and precision. The trick is knowing that curriculum isn’t content, it’s a framework for thinking and doing. And it must flex. I’ve worked with professors steeped in theory and HR leaders needing quick ROI. Both succeed when design honors outcomes, not ownership.

Context changes, principles don’t

Whether I was guiding an LMS migration for a university or launching client-facing onboarding in healthcare, the learning challenges echoed one another. Mismatched expectations. Stakeholder overload. Time-starved learners. The solution wasn’t picking the perfect template; it was listening, testing, and iterating. The right curriculum balances foundational skill-building with just-in-time tools. In both sectors, learners need clarity, relevance, and room to grow.

Takeaway

The best curriculum isn’t static; it’s responsive, resilient, and rooted in what learners actually need to do.

Discussion Prompt

How do you keep curriculum meaningful when priorities shift?

Posted to LinkedIn

Human Before Digital

Why empathy still leads in learning design

Designing for people, not personas

In every role I’ve held, from developing over 100 programs at Wiley and other places to advising fast-moving edtech teams, there’s a consistent lesson: learning succeeds when it respects the human experience. I’ve seen sleek modules fall flat because they ignored learners’ real contexts and goals. And I’ve seen low-budget solutions work wonders by showing up at the right moment, with the right tone.

Before I map content or choose a platform, I start with the learner. Where are they right now? What are they anxious about? How does this training support their real-world performance? This isn’t high tech, it’s high touch. Those questions shape design choices more than any tech stack or framework. A beautiful interface is meaningless if it’s misaligned with what people need in the moment.

Empathy isn’t soft; it’s strategic

Empathy helps build trust, which fuels engagement. That’s why I advocate for user testing with real learners, not just stakeholders. It’s why I talk to front-line program managers during needs assessments and invite feedback early and often. Empathy helps us create learning that resonates, sticks, and scales.

Takeaway

Design anchored in empathy isn’t just more humane, it’s more effective.

Discussion Prompt

What’s one time you saw empathy, or its absence, change how someone learned?

Posted to LinkedIn

Attacked by a Python!

Posting is likely to be a bit sporadic for a bit.

I started a new job and while I have expertise in SAS, SPSS, Statistica, and enough knowledge of R to get me into real trouble. My new gig needs me to know Python.

Like yesterday.

So I am battling a Python today.

I'll figure it out. 

The Biggest Challenge for AI in Academia

What concerns you the most?

Last week, I explored several major challenges facing higher education as AI becomes a normal part of teaching and learning. Academic integrity, critical thinking, equity, and ethics are all under pressure as institutions adapt to a rapidly changing landscape.

I would love to hear from you. Of the issues we discussed, which one do you believe will have the largest impact on education over the next few years?

Poll Question: What is the biggest challenge AI creates for academic settings?

1. Academic integrity
2. Critical thinking loss
3. Bias and inequity
4. Data privacy risks

Thank you for sharing your perspective. Your insight helps shape future posts and conversations about responsible, thoughtful use of AI in education.

Poll on LinkedIn

Bias, Equity, and Ethical Concerns in Educational AI

Why responsible use cannot be optional

As AI continues to shape academic life, the conversation must extend beyond plagiarism and critical thinking. The most complex challenges involve ethics, bias, and equity. These issues affect not only how AI is used, but who benefits from it and who may be harmed by it.

AI systems are trained on vast datasets drawn from the public internet. These datasets contain the biases, assumptions, and inequities of the societies that produced them. When AI is used in admissions, grading, tutoring, or proctoring, those biases can become automated and amplified. Studies have documented disparities in facial recognition, language evaluation, and writing assessment, raising concerns about fairness for students from underrepresented or multilingual backgrounds.

There is also a growing digital divide in AI access. Premium tools offer stronger performance, but not all students can afford them. This creates a new form of academic inequality where advantages are tied not to skill or effort, but to subscription level. Ethical AI use must consider not only what the technology can do, but who is excluded when it becomes a requirement.

Privacy is another unresolved concern. Many AI tools rely on external servers and proprietary datasets. When student data is processed, stored, or used to improve commercial models, institutions must navigate compliance with FERPA, GDPR, and emerging national standards. The risks are significant and long-lasting.

For AI to serve education responsibly, institutions need clear governance, transparency, and ethical review processes. Faculty and students must understand how AI works, where its data comes from, and how its outputs should be interpreted. Ethical use is not a barrier to innovation. It is the foundation that allows AI to support learning without compromising equity or trust.

Posted to LinkedIn

The Erosion of Critical Thinking and the Risk of Student Deskilling

Protecting the core purpose of education

Education is not simply the transmission of information. It is the development of skills that allow students to think independently, solve unfamiliar problems, and understand the world with clarity and depth. This is why the rapid adoption of generative AI raises concerns that go beyond academic misconduct. The deeper worry is the gradual erosion of critical thinking itself.

AI can produce quick, polished answers to complex prompts, and the responses are often convincing enough to pass casual scrutiny. When students lean on AI for first drafts, explanations, or problem-solving, they skip the productive struggle that leads to deep learning. They bypass the process of research, synthesis, and reflection and instead accept the most immediate solution the machine provides. This is cognitive offloading at scale, and the long-term impact is a decline in foundational skills.

Faculty report widening gaps in students' writing, reasoning, and analysis. Some describe students who cannot explain work completed with AI assistance. Others see growing dependency on tools that can break at any time. If students never engage with the intellectual labor behind an answer, they lose the capacity to troubleshoot or generate original thought when AI is unavailable.

