Listen to the episode by clicking the link to your preferred podcast platform below:
In this solo episode, host Lindsay talks about the significance of initiating classroom discussions early in the academic year. Drawing insights from Jane C. Lo’s anthology, "Making Classroom Discussions Work," Lindsay emphasizes the urgency and benefits of fostering discourse among students.
Through these discussions, students develop critical thinking skills, engage in genuine inquiry, and gain confidence to voice their thoughts beyond the classroom. With a focus on practical steps and educational research, this episode offers educators actionable strategies to enhance classroom discourse. Why? Engaging students in classroom discussions offers a multitude of benefits. Civil discourse and student-led discussions encourage students to elaborate on topics, respond to different viewpoints, and construct knowledge through complex thinking. This deepens students' skills in civil dialogue and increases their confidence to engage in discussions outside of class. What? To implement effective discussions, educators can focus on key aspects including the tools, topics, and techniques used in the classroom. Step 1: Start with something to talk about. Choose topics that resonate with current curriculum needs and align with students' knowledge and interests. These can include values like justice, freedom, and responsibility, which can be part of many subject areas. Step 2: Next, give them a reason to talk about it. Motivate students by tying discussion topics to real-world civic actions or community-oriented prompts. You can frame discussions to show their significance beyond just academic grading, adding a layer of real-life implications and importance. Step 3: Give students a way to talk about the topic. Equip students with clear ways to engage in discussions by creating specific discourse prompts that cultivate necessary skills. Encouraging discussions around fiction or non-fiction can open up dialogues on significant societal issues and values. Step 4: Cultivate an environment where deliberation on problems is encouraged. This could range from global laws to local issues that impact them directly. Guide students through stages of identifying issues, developing solutions, and analyzing options to foster a deeper understanding and practical decision-making. Step 5: When students present their discussions, ensure that audience members are also engaged by asking thought-provoking questions. These questions could include: What are the implications of a decision? What are the benefits of this choice? Are there any potential drawbacks? Final Tip As the educator, modeling the discussion process and gradually introducing roles and frameworks can facilitate more meaningful and structured conversations in the classroom. To help you implement today’s takeaways, I’m sharing my Discourse Moves Resource Bank with you for free. And, if you’re looking for more details on the ideas in this blog post, listen to episode 277 of the Time for Teachership podcast. If you’re unable to listen or you prefer to read the full episode, you can find the transcript below. Quotes:
If you enjoyed this episode, check out my YouTube channel where you can learn about more tips and resources like this one below:
TRANSCRIPT
Lindsay Lyons: Welcome back to another episode of the Time for Teachership podcast. This is episode 277, and we are talking about why and how to start classroom discussions now in September. Many of you have just started a few weeks ago. Um, some of you have been maybe in school for a while, and some of you may be listening at later points in the year or in future years. But the idea is that wherever you are, whenever you are, you can start class discourse now. And so we're gonna start with a little bit of why and a little bit of the how, and just naming that we are pulling from the book, the first half particularly of the book, Making Classroom Discussions Work. This is a volume of chapters that is edited by Jane C. Lo. This is an excellent book. I'm really excited about the possibilities in here, and I'm really excited to have maybe some of the authors come on in future episodes and talk to us. So let's get started Why have class discussions? Now you may be already bought in. You're like, "Let's fast-forward the episode for five minutes," totally fine. If you are a person who is a leader or in a leadership role in any way, um, have colleagues that are maybe a little skeptical of student-led discourse particularly, this could be helpful. Um, also maybe as a justification, maybe you have leadership that is hesitant to spend, you know, so much time on discourse, and you firmly believe in it. Here could be the justification for why. So, uh, Lowe talks about in her introduction to the book key attributes of discussions. We've talked a lot about discourse before, so I'm gonna run through these pretty quickly. But students are elaborating in a discussion. They are responding to each other, providing different points of view. They are constructing knowledge, doing some complex thinking, and they are engaging in genuine inquiry. So these are the hallmarks of discussion. We are not talking about a turn and talk here. We are talking about, like, a