I’d like to contribute that CRP was never intended to be done in isolation. I like how you frame the science of learning as a missing ingredient, because it implies that other things should also be “in the pot” with it. CRP without Science of Learning falls short. Science of Learning without CRP also falls short. They must work in tandem. Zaretta Hammond’s “Culturally Responsive Teaching and the Brain” gets at this very well.
I wanted to underscore your point that the purpose isn’t to choose one approach as the “champion” but to understand how each relies on the other.
Thanks Nicholas, I agree. Thank you for articulating this so clearly. CRP brings a lot of value to the classroom. CRP helps students from different cultures feel seen, valued, and supported, and it recognizes that students come to the classroom with different prior knowledge, experiences, and perspectives, each shaped by their cultural backgrounds. When teachers make intentional connections between academic content and what students already know or value from their own experiences, they activate background knowledge, deepen engagement, and make learning more meaningful. I think this is where the science of learning aligns beautifully with CRP: both emphasize the power of connecting new information to what’s already stored in long-term memory. So yes — I completely agree that the most powerful teaching happens when we weave the two together.
“The Science of Learning is the ingredient that is missing from most modern-day equity initiatives.”
I don’t know how the teachers who know that THIS is the main ingredient to success manage to keep their equanimity these days, to tolerate the roadblocks to learning that appear to pass for schooling. I’m an old dog, I guess.
Absolutely huge!!! There's another missing ingredient--not sure how schools can address--and that's children's home lives--if they're living in poverty or in a single parent home or dealing with insecurity or abuse--learning is just going to be harder--how does a teacher help with that or can he/she? Example, when I was at a predominately very low income high school, with a lot of broken families, one of my students told me she had trouble getting projects done because she had to lock her sister and herself in their bedroom every weekend to protect themselves from their mom's cavalcade of boyfriends--I cannot fathom the stress these kids lived through--and survival came before academics.
This may sound nit-picky, but I think it is relevant. As a teacher, I DON'T want equitable results. I DON'T want all my students to end up in the same place. In the first place, it's not possible. All students have different aptitudes, etc. There is no way I can possibly make sure all my students end up with the same outcomes without either cheating or manipulation. It's a self-defeating goal that sends teachers and administrators off searching for solutions that don't and can't exist--such as the exact practices you critique here.
The foundational premise is simply wrong.
Rather, the goal is to maximize every student's learning. It's a completely different mindset that allows an advanced student to become even more advanced while also helping those struggling to make greater gains than they have ever made in the past.
My students do not come to my 5th grade classroom in the same place. They don't leave my classroom in the same place. I don't bother worrying about it. And yet, my high students have become more advanced than they thought possible. And my struggling students made greater gains than they have ever made before. And those in the middle--the forgotten average--also make greater gains than before.
How?
By focusing on the exact practices that you highlight at the end of the piece: explicit instruction and the need for knowledge acquisition and recall.
I agree that achieving absolute equity is impossible. (That's why we included the word "more" in the title.) The problem, I think, is that some instructional practices (e.g., an excess of discovery learning) can favour students who have more prior knowledge, and/or more resources at home, leading to a rich-get-richer dynamic. Therefore, the goal should be to increase our use of instructional approaches that have been shown to reduce disparities, rather than amplify them. It sounds like that's what you're doing in your classroom.
Again, I think the premise is unhelpful -- that the goal is to reduce disparity. I believe this is a bad goal.
Here's an example from my class this year:
Two students, one arrived reading at a 3rd grade level, and one at a 6th grade level. (Again, I teach 5th grade).
Now, the first student has improved to reading at a 5th grade level. And it's taken a lot of work to make that happen.
The second student just passed of 9th grade level.
So the disparity has actually increased. But is that bad? I don't think it is. My struggling student has increased two grade levels. After years and years of always being far below grade level, now this student is where we want her to be. At the same time, the advanced student was able to continue being advanced.
I disagree that the goal of teachers should be to reduce disparities. It is, at its core, the wrong goal.
Equitable outcomes are not the same as equal outcomes. Equality in education means that every student, regardless of where they live, should have access to a shared foundational starting point in both skill mastery and content sequencing. This common foundation enables students to build on prior knowledge, promotes critical thinking, and helps prevent persistent skill gaps across classrooms, schools, and states.