The solution is not to ban AI but to integrate it intentionally. Students must learn how to evaluate AI output, question its assumptions, compare it with credible sources, and revise it with their own insight. The presence of AI in learning environments should raise the bar for critical thinking, not lower it. We must design instruction that treats AI as a tool for inquiry rather than a shortcut for answers.

Posted to LinkedIn

Academic Integrity and Plagiarism in the AI Era

Maintaining trust in the learning process

Academic integrity has always been the foundation of higher education. Yet the rise of generative AI has created a new level of uncertainty in classrooms and assessment spaces. Students can now produce essays, code, or research summaries within seconds. The challenge is not that students are using AI, it is that the traditional markers of originality and authorship are harder to verify than ever.

Detection tools were expected to solve this problem, but research shows they often create more harm than good. Some systems flag human writing as AI generated. Others allow AI written content to pass without notice. International reports highlight dramatic increases in academic misconduct cases, particularly where institutions rely heavily on flawed detection technology. The result is a landscape where genuine student work can be questioned while AI generated work slips through unchallenged.

AI has also forced us to reconsider the very definition of plagiarism. Is it misconduct to ask AI for an outline? What about using it to rewrite a paragraph? Students are already using these tools, and they often see them as no different from spell checkers or grammar assistants. Educators must determine how to draw clear lines between acceptable support and the outsourcing of intellectual labor.

If we want academic integrity to survive this moment, we cannot rely on detection. We must redesign assessment practices. Assignments that require process, reflection, revision, and personal context are far more resilient to AI misuse. In the end, AI should enhance learning, not replace it. Our job is to ensure students still develop their own voice, judgment, and scholarly identity.

Posted to LinkedIn

The Responsible Use of AI in Academic Settings

How to make AI trustworthy in learning environments

Recently, I asked a popular AI system to summarize several books I have written. It performed well, for the most part, but it invented a book out of thin air. The imaginary book sounded interesting, and I may write it someday, but in a research assignment, this would have been a clear failure. The example illustrates a simple truth. AI cannot be accurate without proper guidance.

AI can support research, writing, and analysis, but only when used with clear safeguards. No AI system is perfect, yet we can design prompts that improve accuracy and reduce hallucinations. The most reliable method is to require evidence. Ask the AI to search for current data, provide citations, and explain its reasoning. For complex or controversial topics, request multiple viewpoints to uncover potential bias.

Academic integrity also depends on verification. For any time-sensitive claim or statistical fact, require sources from peer-reviewed journals or government datasets. Then cross-check what matters most. AI should accelerate research, not replace the work of evaluating sources.

The goal is not perfection. The goal is transparency. When AI documents its process, educators can examine the evidence and trust the result.

At the moment, AI tools face the same legitimacy concerns that surrounded Wikipedia nearly twenty years ago. As both tools mature, they gain traction in academic spaces. Yet just as instructors should not accept a copy and paste from Wikipedia, they should not accept an unverified output from any AI chatbot. Both should be viewed as the beginning of research, not the final product.

Posted to LinkedIn

Feeding the Future

What’s the biggest barrier to universal free breakfast?

This week, we explored how free breakfast in early childhood education does more than feed children;  it fuels learning.

 The research is clear: universal breakfast programs improve attendance, behavior, and focus, while reducing stigma and hunger.

Yet implementation remains uneven. Some schools thrive with breakfast-in-the-classroom models, while others struggle with funding or logistics.

I’d love to hear from you: What’s the greatest challenge your school or organization faces when trying to make breakfast free and accessible for all students?

Poll Question:

What’s the biggest barrier to universal free breakfast?

•  Funding & budget limits
  
  
•  Staffing & logistics
  
  
•  Policy & compliance rules
  
  
•  Cultural or parental buy-in

Your experiences and insights can help shape better policies and stronger programs for our youngest learners.

Building a Culture of Nourishment

From feeding programs to learning ecosystems

Early childhood programs thrive when learning begins with care. Free breakfast supports cognitive readiness, social connection, and equity, all before the first lesson starts. A review from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience  found that schools offering universal breakfast saw stronger attendance and fewer behavioral issues.

Breakfast is professional development for the brain. When we treat it as part of instruction rather than an optional service, we nurture both hearts and minds.

What if “ready to learn” began with “ready to eat”?

References

Adolphus K, Lawton CL, Dye L. The effects of breakfast on behavior and academic performance in children and adolescents. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 Aug 8;7:425. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00425. PMID: 23964220; PMCID: PMC3737458.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3737458/

 FRAC (2024). Benefits of School Breakfast.

https://frac.org/programs/school-breakfast-program/benefits-school-breakfast

 No Kid Hungry (2023). School Breakfast Program Factsheet.

https://www.nokidhungry.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/school-breakfast-program-factsheet.pdf

Posted to LinkedIn

When Breakfast Meets Learning

Connecting nutrition and classroom outcomes

I have been working more eggs into my breakfast routine. I don't actually like eggs, so I am only eating boiled egg whites. But research this week suggests I consider more ways to eat them. 

A growing body of research links breakfast participation to measurable academic benefits. An early review in the American Dietetic Association reported improved attendance and fewer tardies when schools provided breakfast at no cost. Students also showed higher intake of iron, calcium, and vitamins, nutrients essential for brain development.

In the U.S., the School Breakfast Program serves over 2.5 billion meals yearly. When breakfast moved from the cafeteria to the classroom, participation rose from 37 percent to 94 percent, and diet quality improved.

Healthy starts lead to healthy learning.