lot going on. So when we get clear on what type of discussion or attributes of discussion is high quality, that's what we're talking about. She writes, "The goal of quality discourse is to allow students to voice different evidence-based assertions so that all students engaged in the discussion might learn something new through the co-construction of knowledge." End quote. Chapter two of this book, uh, involves researchers, I believe all of them are based out of Circle. Um, but Dr. Kawashima, Ginsburg, Daniels, and Hyatt, I believe are referencing the various benefits for teaching discourse, which includes allowing students to reflect on and communicate about content, deepening skills of civil dialogue across disagreements. We know that's really important in our communities. Student confidence to talk outside of class about issues. So this is huge, right? We want to, and we have seen in the research, that when we do this in class, kids are more likely to bring it elsewhere, whether it's to families, friend groups, community groups, social media. Like, they are more willing, um, and confident to talk about stuff outside of class, which is the goal, right? We don't want it to just live inside of a classroom. Um, and it is, uh, facilitating student knowledge of each other and fostering a shared experience of learning through disagreement. So there's that kind of positive feedback loop. This went well in class. I'm willing to try elsewhere, and I'm building my skills. Um, Bruce Larson talks about in the, the next chapter, or another chapter, uh, that discussion is useful for the last three levels of Bloom. So if you have a school that is, or a district that's really into Bloom's Taxonomy as a way to think about learning, analyze, evaluate, and create are the last three. They are typically, you know, the highest. All are important, but the, the highest. And examples of discussion being possible here is that you could critique policy. We had a previous episode on that this month. Um, create a stimulus package, right? There's so many different things that you could do. They often share very social studies examples as I do. But these are some of the things that you could do as you're discussing. There are so many parallels with inquiry. So again, subject agnostic here, inquiry is a great practice for pedagogy, and discourse pairs really well with it. This comes from McAvoy and colleagues, that the inquiry arc really has the same building blocks for discussion, and there's actually an entire chapter about that in the book as well. So inquiry and discourse are, like, really, um What's the word I'm looking for? Synergistic. They are not a pick one, it's both/and. Um, and finally, Bruce Larson talks about some ... He gives various lists of things that you can look for, and kind of listen for, notice, uh, in a class situation, um, and also for students to kind of self-assess. He gives a little list. Two I wanna highlight. One, a self-assessment question. Are we developing a shared understanding of the issue? Right? So we want students to reflect and say, "Are we doing this? Is this what we're doing? We are developing a shared understanding." A thing similarly that teachers can notice, are students building off of classmates' comments, and not just saying, "I agree with so-and-so, and," or, "I ins- agree with so-and-so because." We are taking a nugget of an idea, and we are expanding it, or we are contradicting it, or we are complexifying it. That is not a word, but you know what I mean, like, adding complexity to it and nuance, um, interrogating it, asking a question about it. So we're actually deepening the thinking, as opposed to just saying, "I heard what you said, and I agree." Right? Um, it's, it's bigger than that, right? And that, I think that is the goal, really, of what I wanna do in this season and future seasons moving forward on the podcast, to think about how we r- really deepen student thinking, as opposed to just talk at one another. Okay, I really wanna use the rest of our time today, um, to think about the how. I'm gonna say a couple more things about the why, but, uh, Terrence Beck t- uh, is the author of Chapter 3, and specifically here, Dr. Beck is talking about younger students. I do think this is valuable for everyone. As a former high school and college professor, uh, this is helpful for everybody, so keep that in mind, that it is particularly useful for younger students, because it has been written as such. So his argument, uh, is really that you can't afford to wait till high school to have these civil discourse opportunities. So he says, quote, "Fostering democratic dispositions requires teachers to regularly conduct civic discussions so that students experience the power of engaging skillfully in discussion," end quote. Another one. Loving the quotes here. Quote, "Civic discussions are concerned with creating dispositions in students to act democratically when they are no longer under the gaze of the teacher." End quote. Okay? He goes on to talk about how dispositions are, quote, "Patterns of thinking and behaving that are not learned through transmission, but rather through practice in a supportive social environment." End quote. That actually comes from, um, sorry, Reddy and