But equity does not mean we stop there. It does not limit academic growth; it anchors it. Once that foundation is in place, there are multiple lateral paths forward to deepen learning and engage exceptional students.
For example, a student with strong math and science skills might explore Da Vinci’s engineering sketches to understand the intersection of art, invention, and geometry, or use Tinkercad to design a 3D-printed replica of a historical innovation, applying spatial reasoning, measurement, and historical research in one integrated project.
Likewise, a student with exceptional reading comprehension might extend into analytical writing, designing a choose-your-own-adventure narrative based on a classic myth, or coding an interactive story in Scratch, blending literary structure with logic and problem-solving.
Rather than rushing forward, these lateral learning opportunities are designed to build out complexity, creativity, and critical thinking without losing the core.
Nice summary. Wondering where content knowledge fits in? Explicit instruction is valuable but the teacher needs to know what explicitly to teach about, no? absent a thoughtful curriculum too many teachers grab lessons of questionable quality off the Internet, right?
Exactly why we, here in the US, are in desperate need of a scope and sequence for content knowledge and skill mastery.
Teaching “critical thinking” isn’t content-neutral. Critical thinking requires something to think about. When content knowledge is intentionally sequenced across subjects and grades, it builds a shared foundation that students can draw on to analyze, compare, and problem-solve. A spiral approach deepens understanding over time, revisiting key ideas in more complex ways so students aren’t just learning more, they’re thinking better.
Without that structure, “thinking skills” float unanchored.
If UDL only helps some academically, doesn’t that make it not Universal? Also, I have never seen a SEL program that actually teaches SRL better than a SRL program or a teacher. SRL alone has more proven benefits than SRL so why not just stick to that? Great post. Will be sharing widely.
This has been on my mind this school year. I spent the first nine years of my career in high poverty schools. After my position (reading specialist) was eliminated, I found a new home in a strong district. However, strong really just means wealthy because there is still a significant gap between our students in poverty and the rest of the student population. Closing that gap is one of our goals, but I wonder if we are overcomplicating our approach. Teachers were asked to review Hattie's work and vote on three strategies to utilize. The "winners" were summarization, class discussion, and jigsaw. I understand that these are all effective, but jigsaw especially strikes me as a great strategy, but maybe not a core strategy. I can't help but wonder if our time and energy would be better spent targeting strategies that are easier to implement regularly.
Equity isn’t just about creating safe spaces. It’s also about building knowledge. We need to pair inclusive practices with strong, evidence-based instruction to truly support all learners.
Great post! In the system I work in, we aren't spending enough time talking about what great teaching and instruction looks like, and how those great practices are equity practices. A lot of oxygen in the room is taken up by discussion about UDL, SEL and CRP, which means there isn't room to talk about how we deliver instruction.
When you say "In fact, some CRP scholars actively reject the idea of measuring learning through traditional assessments, arguing that these tools reinforce the very systems of inequity they aim to dismantle", which scholars are you speaking about? I'm curious as I wonder if they are some of the same scholars that my system has emphasized.
And how might you respond to people that believe traditional assessments reinforce the systems of inequity they wish to dismantle? I've heard that echoed by colleagues but I'm still trying to figure out how to respond to them in a constructive way.
I believe many scholars who embrace critical race theory have critiqued the use of traditional assessments, particularly standardized tests, claiming that the tests themselves perpetuate inequities. They argue that racism is systemic -- i.e., baked into school policies, curricula, assessments, and so forth. Gloria Ladson-Billings, the person who came up with CRP in the 1990's, discusses this in some of her books and articles.
So, one of the reasons why we don't see many large-scale quantitative studies is because its advocates argue that traditional measures of academic success can be fundamentally biased in ways that hurt some students. Consequently, many CRP studies are qualitative (e.g., student interviews, portfolios, case studies) and tend to examine student experiences and attitudes, rather than grades.
Re. "How might you respond to people that believe traditional assessments reinforce the systems of inequity they wish to dismantle?"