Could moving breakfast into the classroom increase participation in your school setting?

References

 Pollitt, E.. (1995). Does Breakfast Make a Difference in School? Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Volume 95, Issue 10, 1134 - 1139

https://www.jandonline.org/article/S0002-8223(95)00306-1/abstract

 USDA ERS (2024). Child Nutrition Programs: School Breakfast Program.

https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/child-nutrition-programs/school-breakfast-program

 School Nutrition Association (2025). Egg-Based Universally Free Breakfast Pilot.

https://schoolnutrition.org/journal/spring-2025-an-egg-based-universally-free-breakfast-in-the-classroom-program-increases-school-breakfast-participation-and-improves-diet-quality-in-middle-school-adolescents-a-feasibility-pilo/

Posted to LinkedIn

The Power of Universal Access

Free breakfast and the fight against stigma

Programs that offer breakfast only to those who qualify can unintentionally create stigma. Universal free breakfast removes that barrier. Research from the University of Washington’s Health Services Population Center found that universal meal programs improved student health outcomes and increased participation among low-income families.

When everyone eats together, no one feels singled out. A New Zealand study showed that universal breakfast improved attendance and classroom behavior, particularly in early grades.

Providing breakfast for all is not charity; it is a strategy.

If you could redesign your institution’s breakfast model, would you choose universal access?

References

 UW Health Services Population Center (2024). Universal Free School Meals: A key ingredient in improving childhood health outcomes.

https://hspop.uw.edu/universal-free-school-meals-improve-health-outcomes/Outcomes.

Gontijo de Castro T, Gerritsen S, Santos LP, Marchioni DML, Morton SMB, Wall C. Child feeding indexes measuring adherence to New Zealand nutrition guidelines: Development and assessment. Matern Child Nutr. 2022 Oct;18(4):e13402. doi: 10.1111/mcn.13402. Epub 2022 Jul 19. PMID: 35851558; PMCID: PMC9480915.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9480915/

Posted to LinkedIn

Hungry to Learn

Why breakfast is the first lesson of the day.

Every morning, thousands of children arrive at school without breakfast. What seems small has an outsized impact. Research from the Food Research & Action Center shows that children who skip breakfast are less able to master the tasks needed to do well in school. Those who eat breakfast at school perform better on standardized tests and attend more consistently.

The reason is simple: nutrition drives cognition. Young learners depend on steady energy for attention, memory, and emotional regulation. When we ensure every child starts the day fed, we set the tone for focus and belonging.

Hunger is not just a health issue; it is a learning barrier.

How does your learning institution make sure no child begins the day hungry?

References

Food Research & Action Center (2024). Benefits of School Breakfast.

https://frac.org/programs/school-breakfast-program/benefits-school-breakfast

No Kid Hungry (2023). School Breakfast Program Factsheet.

https://www.nokidhungry.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/school-breakfast-program-factsheet.pdf

Posted to LinkedIn

The Culture of Continuous Learning

Building schools that learn as fast as their students

The best schools do not just teach learning, they live it.

Continuous learning is more than a phrase we use in mission statements. It is a leadership model that values curiosity, reflection, and growth at every level of an organization. When leaders create environments where experimentation is encouraged, feedback is shared, and professional growth never stops, they set the tone for meaningful transformation.

•  Teachers learn from data.
  
  
•  Leaders learn from teachers.
  
  
•  Institutions learn from mistakes.

In a world where knowledge doubles every few years, agility has become the new measure of accountability. An authentic learning culture turns change from a source of anxiety into a source of energy. It helps schools and organizations move from reacting to reinventing.

I once worked with a non-academic institution that hosted “research days.” Everyone was encouraged to explore new topics or personal areas of interest in depth, often unrelated to their daily work. The goal was to spark connections and fresh insights that would later strengthen their primary responsibilities. I began to look forward to those days, though I still had to remind myself not to check emails or tell myself, “I’ll just work a little bit.” The lesson was clear: time for exploration is not time lost, it is time invested in learning how to learn again.

What does “continuous learning” look like in your organization?

Posted to LinkedIn

Innovation vs. Initiative Overload

Why focus beats novelty

Every year brings a new “must-have” program, AI tools, SEL frameworks, gamified learning, microcredentials, each promising transformation. But when everything is a priority, nothing is.

True innovation doesn’t come from adding more. It comes from aligning what already works.

Before launching the next initiative, ask:

•  Does this align with our core mission?
  
  
•  Does it solve a real pain point for teachers or students?
  
  
•  Can we sustain it for more than a year?

Innovation needs to be a mindset, not a shopping list. Schools that focus on fewer, deeper goals create space for real creativity, and protect educators from burnout.

If you had to drop one initiative tomorrow to focus on what matters most, what would it be?

Posted to LinkedIn

Data-Informed, Not Data-Driven

Rethinking analytics in education

I talk a lot about data, and we have more data than ever, but not always more insight.

Being data-driven can unintentionally replace human judgment with dashboards and KPIs. Being data-informed means using numbers as a conversation starter, not a verdict.

In classrooms, analytics can highlight patterns, but it’s the teacher who understands why. In leadership, metrics reveal performance, but culture determines progress.

Let’s use data to:

 * Illuminate, not dictate

 * Ask better questions, not give easy answers

 * Empower decisions, not replace them

Data should serve educators, not the other way around. When combined with experience, empathy, and context, it becomes truly transformative.

How do you ensure data supports, rather than controls, your decision-making?

Posted to LinkedIn 

Leading Through Change Fatigue

Helping teachers adapt without burning out

Change isn’t the problem in education; the pace of change is.