colleagues from a 1998 publication. But the, the point here is that what we are trying to do is cultivate students' ability to talk to one another outside of the classroom, and that what that requires to do it well is to regularly have civic discussions. So how do we do this? So what he talks about is, um, he really starts with a sociocultural approach, which comes from Werch, and this idea of mediated action requiring actors and tools, which could be physical. It could be like a Google Doc or, um, it could be a cultural, like a idea or a way of engaging with one another, a belief system. Like this idea that what we do when we wanna change students' action. So for the example he gives, a teacher wants to change how students engage in academic discussions. Okay. The most productive thing that Werch says is to focus on changing the tools being used and not trying to change the people So instead of trying to, you know, have-- encourage, I think that's the example he gives. Instead of saying, "Okay, y- talk more. Come on, y- I'm gonna give you points if you talk more." Actually, what we need to do is change the tools that students use to enable them to be more effective. So he talks about how discourse really or discussion talks-- demands three types of tools. Something to talk about, right? So this is, um, as he explains it, the sweet spot where curriculum meets student knowledge and interest. So it has to be engaging, it has to be high interest, and it has to be related to the actual curriculum you're supposed to teach. B- but this is like the prompt, right? What are we actually talking about? Let's pick the curriculum we're talking about, and let's-- Typically, I would say also the discussion prompt itself, like the phrasing and the languaging is also important. So that kids are kinda jumping out of their seat to actually talk about it. Uh, values that he discusses as opportunities to explore in curriculum. Um, generally, we're talking about humanities curriculum here, but you can think about this in any, any format or any curriculum area. Justice, freedom, honesty, responsibility, right? Think about any value that your discipline has, your subject area has, and think about how you might create, uh, a discussion prompt rooted in content that is also highly engaging and meets kind of where students are at knowledge-wise, give them a little bit of background, they're ready to go, as well as interest. So that's one thing. Something to talk about. That's a tool. The second thing, a reason to talk about it, right? Again, um, maybe this is more of the discourse prompt, but this is like the high interest topic, and like frame why it matters. So typically, we could-- I have enjoyed doing something civic, so some sort of civic action prompt. Like, uh, what class policy could we craft to address this issue, right? Something where it's like we are gonna do something. We're gonna put forward a proposal to the school around how we do assessment in our district or whatever the thing is, but we are going to give them a real reason, like there is an impact beyond the grade here, uh, that this will have, right? Or maybe we're discussing a current event, and we've had a lot of chatter about it in families or social media or the friend groups, and okay, so this has an impact beyond the class because now you're gonna be able to talk about this in these other spaces really generatively and thoughtfully. And so, uh, something to talk about, a reason to talk about it, and number three, a way to talk about it. So discourse prompts, cultivating those skills that they're building Right? Um, he talks about how dis- discussions are often most productive when they center around fiction or non-fiction texts that raise important issues, ideas, or values. So yes to the humanities, right? We can totally think about fictional texts. Many characters are grappling with important issues, ideas, or values. We can definitely bring in current events, right, the non-fiction texts. There are a lot of spaces, uh, to do this. And actually, the author cites how literacy has a lot more research on this than any social studies research does, particularly with the younger kiddos. And so there's some research around collaborative reasoning. Uh, this is where they kind of read a story, discuss questions around a moral dilemma or difficult decision. Um, they could explore the character's motivation. But there's a, a lot more research on, um, kind of the value there that, again, if you are in a leadership position and you need to borrow some research, that's a good space to look. Um, but examples of this, right? If we're talking about how to do this, examples. Um, we could talk about topics such as, he says family obligations, trust, environmental stewardship, personal responsibility. Again, with younger kids, you could see these come up a lot in picture books, in various themes that are content connected. Social studies, uh, you could talk about, you know, the Declaration of Independence and the political values there. Are we living those out? There's a lot to do with that. You could get back into kind of fairy tales, Jack and the Beanstalk. He gives a great example over the course of three pages around Jack and the Beanstalk prompts, uh, where the