Historically, some aspects of traditional assessments have indeed been biased in ways that have marginalized certain groups. This should be acknowledged. At the same time, we are in need of tools that can track who is being left behind and who needs more support. Personally, I think it's an overreaction to dismiss traditional assessments entirely. Instead, I think we should work on improving those assessments.
Re. "How can I engage with people in a constructive way?"
That's a great question. I think most people would agree that there is a need to measure our progress in some kind of consistent and reliable way. We do need a way to determine whether we're successful in fostering more equitable outcomes, or whether some people are still being left behind. Perhaps a discussion of that topic would be a good way to start: What should those measures look like? What would count as evidence that schools are genuinely making progress?
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. This is really timely. EQAO testing is about to start, which sparks lots of conversation about standardized testing. I work with quite a few educators that say it's a waste of money and a "stupid test." I'm stuck wondering if they think the EQAO test is bad, or if standardized testing is bad. It's an interesting conversation. I think your point about needing to measure progress is a consistent and reliable way is a key thing to highlight in conversations like the ones I often have about EQAO.
I think assessment is a necessary diagnostic step in instruction without which we won't know what we are doing is working and what needs tweaking or bigger changes. In the absence of any reliable data, this is best we have to truly inspect the efficacy of instruction not children per se. The goal is not to penalize kids but to truly see how we can support them better. What's interesting is that many people who thrive on data like running apps or sleep monitoring apps suddenly get upset about assessment scales like EQAO. My bigger worry is that EQAO isn't as reliable because it isn't taking into account the 'at home' supports or 'outside school' supports that some children get. Meaning a higher EQAO for a school doesn't automatically translate into better instruction at that school. We are receiving very biased data at best and hence not a very accurate assessment of instructional quality. It does though show a clear picture of widening gaps (The Matthew Effect).
Totally agree about all the noise in EQAO data, especially the supports at home or outside of school. I was talking to a teacher about this and they asked "what do the schools with high scores do differently?" I don't work in those schools, so I can't know for sure, but I highlighted what you highlighted. There's likely at home support or tutoring that is happening to fill in the gaps. I don't think the instruction is much different. It's just an anecdotal observation, but the wealthy areas have a lot of tutoring places in the plazas near their homes. The poorer areas typically don't have any tutoring places. It's not a surprise, but can really illustrate the differences in supports that students get outside of school.
This is such a clear and necessary reframing of the equity conversation. As someone working on AI-supported education tools, I often find myself pushing back against surface-level applications of GenAI—and instead advocating for its role in supporting the exact structured practices you describe here: explicit instruction, knowledge mapping, spaced retrieval, and feedback-driven assessment.
It’s refreshing to see an equity piece that centers what students know and not just how they feel. That said, I do think there's untapped potential for generative AI to help educators build these learning routines at scale: to identify knowledge gaps, generate formative checks, or customize retrieval prompts without adding to teacher workload.
The idea that equity depends on cognition, not just inclusion is one I’ve been exploring with my GenAI partner, ELIOT, who also, inadvertently, recommended your Substack.
In closing, this piece gave me so much language to better frame my position.
Thank you. ~Keri Lamle
UDL specific rebuttal: I appreciate the concern around vague or inconsistent implementations of UDL. There’s certainly been a rise in what Katie Novak herself has called “UDL-washing.” But having known Katie professionally and used UDL myself for over a decade, I’ve seen how deeply rigorous the framework becomes when implemented with clarity and purpose.
UDL done right is not a loose collection of engagement strategies. It’s a design methodology rooted in cognitive neuroscience, built to remove barriers and support expert learning across contexts. The challenge isn’t that UDL is vague. It’s that many educators have never been taught to implement it with fidelity.
I’d also argue that GenAI offers a unique opportunity to strengthen UDL’s application: from creating scaffolded options aligned to firm learning goals, to mapping variability patterns at scale, to generating multiple representation modes that would otherwise require hours of planning time.
In short: UDL isn’t vague when done well. It’s just harder to master without a mentor. And, that’s exactly where a GenAI toolkit could come in handy.
The moronic regime thinks (do they really?) that there is an equality of meritocracy. So the motus signed an EO called Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy. That exemplifies an oxymoron.