New technologies, new standards, new initiatives... all arriving faster than schools can adapt. The result? Change fatigue.

Teachers and instructional staff feel caught in a loop of “just one more thing,” often without time to reflect, refine, or rest. The solution isn’t to stop changing, it’s to lead change differently.

• Create psychological safety for experimentation
  
  
• Prioritize depth over speed
  
  
• Celebrate iteration, not perfection

Leaders who model adaptability, transparency, and trust transform resistance into resilience.

In the AI era, schools don’t need more change; they need better rhythms of change.

What’s one leadership practice that helps your team manage change sustainably?

Posted to LinkedIn

How AI Is Making Us Rethink What Counts as Learning

After a week of talking about AI and assessment, one truth keeps surfacing: the purpose of education isn’t to outsmart machines; it’s to empower humans.

Generative AI has forced us to hold up a mirror to our system and ask difficult questions. For decades, we’ve measured learning by how well students could recall, summarize, and perform under pressure. But in 2025, recall is cheap and automation is everywhere. If a chatbot can ace your test, maybe the test was never measuring what truly mattered.

The emergence of AI doesn’t make human learning obsolete; it reveals what’s essentially human about it.

 Critical thinking. Creativity. Empathy. The ability to connect ideas across disciplines, to collaborate, and to make meaning in uncertain contexts.

These are not easily quantified by standardized rubrics, but they are exactly what the future demands.

I’ve seen incredible progress from educators who are embracing AI as a partner in pedagogy rather than an adversary. They’re asking students to explain their reasoning, to annotate their process, to use AI transparently and ethically. They’re turning assessment into dialogue — between learner, teacher, and technology.

This is where the real transformation happens.

 AI isn’t changing what we value in education. It’s revealing whether our assessments ever aligned with those values in the first place.

If we can design assessments that honor curiosity, reflection, and mastery, then AI won’t undermine education, it will elevate it.

The next evolution of assessment isn’t about control. It’s about trust.

 Poll on LinkedIn

Building a Culture of Mastery over Memorization

The most powerful shift AI can inspire isn’t technological; it’s philosophical. It challenges us to move from grading performance to nurturing mastery.

For too long, education has rewarded correctness over growth. We’ve built grading systems that favor perfection on the first try instead of perseverance through feedback. But AI gives us a rare opportunity to rethink what mastery looks like.

Imagine a classroom where students use AI to explore, revise, and reflect. Producing multiple iterations of a project until they achieve genuine understanding. In this model, teachers aren’t gatekeepers; they’re mentors guiding the process. AI provides instant feedback; the educator provides context, wisdom, and direction.

Mastery learning reframes assessment as part of learning, not the end of it. It emphasizes competence, creativity, and confidence, qualities that matter far more than any single test score.

AI won’t make teachers obsolete. It will make traditional grading obsolete. And that’s a change worth embracing.

Ask yourself: Does my grading system reward improvement or perfection?

Posted to LinkedIn

AI-Resistant vs. AI-Resilient Assignments

There’s a growing movement to make assignments “AI-proof.” Unfortunately, that approach often leads us backward, toward surveillance, suspicion, and outdated methods. Instead, educators should aim for AI-resilient assessments: tasks that remain meaningful even when AI is part of the process.

AI-resistant assessments try to lock the doors.  AI-resilient assessments open new ones.

Here’s what that looks like in practice:

•  Require iterative drafts and reflections — ask students to explain how their ideas evolved.
  
  
•  Encourage use of AI but demand transparency: What did you prompt it to do, and how did you verify its accuracy?
  
  
•  Assess the process as much as the product.
  
  
•  Shift from recall tasks to reasoning tasks.

Resilience means acknowledging that AI is here to stay, and teaching students to use it responsibly. It’s not about catching dishonesty; it’s about cultivating intellectual integrity.

We want learners who can work with AI without losing their own voice. That’s not resistance, that’s resilience.

Ask yourself: If AI disappeared tomorrow, would this task still matter?

Posted to LinkedIn

Authentic Learning and Real-World Tasks

When students use AI, they’re mirroring what professionals already do: integrating technology as a partner in problem-solving. Instead of banning those tools, we should leverage them to design authentic assessments that connect classroom learning to the real world.

A business major shouldn’t just define “competitive advantage.” They should analyze a real company, use AI to summarize market data, and then critique those AI findings with their own insights.

 A nursing student might use AI to review patient-care case studies, but must identify ethical gaps or missing human context.

In each case, AI is not the shortcut; it’s the starting point.

Authentic tasks are inherently anti-cheating because they are context-rich and personal. They demand critical thinking, reflection, and communication skills that AI alone cannot simulate. They ask learners to show their reasoning, not just their results.

When we design learning this way, we teach transparency, ethical use, and digital fluency; the hallmarks of the modern professional. The result isn’t just better assessments; it’s better thinkers.

Ask yourself: Would this assignment make sense outside of school?

Posted to LinkedIn

The Problem with Traditional Assessment

 Generative AI has exposed what many educators already suspected, much of our assessment system is built on the wrong foundation.

For over a century, we’ve measured learning by how well students can recall information on command. Essays, quizzes, and timed exams all reward quick recall and compliance. But in an age when ChatGPT can produce grammatically perfect essays and summarize any topic in seconds, these measures no longer tell us what students actually understand.

This isn’t a crisis. It’s a wake-up call.