civic issues at play are really trust, right? Does Jack trust the, the giant in the clouds at the top of the beanstalk? And does the giant trust him? Um, does he trust that, like, when he exchanges the beans for the cow, that, like, that seller is, is doing, um, you know, what's in his best interest? Uh, and also the concept of, like, when do the ends justify the means? Like, is it okay to lie? Is it okay to steal, in what situations? Right? Um, and considering kind of like the motivation behind all of these and the risk. These are all themes that kids are gonna face in life. They are present in the fairy tale, and they could also be applied to future readings of novels, fiction texts, non-fiction texts, current events, historical events. There's a lot of lift here despite just being about, you know, a fairy tale. So, uh, the, the topics that we choose, particularly early on, right? We're recording this, um, so that it airs in September. You're early on in the year. Having kind of like a high interest engager where maybe a lot of folks in the room, a lot of students have background knowledge about the story of Jack and the Beanstalk, or that could be conveyed very quickly and interestingly with a quick picture book, that really sets the stage for ongoing thinking about these issues throughout. So whatever you're choosing as the, one of the first prompts, think about the values behind it and choose a value ideally that's going to continue to show up in your fiction or non-fiction texts through the year So when we think about discussions, we're typically thinking about, we've talked about this before on the podcast, there's like kind of dialogue where we're seeking to understand and kind of grow the possibilities of ideas. Discussion, where we're kind of critically thinking about the ideas that are shared, kind of analyzing them, breaking them down. Um, and then we have deliberation, which is more of a what should we do? I mentioned this might be something like we are going to have a discussion that results in a policy proposal for our class or our school, our community. So a deliberation is where we really are focusing on an issue or problem rather than a text. So let's come back to that for a little bit. Deliberation problems are gonna deal with either really big things like laws and pe- human rights or, you know, really local concerns like how do we spend the money in our school's budget? This could even be like the grade, like our, our sixth grade class has a budget 'cause we did some fundraising, and like how do we spend that? Um, it could also be responding to an issue, so we had an instance of hate speech in our school, like how are we gonna respond to that? Right? That is a very real thing we need to address, and like y- go, your class is like, needs to come up with some ideas, and we're gonna land on something. We're actually gonna take action based on what we come up with, right? So again, a very real, um, prompt for students or a purpose beyond the grade Teachers can also, this is a really good tip from the author, uh, teachers can identify when they notice deliberation in life. So encourage teachers to identify when it has come up, um, for themselves in staff meetings, maybe, um, in their families, when it works and doesn't work. This helps them, uh, get in the mindset of like, "Okay, this is what deliberation looks like. Here are the hallmarks of good deliberation. Here's where it could go wrong. I'm gonna bring this to my students," maybe not to directly instruct, but to help create a container for really generative discourse. "I'm gonna choose a protocol based on this information. I'm gonna language my prompt this way based on my observations." And of course, you can also encourage students to do the same thing. When have you all decided to do something, right? "Oh, how did you decide what was for dinner last night? Did you have a deliberation?" Right? And you don't need to use the word deliberation, but we want to start having kids and adults notice when it's happening, and start to collect and write down or verbally share what works and what doesn't work. And sometimes what you'll notice is that what works in one context doesn't really work that well in another context, right? What works for, uh, two people deciding how to have dinner is not gonna work for deciding what, you know, 20 people are gonna eat for the class lunch, for pizza party or whatever. So it, it could be really generative just to have kids notice, note the thinking, and bring it back, right? Um, okay. So again, this author, uh, Terence Beck, talks about s- three steps. These are adapted from Parker and, um, Zumeta in 1999. And he talks about that when we are doing deliberation, and he encourages people to do these in small groups, 'cause again, that's, that's easier than like a whole class. Um, but we have to identify a problem and common understanding. So for example, um, is the problem a question of fairness or justice, or is it one of the common good? So like this is a question from Hover, who just like says, "Okay, there are some different values that could be applied. Which one is it?" Right? So identify kind of the problem and common understanding or maybe the underlying value. Then the next step is to develop