I’d like to contribute that CRP was never intended to be done in isolation. I like how you frame the science of learning as a missing ingredient, because it implies that other things should also be “in the pot” with it. CRP without Science of Learning falls short. Science of Learning without CRP also falls short. They must work in tandem. Zaretta Hammond’s “Culturally Responsive Teaching and the Brain” gets at this very well.
I wanted to underscore your point that the purpose isn’t to choose one approach as the “champion” but to understand how each relies on the other.
Let me know if you see it otherwise.
Thanks Nicholas, I agree. Thank you for articulating this so clearly. CRP brings a lot of value to the classroom. CRP helps students from different cultures feel seen, valued, and supported, and it recognizes that students come to the classroom with different prior knowledge, experiences, and perspectives, each shaped by their cultural backgrounds. When teachers make intentional connections between academic content and what students already know or value from their own experiences, they activate background knowledge, deepen engagement, and make learning more meaningful. I think this is where the science of learning aligns beautifully with CRP: both emphasize the power of connecting new information to what’s already stored in long-term memory. So yes — I completely agree that the most powerful teaching happens when we weave the two together.
🎯🎯
“The Science of Learning is the ingredient that is missing from most modern-day equity initiatives.”
I don’t know how the teachers who know that THIS is the main ingredient to success manage to keep their equanimity these days, to tolerate the roadblocks to learning that appear to pass for schooling. I’m an old dog, I guess.
Absolutely huge!!! There's another missing ingredient--not sure how schools can address--and that's children's home lives--if they're living in poverty or in a single parent home or dealing with insecurity or abuse--learning is just going to be harder--how does a teacher help with that or can he/she? Example, when I was at a predominately very low income high school, with a lot of broken families, one of my students told me she had trouble getting projects done because she had to lock her sister and herself in their bedroom every weekend to protect themselves from their mom's cavalcade of boyfriends--I cannot fathom the stress these kids lived through--and survival came before academics.
This is so relevent! I think of all these AI tools etc and yet so many students we have that are simply trying to survive!
This may sound nit-picky, but I think it is relevant. As a teacher, I DON'T want equitable results. I DON'T want all my students to end up in the same place. In the first place, it's not possible. All students have different aptitudes, etc. There is no way I can possibly make sure all my students end up with the same outcomes without either cheating or manipulation. It's a self-defeating goal that sends teachers and administrators off searching for solutions that don't and can't exist--such as the exact practices you critique here.
The foundational premise is simply wrong.
Rather, the goal is to maximize every student's learning. It's a completely different mindset that allows an advanced student to become even more advanced while also helping those struggling to make greater gains than they have ever made in the past.
My students do not come to my 5th grade classroom in the same place. They don't leave my classroom in the same place. I don't bother worrying about it. And yet, my high students have become more advanced than they thought possible. And my struggling students made greater gains than they have ever made before. And those in the middle--the forgotten average--also make greater gains than before.
How?
By focusing on the exact practices that you highlight at the end of the piece: explicit instruction and the need for knowledge acquisition and recall.
I agree that achieving absolute equity is impossible. (That's why we included the word "more" in the title.) The problem, I think, is that some instructional practices (e.g., an excess of discovery learning) can favour students who have more prior knowledge, and/or more resources at home, leading to a rich-get-richer dynamic. Therefore, the goal should be to increase our use of instructional approaches that have been shown to reduce disparities, rather than amplify them. It sounds like that's what you're doing in your classroom.
Again, I think the premise is unhelpful -- that the goal is to reduce disparity. I believe this is a bad goal.
Here's an example from my class this year:
Two students, one arrived reading at a 3rd grade level, and one at a 6th grade level. (Again, I teach 5th grade).
Now, the first student has improved to reading at a 5th grade level. And it's taken a lot of work to make that happen.
The second student just passed of 9th grade level.
So the disparity has actually increased. But is that bad? I don't think it is. My struggling student has increased two grade levels. After years and years of always being far below grade level, now this student is where we want her to be. At the same time, the advanced student was able to continue being advanced.
I disagree that the goal of teachers should be to reduce disparities. It is, at its core, the wrong goal.
Equitable outcomes are not the same as equal outcomes. Equality in education means that every student, regardless of where they live, should have access to a shared foundational starting point in both skill mastery and content sequencing. This common foundation enables students to build on prior knowledge, promotes critical thinking, and helps prevent persistent skill gaps across classrooms, schools, and states.