AI forces us to confront the difference between knowledge reproduction and knowledge creation. Memorization and formulaic writing can be automated, but curiosity, synthesis, ethical reasoning, and original thought cannot. If our goal is to prepare learners for a future where AI is ubiquitous, we must focus on assessing what remains uniquely human, judgment, creativity, empathy, and discernment.

Rather than designing tests to catch cheaters, we can design experiences that make cheating meaningless. Assessments should ask: Can the learner evaluate, apply, and extend knowledge in new contexts?

We’re not losing control of learning; we’re rediscovering its purpose.

Ask yourself: Does this assessment measure memory or meaning?

Posted to LinkedIn

Focus and Future: The European Approach to Early Career Direction

In many European education systems, students are encouraged, or even required, to choose a career pathway earlier than their American peers. At first glance, that can seem restrictive. But look closer, and it’s often empowering.

Through apprenticeships, vocational schools, and academic “tracks,” students explore real-world applications of their interests as early as age 15 or 16. By the time they reach university, they already possess both clarity and competency.

This structure doesn’t just serve engineers or tradespeople; it extends to healthcare, education, and the arts. The goal is to align learning with purpose, rather than just checking boxes toward a generic diploma.

In the U.S., we often delay career exploration until late college, or worse, after graduation. We prize openness, but sometimes that openness leads to drift. Imagine if our high schools and community colleges integrated genuine career exploration earlier, through mentorships, internships, and guided reflection.

Europe’s model reminds us that direction can be liberating, not limiting. When students see a tangible link between learning and livelihood, motivation soars.

Question:

 How can American schools introduce purposeful pathways earlier, without narrowing opportunity too soon?

Posted to LinkedIn

Affordability and Access: The European Lesson in Higher Education

Across Europe, higher education is viewed as a public good, not a private commodity.

 Tuition is free or minimal in countries like Germany, France, and the Nordic nations. Even where fees exist, they’re often a fraction of what American students face. As a result, debt doesn’t define adulthood, opportunity does.

When education is affordable, students make choices based on passion and aptitude, not on financial survival. They can take intellectual risks, pursue the arts, or study fields that contribute to society without being crushed by loans. In many ways, that freedom fuels innovation rather than stifling it.

The U.S. once embraced a similar ideal, public universities built to democratize learning, but decades of disinvestment shifted the burden to students and families. Today, the average American graduate leaves college with over $30,000 in debt. That’s not a pathway to a stronger workforce; it’s an economic trap.

What Europe demonstrates is that affordability and excellence are not opposites. Public funding and accountability can coexist with world-class universities.

If we want to stay competitive globally, we must reimagine higher education as infrastructure, an investment in the nation’s intellectual capacity, not a luxury for those who can afford it.

Question:

 What would it take for America to treat education as essential infrastructure again?

Posted to LinkedIn

Specialization and Speed: Why European Degrees Get Students Working Sooner

In many European universities, a bachelor’s degree takes three years, not four.

 That’s not just about efficiency, it’s about focus. Students select a discipline early and pursue it in depth, often bypassing the broad general education requirements standard in the U.S.

By the time an American student finishes a freshman composition course, a European counterpart may already be conducting specialized research in their chosen field.

The European model assumes that secondary education provides the foundational literacy, numeracy, and cultural knowledge we often leave to college. University is about developing professional and intellectual mastery, not exploration.

The upside is that graduates enter the workforce sooner, often with less debt and more specialized expertise. The trade-off? Less flexibility to change direction mid-stream.

The U.S. system prizes breadth and adaptability, which has real value, but perhaps we’ve swung too far. Many students spend thousands of dollars “discovering” a major they could have explored through structured advising, internships, or gap-year experiences.

If we blended the best of both systems, we might front-load exploration before university and streamline specialization within it.

Question:

 Could earlier career guidance and flexible pathways help students find purpose sooner while still preserving choice?

Posted to LinkedIn

Rethinking Priorities: What Europe Gets Right About Academic Focus

In much of Europe, school is, first and foremost, about learning.

 That sounds obvious, but the cultural priorities are strikingly different from those in the U.S. European schools emphasize academic mastery and independent study over extracurricular activities. Sports and clubs exist, but they’re not the centerpiece of school identity; the emphasis is on intellectual growth, not athletic rivalries.

Students are expected to read widely, analyze deeply, and engage in sustained inquiry. Independent study isn’t an afterthought, it’s a skill deliberately taught and assessed. The result? Students often leave secondary education with stronger study habits, higher reading comprehension, and greater resilience when faced with complex problems.

In the U.S., by contrast, extracurriculars are woven into the social and financial fabric of schools. Football games fill stadiums, not libraries. The energy and resources poured into non-academic programs sometimes eclipse the academic mission itself.

The lesson isn’t to abandon extracurriculars, but to rebalance. We can learn from Europe’s focus on depth, which prioritizes reading, writing, and research skills, extends project-based learning, and fosters a culture that celebrates academic excellence alongside athletic achievement.

We talk about producing “lifelong learners.” Perhaps it starts with creating environments that reward learning itself.

Question:

 How might your school or institution elevate academic focus without losing the sense of community that extracurriculars provide?

Posted to LinkedIn

Learning from Europe: A Week of Reflection

Next week, I’m exploring what European education systems do better—and what the U.S. can learn from them.

While no system is perfect, European models often deliver strong academics, focused study, affordable access, and clear career pathways. Each day this week, I’ll share one key lesson—along with ideas for how we can adapt those strengths to our own classrooms, campuses, and training programs.