possible solutions and analyze the options. So once we know what the problem is, we have a good understanding of it, now we're gonna think about, okay, here's the possible steps we could take. Here's the possible policies. Here are the possible actions. Um, m- what ... Are these good or b- or like which one is the best, right? Like, what are the potential implications of each of these? That kind of thing. So we're really in analysis mode. I would say like step one is really the dialogue, right? Growing the common understanding, um, getting a lot of ideas out there, and trying to figure out where we are. Two is, is let's analyze the options. We're in discussion mode. And then three is the deliberation or the decision-making where we're gonna decide what to do. Okay, so these are three steps, common. We've talked about these a lot in the podcast. Um, but, but basically what we're doing is that- Beck says what we typically do actually, is we say, "Okay, uh, small groups, do your thing, and then you're gonna present to the class." And what often happens is this devolves into one group presenting, and then the teacher responds, and then the group interacts with the teacher, and then the rest of the audience is just kind of silent. What we want to have happen is that small groups are doing their discussion, they're reporting out, but the rest of the students are audience members that are asking questions. And he has a really good chart, um, on page 55 of the book where he talks about, um, some question stems, and he has them based on different subject areas. But for civic question stems, like, what do you think the problem is? What are the good things about this choice? So they've made a ... They're making their proposal to the class. They're presenting it, right? Well, what are the good things about the choice you made? Is there anyone who might be hurt by your decision? So these three questions are three questions that audience members can ask, and what he's saying happens is actually because the presenters know that the audience is gonna be engaged in this way and possibly asking these exact questions, they can also prepare accordingly. "Oh, we're gonna be asked, like, what are the good things about the choice, so we gotta make sure we, we have that ready to share." So again, those three question stems for civics: What do you think the problem is? What are the good things about this choice? Is there anyone who might be hurt by your decision? Really good to think about in any deliberation. So this could be an easy anchor chart that just stays in your class for the whole year Right. Um, and this is, this is coming from Herrenkohl who talked about this idea of intellectual role-taking in the audience when you're supporting, uh, deliberation. So thinking about these different roles, you could like divide up, okay, this is gonna be, uh, the, the group that thinks about like the problem, this is the thing-- the group that thinks about the good things in terms of audience, um, interaction. A final tip as you think about rolling all this out, so the teacher is gonna model first, then introduce the roles gradually. You can use that problem chart or anchor chart to visually know the problem statement, the nature of the problem, right? Is this an issue of fairness? That kind of thing. Um, and again, you could scaffold, so at first you just have a couple choices, and then it grows to something, um, much bigger. But this idea in general, what I wanna leave you with today, is this idea of discourse is important, and we can do this by, uh, changing the tools that we offer, whether that is the content we select, the way the prompt is phrased, a way that we're framing talking about it, uh, the purpose beyond the grade, right? And that we can talk about and discuss important issues or values that come up in fiction and nonfiction text. We could also talk about, uh, deliberation or focusing on a problem or issue rather than a text. Again, what is the problem? Is there a value underlying it? Um, what are the possible solutions? And analyze those. What's the good thing about that choice? And then, uh, pursuing a solution, considering, right, anyone, any implications. Is there anyone who might be hurt by the decision? So think about what you have coming up. What might be a really good kind of starter conversation? And think about if there is like an easy lift text that is like laden in a value that will come up again and again in the year, and try this out. Whether it is a text... Sorry, a text would be discussion-based, like he's talking about issue-based or, sorry, values-based, idea-based, or a deliberation that is issue or problem-based rather than a text. So either choice. Would love to hear what you come up with, would love to hear any challenges or questions that come up for you as you plan, and get excited for the rest of the season.
0 Comments
Listen to the episode by clicking the link to your preferred podcast platform below:
In this solo episode, host Lindsay explores how to reframe discussion prompts to enrich classroom dialogue. She draws on insights from her collaborative work with Dr. Eric Soto Shed around discourse and how to have discussions in various classrooms and around different current events.