But equity does not mean we stop there. It does not limit academic growth; it anchors it. Once that foundation is in place, there are multiple lateral paths forward to deepen learning and engage exceptional students.
For example, a student with strong math and science skills might explore Da Vinci’s engineering sketches to understand the intersection of art, invention, and geometry, or use Tinkercad to design a 3D-printed replica of a historical innovation, applying spatial reasoning, measurement, and historical research in one integrated project.
Likewise, a student with exceptional reading comprehension might extend into analytical writing, designing a choose-your-own-adventure narrative based on a classic myth, or coding an interactive story in Scratch, blending literary structure with logic and problem-solving.
Rather than rushing forward, these lateral learning opportunities are designed to build out complexity, creativity, and critical thinking without losing the core.
Nice summary. Wondering where content knowledge fits in? Explicit instruction is valuable but the teacher needs to know what explicitly to teach about, no? absent a thoughtful curriculum too many teachers grab lessons of questionable quality off the Internet, right?
Exactly why we, here in the US, are in desperate need of a scope and sequence for content knowledge and skill mastery.
Teaching “critical thinking” isn’t content-neutral. Critical thinking requires something to think about. When content knowledge is intentionally sequenced across subjects and grades, it builds a shared foundation that students can draw on to analyze, compare, and problem-solve. A spiral approach deepens understanding over time, revisiting key ideas in more complex ways so students aren’t just learning more, they’re thinking better.
Without that structure, “thinking skills” float unanchored.
If UDL only helps some academically, doesn’t that make it not Universal? Also, I have never seen a SEL program that actually teaches SRL better than a SRL program or a teacher. SRL alone has more proven benefits than SRL so why not just stick to that? Great post. Will be sharing widely.
This has been on my mind this school year. I spent the first nine years of my career in high poverty schools. After my position (reading specialist) was eliminated, I found a new home in a strong district. However, strong really just means wealthy because there is still a significant gap between our students in poverty and the rest of the student population. Closing that gap is one of our goals, but I wonder if we are overcomplicating our approach. Teachers were asked to review Hattie's work and vote on three strategies to utilize. The "winners" were summarization, class discussion, and jigsaw. I understand that these are all effective, but jigsaw especially strikes me as a great strategy, but maybe not a core strategy. I can't help but wonder if our time and energy would be better spent targeting strategies that are easier to implement regularly.
Equity isn’t just about creating safe spaces. It’s also about building knowledge. We need to pair inclusive practices with strong, evidence-based instruction to truly support all learners.
Great post! In the system I work in, we aren't spending enough time talking about what great teaching and instruction looks like, and how those great practices are equity practices. A lot of oxygen in the room is taken up by discussion about UDL, SEL and CRP, which means there isn't room to talk about how we deliver instruction.
When you say "In fact, some CRP scholars actively reject the idea of measuring learning through traditional assessments, arguing that these tools reinforce the very systems of inequity they aim to dismantle", which scholars are you speaking about? I'm curious as I wonder if they are some of the same scholars that my system has emphasized.
And how might you respond to people that believe traditional assessments reinforce the systems of inequity they wish to dismantle? I've heard that echoed by colleagues but I'm still trying to figure out how to respond to them in a constructive way.
Thanks Mike! Great post.
Re. "Which scholars are you speaking about?"
I believe many scholars who embrace critical race theory have critiqued the use of traditional assessments, particularly standardized tests, claiming that the tests themselves perpetuate inequities. They argue that racism is systemic -- i.e., baked into school policies, curricula, assessments, and so forth. Gloria Ladson-Billings, the person who came up with CRP in the 1990's, discusses this in some of her books and articles.
So, one of the reasons why we don't see many large-scale quantitative studies is because its advocates argue that traditional measures of academic success can be fundamentally biased in ways that hurt some students. Consequently, many CRP studies are qualitative (e.g., student interviews, portfolios, case studies) and tend to examine student experiences and attitudes, rather than grades.
Re. "How might you respond to people that believe traditional assessments reinforce the systems of inequity they wish to dismantle?"