•  Monday: Academic Focus – depth over distractions
  
  
•  Tuesday: Specialization – shorter, sharper degrees
  
  
•  Wednesday: Affordability – education as a public good
  
  
•  Thursday: Early Focus – purposeful pathways for students

Join the conversation, share your experiences, and let’s imagine what a more balanced and equitable American education system could look like.

Posted to LinkedIn

AI + Language Learning: Where Do We Go from Here?

This week, I’ve explored how AI is reshaping language learning across K-12, higher education, and corporate training.

Each space has shown the same pattern: enormous potential, matched by equally important cautions.

•  In K-12, AI tools can personalize practice and feedback, but only when guided by teachers who preserve curiosity and play.
  
  
•  In Higher Ed, AI expands access to conversation and writing support, but professors must safeguard authenticity and assessment integrity.
  
  
•  In Corporate Learning, AI scales multilingual communication, but leadership must ensure cultural understanding doesn’t get lost in translation.

Across all three, one truth remains: AI doesn’t replace the teacher, it amplifies them.

 It turns repetition into readiness, feedback into fluency, and data into direction, but only if we design learning experiences that keep the human at the center.

What research says

Recent reviews in Language Learning & Technology and the British Journal of Educational Technology highlight four pillars of effective AI use in language learning:

•  Guided autonomy – learners benefit most when AI offers independence with oversight.
  
  
•  Cultural framing – AI outputs need contextual explanation to prevent shallow learning.
  
  
•  Ethical literacy – students must understand where AI helps and where it hallucinates.
  
  
•  Iterative reflection – educators should treat AI interactions as data for continuous improvement, not as finished products.

Looking ahead

As models like ChatGPT continue to evolve, the line between “conversation partner” and “learning environment” will blur. Our challenge, and opportunity, is to make that boundary a pedagogical feature, not a flaw.

Poll posted to LinkedIn

AI + Language Learning, Corporate Training: From Compliance to Culture

Or Tales of a Marginally Successful Polyglot

A few years ago, I had a huge writing project that prompted me to learn some Irish Gaelic. I loved the language, but it was so complex. Since I was learning it on my own long before the days of AI tools, I am sure that there were fundamentals I missed out on, and I know for a fact there are many words I do not pronounce correctly at all.  For that project, it was all about me connecting with my audience.  

In corporate and professional education, language learning is less about grammar charts and more about connection: closing deals, supporting customers, or building inclusive teams.

AI is helping organizations make that happen at scale:

• Just-in-time translation and subtitling tools reduce friction in global collaboration.
  
  
• Custom chat tutors can model company-specific terminology or customer scenarios.
  
  
• Adaptive microlearning delivers five-minute refreshers before client meetings.

Apple Education (1) highlights how multilingual AI assistants can “extend access to global opportunities,” and recent research in Language Learning & Technology shows AI chatbots boosting pronunciation accuracy for adult learners. Yet both sources stress the same caveat: human context still matters. Tone, empathy, and cultural nuance remain stubbornly human domains.

For learning leaders, the opportunity lies in integration, not automation. Pair AI modules with live coaching, peer conversation, or intercultural workshops. Use data from AI interactions to identify skill gaps, then design targeted follow-ups.

Corporate education succeeds when technology disappears behind human improvement. The goal isn’t fluency in a language; it’s fluency in understanding one another.

How are you, or your organization, using AI to support multilingual collaboration?

(1) Apple Education. (2024). AI in education: Enhancing language learning through intelligent technology. Apple Inc https://education.apple.com/story/250014607

Posted to LinkedIn

AI + Language Learning, Higher Ed: The New Language Learning

When I was at University, I picked German back up, but it was not as easy as I had hoped. Later on in grad school, I tried Japanese. I can still count to 11, and that is about it. Even then, I knew there had to be a better way.

Universities are discovering that AI can extend immersion beyond scheduled class hours:

• 24/7 conversational practice. Students can simulate dialogue with a virtual partner or rehearse interviews in the target language.
  
  
• Context-aware feedback. AI tutors can explain grammar in English, then switch seamlessly into Spanish or Mandarin to model tone and phrasing.
  
  
• Adaptive writing assistance. Generative models can suggest alternate word choices, idioms, or cultural nuance,  if guided responsibly.

A 2024 British Journal of Educational Technology (1) study found that AI-assisted writing tasks increased fluency and learner confidence, but also risked “over-automation”,  students editing less critically when the machine appeared authoritative.

The Princeton Review (2) notes the same tension: AI lowers the barrier to practice but raises questions about authenticity,  how much of a student’s progress is truly their own voice?

That’s where instructional design becomes crucial. We can use AI as a reflection tool rather than a replacement: have students critique an AI’s translation, or compare outputs from multiple systems to deepen cultural understanding.

AI isn’t replacing language professors; it’s expanding their toolkit. The new language lab is wherever learning happens, as long as educators anchor it in feedback, reflection, and ethics.

How are your institutions addressing AI use in language courses or assessment policies?

(1) British Educational Research Association (BERA). (2024). The impact of artificial intelligence on language learning and teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(3).

(2) Princeton Review. (2024). Language learning with AI: How artificial intelligence is changing education. The Princeton Review.

Posted to LinkedIn

AI + Language Learning, K-12: Support, Not Substitution

In high school, I took four years of German. I loved it, I loved learning the culture, the language, and being able to converse with others. Though as the years have gone by, my grasp of the language has weakened. 

Then language labs were rooms full of headsets and cassette decks. Today, the “lab” can fit in a pocket.