The opportunity explored here is to develop different types and frames of prompts that help move beyond binary questions to facilitate deeper, more nuanced conversations in educational settings. Why? Binary prompts can limit student engagement and contribute to polarizing dialogues. Moving toward diverse question structures supports critical thinking, understanding, and inclusivity in discussions. What? When approaching discourse, particularly around high-emotion topics, Lindsay cautions educators to build up to it. Practicing discourse and learning skills around it are important first steps so your class is equipped to handle more polarizing or contentious topics as you move deeper into the course. With that in mind, here are some action steps educators can integrate into their discourse planning: Step 1: Notice your questions. Are they falling into specific categories? What’s the goal of the discourse? Consider if your questions are mostly binary, “Are you on this side or that side?” and consider if that leads to argumentation and defensiveness over open communication and sharing ideas. Step 2: Shift your questions based on goals. There are four ways we can move beyond the binary and spark better conversations:
Incorporate reframed prompts regularly to cultivate robust, empathetic dialogue and build essential communication skills in your classroom. To help you implement today’s takeaways, I’m sharing my Reframing Discourse Prompts with you for free. And, if you’re looking for more details on the ideas in this blog post, listen to episode 276 of the Time for Teachership podcast. If you’re unable to listen or you prefer to read the full episode, you can find the transcript below. Quotes:
If you enjoyed this episode, check out my YouTube channel where you can learn about more tips and resources like this one below:
TRANSCRIPT
Lindsay Lyons: Hello and welcome back to another episode of the "Time for Teachership" podcast. This is episode 276, my goodness, on reframing discussion prompts. Okay, so this, for some context, comes out of some work that Dr. Eric Soto Shed and I were doing with San Francisco Unified School District. Amazing work there happening around discourse and how to have discussions in various classrooms, around current events, around lots of things. And so we were talking and engaging in the need really, or the opportunity I suppose, presented itself that, you know, there's a lot in the prompt that we offer students to discuss, and staff honestly, to discuss. And what could that look like to envision different types or sentence frames of, and purposes I suppose, of prompts that would offer us kind of a reframe away from the binary of this or this, this side or this side, which often contributes to kind of polarizing conversation. So that's what we're getting into today. Okay, as we think about reframing discussion prompts, we want to move beyond a binary agree or disagree question for discussion or discourse that really promotes kind of the sense of dialogue, of inviting deep listening. It promotes the skill of seeking to understand other people in a conversation, whether that is in person, whether that is with students, with staff, with families, whether that is virtual, uh, social media, right? We, we need this as a skill, as a, uh, collective kind of community. Like, locally, nationally, globally, right? We, we would benefit from building this skill. And so, uh, this is particularly valuable for high-emotion topics that we talk about a lot on the podcast. Whatever that is, whether it's politics, current events, whether that is some sort of Interpersonal clash or repairing harm that has been done in a class community, this is valuable to have, which is why we're front-loading this in September. There are various things that could be coming up that we want you to just kind of be thinking about, um, as opportunities for discourse. Now, you are not gonna start the year with, "Here is this super hard, uh, difficult, high emotion, polarizing topic. We've never practiced discourse before. Here we go," right? That's not going to happen. But I often talk about how long it takes to come up with a really good prompt for discourse, and it is a long time. I mean, the minimum, I would say, is, like, two weeks, and I like to have two thought partners to kind of think about what those prompts, how those prompts may land for people, uh, help refine the language of them. Just have some thought partnership as well. So with that in mind, we wanna think about just starting to notice when we think of questions, what kind of categories do they fit in? What are the goals of that discourse? And is there a potential reframe if our gut instinct was to say this or this, right? Are you on this side or this side? Should we do this? Should we not do this? Which is a lot of social studies questions, to be quite honest with you. Like, a lot of questions that we say, uh, in deliberations, for example, which are about kind of coming to consensus typically or making a decision, those are like, "Do we do this or do we do this?" Or, "Here's the proposal. Is it a yes or is it a no?" And there is value to that. Not at all saying there's not. The, the thing that that does or the skill that that builds in us is argumentation, which I think particularly having coached and taught social studies for, you know, over 15 years now, that is, uh, something that we do more and we teach more and we coach more, and kids are actually, you know While they may not always find the evidence, they're quite good at saying, "Hey, here's my position, and I'm gonna stand here and defend it," right? Versus, "I'm going to seek to expand the way I think about this, deepen my understanding and complexity of the problem or the issue at hand, and r- really grow my thinking," which is what this episode is all about. So knowing that, uh, I will say a quick caveat, um, before we get into some of the examples. I noted that this idea of should, right, like, "Should we do this or this?" Is very common in social studies. And so to avoid that- Um, we have tried to take out all of the shoulds in these examples. However, um, if you find one and you want to