Historically, some aspects of traditional assessments have indeed been biased in ways that have marginalized certain groups. This should be acknowledged. At the same time, we are in need of tools that can track who is being left behind and who needs more support. Personally, I think it's an overreaction to dismiss traditional assessments entirely. Instead, I think we should work on improving those assessments.
Re. "How can I engage with people in a constructive way?"
That's a great question. I think most people would agree that there is a need to measure our progress in some kind of consistent and reliable way. We do need a way to determine whether we're successful in fostering more equitable outcomes, or whether some people are still being left behind. Perhaps a discussion of that topic would be a good way to start: What should those measures look like? What would count as evidence that schools are genuinely making progress?
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. This is really timely. EQAO testing is about to start, which sparks lots of conversation about standardized testing. I work with quite a few educators that say it's a waste of money and a "stupid test." I'm stuck wondering if they think the EQAO test is bad, or if standardized testing is bad. It's an interesting conversation. I think your point about needing to measure progress is a consistent and reliable way is a key thing to highlight in conversations like the ones I often have about EQAO.
I think assessment is a necessary diagnostic step in instruction without which we won't know what we are doing is working and what needs tweaking or bigger changes. In the absence of any reliable data, this is best we have to truly inspect the efficacy of instruction not children per se. The goal is not to penalize kids but to truly see how we can support them better. What's interesting is that many people who thrive on data like running apps or sleep monitoring apps suddenly get upset about assessment scales like EQAO. My bigger worry is that EQAO isn't as reliable because it isn't taking into account the 'at home' supports or 'outside school' supports that some children get. Meaning a higher EQAO for a school doesn't automatically translate into better instruction at that school. We are receiving very biased data at best and hence not a very accurate assessment of instructional quality. It does though show a clear picture of widening gaps (The Matthew Effect).
Totally agree about all the noise in EQAO data, especially the supports at home or outside of school. I was talking to a teacher about this and they asked "what do the schools with high scores do differently?" I don't work in those schools, so I can't know for sure, but I highlighted what you highlighted. There's likely at home support or tutoring that is happening to fill in the gaps. I don't think the instruction is much different. It's just an anecdotal observation, but the wealthy areas have a lot of tutoring places in the plazas near their homes. The poorer areas typically don't have any tutoring places. It's not a surprise, but can really illustrate the differences in supports that students get outside of school.
This is such a clear and necessary reframing of the equity conversation. As someone working on AI-supported education tools, I often find myself pushing back against surface-level applications of GenAI—and instead advocating for its role in supporting the exact structured practices you describe here: explicit instruction, knowledge mapping, spaced retrieval, and feedback-driven assessment.
It’s refreshing to see an equity piece that centers what students know and not just how they feel. That said, I do think there's untapped potential for generative AI to help educators build these learning routines at scale: to identify knowledge gaps, generate formative checks, or customize retrieval prompts without adding to teacher workload.
The idea that equity depends on cognition, not just inclusion is one I’ve been exploring with my GenAI partner, ELIOT, who also, inadvertently, recommended your Substack.
In closing, this piece gave me so much language to better frame my position.
Thank you. ~Keri Lamle
UDL specific rebuttal: I appreciate the concern around vague or inconsistent implementations of UDL. There’s certainly been a rise in what Katie Novak herself has called “UDL-washing.” But having known Katie professionally and used UDL myself for over a decade, I’ve seen how deeply rigorous the framework becomes when implemented with clarity and purpose.
UDL done right is not a loose collection of engagement strategies. It’s a design methodology rooted in cognitive neuroscience, built to remove barriers and support expert learning across contexts. The challenge isn’t that UDL is vague. It’s that many educators have never been taught to implement it with fidelity.
I’d also argue that GenAI offers a unique opportunity to strengthen UDL’s application: from creating scaffolded options aligned to firm learning goals, to mapping variability patterns at scale, to generating multiple representation modes that would otherwise require hours of planning time.
In short: UDL isn’t vague when done well. It’s just harder to master without a mentor. And, that’s exactly where a GenAI toolkit could come in handy.
Thank you for letting me say this here.
The moronic regime thinks (do they really?) that there is an equality of meritocracy. So the motus signed an EO called Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy. That exemplifies an oxymoron.