In K-12 classrooms, language learning has always thrived on interaction ,  songs, stories, role-play, peer conversation. But as AI tools like ChatGPT, Duolingo Max, or Microsoft Copilot enter the classroom, a key question emerges: Can they help without replacing that human spark?

AI can be a powerful supporting tool for teachers:

•  Personalized feedback. Students can practice vocabulary or pronunciation with an AI “conversation partner” that never tires or judges.
  
  
•  Scaffolded differentiation. AI can rephrase directions, translate complex text, or provide simpler explanations, helping multilingual learners stay engaged.
  
  
•  Instant formative assessment. Teachers can prompt AI to generate reading-comprehension questions or quick grammar drills aligned to state standards.

According to research in Language Learning & Technology (2024) (1), students who used AI chat systems for vocabulary practice reported higher motivation and retention ,  but success depended heavily on teacher guidance and oversight. Without it, accuracy slipped and misconceptions spread quickly.

The Sanako report (2), Will AI Make Language Learning Obsolete?, makes the same point: tools are only as good as their integration. The best results appear when educators combine AI’s adaptability with the empathy and structure that only teachers provide.

In short, AI can make language learning more accessible, but it can’t make it automatic. Young learners need curiosity, play, and patience ,  things no algorithm can replicate.

If you teach in K-12:

 How are you balancing AI’s efficiency with authentic communication?

 Has it freed time for deeper learning, or added new layers of management?

(1) Wang, H., & Kim, J. (2024). Exploring learner engagement with AI-based tools in second language acquisition. Language Learning & Technology, 28(2), 26–45.

(2) Sanako. (2023, October 5). Will AI make language learning obsolete? Sanako Blog.

Posted to LinkedIn

AI + Language Learning, Introduction: My Experience and Why Educators Should Pay Attention

I’ve been using ChatGPT as my new learning companion, mostly notably for Python, but also occasionally for Spanish. When I'm stuck or want to try a different explanation, I’ll prompt the model: “Explain this Python function as if I were 12,” or “In Spanish, how would you say …?” The responses help me solidify concepts (and occasionally catch mistakes). It’s not perfect, but it’s a flexible, on-demand thinking partner. I can also ask why something is this way. For example, what are PANDAS in Python, or why is a baguette “el baguette” in Latin America but “la barra de pan” in Spain?

My hope this week is to explore how tools like ChatGPT (and other AI platforms) are entering the language-learning space, and to spark a thoughtful conversation among educators about how we can harness them responsibly, creatively, and ethically.

Why this matters now

• Rapid advances in generative models have brought language capabilities to AI that feel more conversational, context-aware, and reliable than ever.
  
  
• Demand for scaling language education is rising, schools, universities, and organizations want more affordable, personalized support.
  
  
• Tension and opportunity coexist: there are valid fears (overreliance, accuracy, equity, ethics) but also real potential for scaffolding, feedback, and motivation.

Key themes I plan to explore this week

• Language Learning in K-12,  How might AI assist younger learners, and what concerns do teachers face (e.g. accuracy, scaffolding, digital divide)?
• Language Learning in Higher Ed,  In universities, language departments, or general ed courses: how AI can complement language labs, peer conversation, writing support, or assessment.
• Language Learning in Corporate/Training Settings,  Many organizations now train employees on industry-specific languages or cross-cultural communication; can AI help scale that?

Challenges, Ethical Boundaries, and Future Directions ,  Across all levels, how do we maintain quality, guard against misuse, and stay pedagogically grounded?

Some caveats from research & conversations

Studies in English Language Teaching suggest AI can support reading, writing, speaking, and self-regulation, but frequent challenges include technical breakdowns, over standardization, and trust in the model’s output.

A systematic review of generative AI in language learning (2023–24) shows increasing experiments, but also caution about novelty, methodological rigor, and replicability. 

Invitation to educators

Over the next few days, I’ll share concrete ideas and provocation for K-12, higher ed, and corporate training contexts. I’d love for you (especially educators) to comment, share your experiences using AI in language learning (or resisting it), and pose challenges or questions I should address.

Posted to LinkedIn

The Vicious Cycle and the Path Forward

Over the past several weeks, I’ve explored some of the most pressing challenges facing education today:

A perfect storm of shortages, inequities, and student needs.

•  The exodus of teachers leaving classrooms under unsustainable conditions.
  
  
•  The student mental health epidemic straining schools beyond their capacity.
  
  
•  The funding chasm that entrenches inequity.
  
  
•  And the double-edged sword of technology, offering promise but also peril.

Each of these issues is daunting on its own. But the reality is far more complex: they are deeply interconnected, feeding into one another in a vicious cycle.

How the Cycle Works

•  Teacher shortages grow worse when educators are asked to shoulder the mental health needs of students without adequate support.
  
  
•  Underfunded schools struggle most, unable to provide competitive salaries, enough counselors, or updated resources.
  
  
•  Students suffer from learning loss, stress, and disengagement, which fuels chronic absenteeism.

And the cycle repeats, leaving both teachers and students trapped in a system straining at its seams.

Breaking the Cycle

If these problems are linked, then the solutions must be too. Experts and educators point to several key levers of change:

•  Increased and Equitable Funding: Reform formulas so that resources flow where they’re needed most, not just where property wealth is highest.
  
  
•  Investing in the Teacher Pipeline: Raise salaries, improve working conditions, and create mentorship pathways to make teaching a sustainable career.
  
  
•  Expanding Mental Health Services: Significantly increase the number of school counselors, psychologists, and social workers, while embedding social-emotional learning across the curriculum.
  