replace it, you can totally use could, um, in place, right? So could we do something versus should we. Just invites a little more imagination and a little less structure. That said, um, one of the things that I've been reading about is that sometimes if there are too many options, particularly when this type of discussion and student voice and, you know, idea generation is not a common practice in their schooling experience, kids might shut down, and they might need just as a scaffold, as a stepping stone for their first discussion or two, a kind of a forced choice option, quote unquote, is the, it's often called in the social studies literature, where it's, "Yeah, here's your choice, this or this." Get practice and fluency in having this type of discussion, and then we'll really expand outward, which is where we wanna ultimately go. Okay, so I do wanna do wanna be in that. Okay, so here are the potential goals and shifts that we could make. If you have a kind of binary question, and you're like, "I wanna do something different with this. I want the whole kind of sh- shift to happen around the question." So we're still talking about the important topic, yes, but we're talking about it in a different way. So one goal could be critical analysis. So in this situation, you want people to think about maybe it's a policy, an idea, an action. You say, "Okay, I want you to think about the potential impacts if this happens. I'm not saying it should happen or it should not happen, like, that's not the question. But if it happens, what are the potential impacts that this action or policy could have?" Right? So we're getting really critical. We're analyzing, and we are maybe not ever coming to the point where we pick a side, although that certainly, I think, could be a nice culminating activity where there's this individual written or verbal presentation in, in terms of like, okay, now knowing all of this analysis has happened with the class discourse and getting all the ideas, here's where I land. But the goal of the discourse itself with the class, we're leveraging the brilliance and the diverse ideas in the, you know, 20 to 30 person group. That's to think about potential impacts, right? Or alternatively, you could say, like, "Here's this issue What are the root causes? So what are the various things that could have caused that? Because usually it's not just one, right? We do root cause analysis a lot in leadership and, and leading change, and we try to land on one root cause to tackle because that's, like, what the easiest thing to do is. But usually there are many, uh, causes that have deep roots, and so let's, you know, think about what those might be. Um, and then again, after the analysis, you can feel free to choose a position, but if the goal is critical analysis, the question's gonna be different, right? Okay, so that's one goal. Uh, let me share an example, I guess, right off the top. So if you are saying, okay, so here's this proposed immigration policy or maybe current immigration policy. It could also be, um, any sort of policy like, um, free and reduced lunch policy, um, zoning in our local community policy. It could be, um, gun control legislation policy. Well, whatever the policy is, right? Um, a critical analysis question might be what are the potential impacts of this policy, right? Or what is causing high rates of, for example, immigration or, um, gun violence or, like, whatever the focus topic is. So, like, why did there feel like there needed to be a policy about this, and, like, what is causing that thing, right, that is happening? Um, how does, whatever the topic, how does immigration impact our community, right? So what are the impacts of... So you could even analyze deeper, right? We're talking broadly about immigration. How does that impact our community, right? We're talking about whatever the topic is, um, rezoning, uh, having zoning in this way. Uh, how does that impact our community, right? So critical analysis, those are some example questions. Okay, policy. Policy questions would be the second potential goal or shift, and that would be to narrow the scope on how to address a factual reality. So this comes a bit from, um, Nichelle Pinkney and Joe Schmidt's book on Civil Discourse where I was reading that sometimes broad questions like, "What do you think about, you know, immigration?" Or, "What do you think about ICE?" Like, these are, like, really broad. They might bring up some really intense emotions, right? And that actually might inhibit the productivity or generativity of the, of the conversation because we're just in, like, fight or flight mode at that point, right? We don't wanna traumatize students. We don't wanna shut down students. It, it may be beneficial, and their, um, advice is to, like, think about a very specific situation that is happening. So we ground it in a factual reality, and then we think about what is a policy decision, right? That comes from Hess and McAvoy. Uh, they talk about the policy frame being really helpful, um, to address whatever the factual reality is. So if we say, um, their example, uh, Pinkney and Schmidt's example is, "What could we do about unaccompanied minors at the border?" So if there is this reality that there are a lot of unaccompanied minors at the border, what, what should be done about that, right? Again, I'm defaulting to should, but in the list we have the freebie for you with what could we do, and so then we're expansively thinking. Um, so we have this factual reality. This is a hard situation, right? There's a lot of tough things. Our students may or may not be directly implicated, so this may not be a good one for you to, to say to your students. It may cause a little too much trauma or hit too much close to home. But if you get the general gist of, right, like, this is the specific thing that's happening, what could we do about it, you could apply it to a variety of things. So, um, if the rezoning prompt for your local community is because your city is very, um, you know, it, it exists along a commuter rail, and we need to increase the housing capacity to grow our community because people wanna live here, um, we need to rezone