91ɬÂþ

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 91ɬÂþ Newsletter

This may sound strange coming from the co-founder of an education technology company, but I think paper is a powerful technology in a classroom. Research on the of consistently . So do the piles of paper that good teaching produces, the piles that bury the teachers who produced them. The real question is whether technology can lift that weight without putting one more kid in front of one more screen.

I taught math in a New York City public high school before I read a single study about how children learn. I was equipped with some basics, like making sure I checked if my students had understood the day’s lesson. At the end of every class, they would answer a few questions on paper while I moved around the room, reading over their shoulders to see what had landed and what had not.

Back then, blended learning was the hot thing: putting kids on screens for personalized instruction while I was supposed to circulate and answer questions. It did not work for my students, so I abandoned it and built my own lessons instead.

Fast forward to now, and the fight playing out in city councils and statehouses over . But that is the wrong battle. Screens are not the enemy of learning. The real enemy is older than any device: a classroom where students sit isolated and a teacher is too swamped with grading and paperwork to notice who is falling behind until it is too late to help. Technology can deepen that problem or solve it. It depends entirely on who you build it for.

There is a better way. I watched it this past school year in the Bronx.

At P.S. 83, a middle school in District 11, technology barely appears until the final minutes of math class. A lesson is projected at the front of the room, and students work through problems together on paper, talking and arguing as they go. Then, with a few minutes left, they open their school laptops and answer a short set of questions about the day’s work.

As they type, the teacher watches the answers appear, one student at a time, on a dashboard on his or her own screen. Rather than collecting stacks of papers to grade that night, the teacher can see, in real time, who understood the lesson and who did not, and offer help in the moment. By the time class ends, the teacher knows exactly where each student is stuck, and what needs to happen the next day: a quick conversation with one child, a small group lesson for a few others or a separate session for the handful who missed the same step.

That dashboard is part of a tool called , created by the company I co-founded, Kiddom. This past year, in a pilot program, District 11 added Atlas to the curriculum its teachers already used through the math initiative. The partnership became a co-design: District 11’s teachers shaped the tool, and Kiddom is now bringing it to schools nationwide. But the tool is not the point. The point is what it handed back to teachers: time and information early enough to act on. Those are the two things every teacher is short of, and they are essential for catching children before they fall behind.

That is harder than it sounds. American schools are notoriously bad at catching kids up. A student who starts behind usually stays behind, year after year — not because teachers are not good enough, but because no human can grade, diagnose and personalize for 20 or more children every single day. The math defeats them.

The early results from District 11 are worth a look. Across nearly 5,700 students and 179 teachers, Kiddom’s analysis found that children in classrooms using these quick daily checks most consistently outscored other District 11 students whose teachers used them rarely. In seventh grade, for example, District 11 classes scored an average of 68% on these checks, versus 52%. That’s a 16-percentage-point difference, which works out to roughly five additional months of learning in a single year.

District 11’s results were also measured against a demographically comparable district using the same curriculum without the real-time tool. District 11 still came out ahead, by 11 to 13 points in sixth and seventh grades. The effect was smaller in eighth grade, but the pattern still held, and it tracked with how teachers worked. The biggest gains came in classes where teachers returned graded work in under three days. When the tool handled the grading, teachers could respond to students faster than their colleagues elsewhere. 

Word has traveled. Since District 11’s superintendent, Cristine Vaughan, adopted this time-saving tool, senior city schools officials and parent advocates have come to the Bronx to see it for themselves.

Notice what is missing from this story. The children are not on screens all day. District 11 students spend class time talking, reasoning and writing by hand. The technology serves the teaching and finishes the paperwork.

This is what the screen-time debate keeps missing. The is not whether technology belongs in classrooms. It is who the technology is built for. Point it at the child, and you get a generation doing its thinking on a black mirror. Point it at the teacher, and you get educators who know, in real time, what each student will need the next day.

This is not a preview of some distant future. It is a public school district closing gaps right now for students who are behind, with the same children and the same curriculum it already had, because its teachers got their time back.

So keep pencils in children’s hands, but take the paperwork off teachers. It would make a catch-up crisis so often called intractable look a great deal more solvable.

Disclosure: The Gates Foundation provides financial support to Kiddom Atlas and 91ɬÂþ.

Did you use this article in your work?

We’d love to hear how 91ɬÂþ’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.