  
•  Strategic Technology Integration: Implement AI and other tools thoughtfully, ensuring equity and ethics guide their use, and that they support rather than replace human connection.
  
  
•  Community-Based Solutions: Engage families, nonprofits, and local partners to address absenteeism and provide wraparound services that schools cannot shoulder alone.

The Path Forward

The challenges are immense, but they are not insurmountable. What’s required is a holistic, equity-focused strategy that acknowledges the interwoven nature of these issues. Piecemeal fixes will not do.

If we can increase support for teachers, expand mental health services, reform funding, and thoughtfully integrate technology, we can transform this cycle of strain into one of renewal. One where teachers are empowered, students are supported, and schools once again become engines of opportunity.

The future of education, and of the students in our classrooms, depends on our ability to face these challenges together.

Poll on LinkedIn

The Double-Edged Sword of Technology

When schools face mounting challenges, from teacher shortages to funding gaps, it’s no surprise that technology, particularly artificial intelligence (AI), is being held up as a potential lifeline. Advocates promise AI will personalize learning, reduce teacher workload by automating administrative tasks, and give students immediate feedback that enhances engagement. In theory, it’s a powerful tool for modernizing education and closing achievement gaps.

But like any tool, AI is a double-edged sword. Its potential is real, but so are the risks.

The Promises of AI in Education

• Personalized learning: Adaptive systems can tailor instruction to individual student needs, offering a level of customization that’s hard to achieve in crowded classrooms.
  
  
• Efficiency gains: Automating grading, attendance, or scheduling could free teachers to focus on what matters most—teaching and mentoring.
  
  
• 24/7 support: AI-driven tutoring or chatbots can give students help outside of school hours, expanding access to learning.

These innovations hold promise, especially for overburdened schools. But the story doesn’t end there.

The Perils of AI

• Data privacy: Student data is highly sensitive, yet many AI tools rely on massive data collection. Without strong safeguards, privacy risks multiply.
  
  
• Algorithmic bias: AI reflects the data it is trained on. If that data carries social or cultural bias, the technology can unintentionally reinforce inequities rather than reduce them.
  
  
• Erosion of human connection: Education is not just about content delivery, it’s about relationships. Overreliance on AI could diminish the critical bond between teachers and students.
  
  
• Access inequities: Implementing AI requires funding for devices, infrastructure, and maintenance. Well-funded schools may thrive while under-resourced schools fall further behind, widening the digital divide.

Walking the Line

Technology should be a bridge, not a barrier. The key is not whether AI belongs in schools, but how it is implemented:

• Equitably, ensuring access for all students, not just those in wealthy districts.
  
  
• Responsibly, with transparency around data use and safeguards against bias.
  
  
• Complementarily, enhancing human teaching rather than attempting to replace it.

The Human Factor

At its best, AI can give teachers back valuable time and give students more individualized learning paths. But it cannot replicate empathy, mentorship, or the creativity of human connection. Education’s heart is still human, and technology must serve that, not the other way around.

As we look to the future, the challenge is balance. AI can be a powerful ally in addressing the “perfect storm” of issues facing education, but only if we wield it thoughtfully, ethically, and equitably.

Posted to LinkedIn

The Widening Chasm: Inequitable Funding and Its Consequences

Beneath almost every crisis in American education lies a persistent and uncomfortable truth: our schools are not funded equitably. Public education relies heavily on local property taxes, which creates vast disparities between wealthy and low-income districts. The result is a widening chasm where some schools thrive while others struggle to provide even the basics.

The Cost of Inequity

Schools in low-income communities face a cascade of challenges tied directly to inadequate funding:

• Difficulty attracting and retaining qualified teachers due to lower pay and fewer resources.
  
  
• Limited access to mental health professionals, despite rising student need.
  
  
• Outdated technology and instructional materials that leave students unprepared for 21st-century skills.
  
  
• Facilities in disrepair, unsafe conditions, and overcrowded classrooms.

Meanwhile, better-funded districts can offer advanced courses, competitive salaries, modern facilities, and robust student support systems. The difference is stark and unfair.

Zip Code as Destiny

Too often, a student’s educational opportunities are determined not by their talents or potential, but by their address. This funding gap perpetuates cycles of inequality, as under-resourced schools struggle to break through the barriers of poverty and systemic inequity. Students in wealthier districts enjoy pathways to college and careers, while their peers in underfunded districts face an uphill climb from the start.

The Digital Divide

Perhaps nowhere is inequity more evident than in access to technology. During the pandemic, many students in low-income districts lacked devices or reliable internet, widening already-existing learning gaps. Even now, some schools can invest in 1:1 device programs, while others can barely keep computer labs functional. In a world where digital fluency is essential, this divide places underfunded students at a lifelong disadvantage.

The Broader Impact

Inequitable funding doesn’t just harm students—it undermines communities and the economy. Schools are pipelines to the future workforce. When they fail to provide equitable education, the workforce becomes less skilled, innovation slows, and inequality deepens.

Toward a Fairer Future

Addressing inequitable funding requires more than small adjustments. It demands systemic reform:

• Revisiting funding structures so that state and federal support offsets disparities created by property-tax dependence.
  
  
• Prioritizing equity in policy, ensuring that students with the greatest needs receive the greatest support.
  
  
• Investing in technology access, so every student has the tools to succeed in a digital world.

Education is meant to be the great equalizer. Yet today, inequitable funding is turning it into a divider. If we want to prepare every child for the future, we must commit to funding schools not based on wealth, but on need.

Posted to LinkedIn