to have more, um, affordable housing opportunities, right? Then, like, you could ask, like, what do we do about the fact that a lot of people wanna live here and there are not enough homes? Right? That's the factual reality. What can we do about it? So again, just, like, that frame is what we're kinda carrying over to different topics. Okay. The third goal or shift Could be to identify values. Here's what I mean by this, and there's a lot of potential here. I also do wanna say, we've talked about this in episodes before, that we wanna build up the value language. I really like values in action. Um, if you Google values in action, they have 24 character strengths on their website that are identified by positive psychologists that are great to just have as a word list, as, you know, posters in your classroom, whatever you want. A- and that's like a really good reference point. But you can co-create the values with students, you can do a lot of things. But once we've identified, like, names of values, which I think are... It's a great September activity, by the way. Uh, invite students to name what their own values are. Again, great introductory activity, whether you're doing this in a discussion, whether you're making art around this. I've done both. They're great, students like them. Um, and it's also, like, a critical thinking thing that really sets the stage for students to be able to identify values in others, or consider where their values intersect with a particular topic that they're discussing, or a character's actions that they are reading the book about. So identifying values would invite students at first to name their own values, right, and how those are at play in whatever the topic is, as well as community values. So either class values, school values, family values, um, city values, s- country or state values that are stated, um, and how th- those values should or could inform a policy So again, here we are thinking about kind of the self to community, so micro to macro, um, or macro to micro. So we're having students connect. We have to know ourselves first, right? What are my values? Identify the values in others, identify the stated values of the community, and then maybe compare them to how we live them out. Okay, well, these are our stated school values, right? But then when we look at this school policy, is that actually living out the values that are written on our website and that we have at the top of our documents? Like, or is it actually in conflict? Or maybe the stated school values are in line with all of our school policies, but they actually conflict directly with my values as an individual, and how do we remedy that, right? So that is a whole arc of things that you could talk about. So this idea of, uh, values identification, again, to go back to an immigration example, when you think about the idea of the impacts of immigration, what is the value that comes to mind? So you can also tell that a lot of these different questions p- fuel each other. So if you've done your critical analysis of what are the potential impacts of an immigration policy, you can pair that with a values identification prompt. So when you are thinking about this, as we're discussing and identifying impacts, what is the value that's front of mind for you? As you think about, uh, rezoning, as you think about gun control, right, what is the value that is most salient or most present for you as an individual? And, like, get that out there, because what that will do, typically, is to share your position from a place that is not attack and defend, like you're right, I'm right, you're wrong kind of thing. And it enables you to seek to understand another person's position. From a stance of, like, not attack and defend, but, like, this is where I'm coming from. Maybe this is an experience tied to those values. You get a lot more personal, and you get a lot less polarized when we can just identify values. Values are inherently, inherently, but not... I suppose they could be co-opted for sure. Uh, but values are typically a positive, right? A, a, a value, a thing that I find that is important, that is a good thing that all people should have and, you know, find important to some degree. Now, some values are more important than others for people, but typically it has kind of this, again, positive psychologists came up with this list of values. It is a positive thing. Um, so, you know, or what values would you want to inform our policy on immigration or rezoning or a- assessment for our school policy, right? Uh, those are some questions that center values in the prompt. Okay, and finally, the fourth one that we've come up with so far, please feel free to share more, of course. We'd love to add to this list. But the fourth goal away from the binary, um, is civic imagination. So really excited about this idea. We've talked about this in previous episodes before, but you're h- here what you're doing is you're inviting a brainstorm of alternative policies that affirm dignity. So yes, we have had, you know, examples of policy, but Let's just, like, shift the, the question. So away from something like, is this policy a good policy, right? Uh, w- instead of saying, is immigration, is this immigration policy a good immigration... a, a good policy, excuse me. We might say, how might we creatively illuminate the ways immigration has impacted our community, right? So we're even stepping outside there of the idea that we have to create a policy to, you know, shift... Like, we're, we're getting away almost from, like, a deficit mindset of like, oh, we're thinking about this, like, negative thing happening, and instead we're actually thinking about the positive. So we're civically imaginating... I- imaginating? Imagining the ways that immigration have positively, presumably positively impacted our community, and now you can share that. So, um, thinking about the artist JR and how there are just, like, images of people in s- communities and spaces that are put on the outside of walls that, okay, hey, like, people, human beings are living here, and, like, check out all of the faces of our community, right? Like, that's a civic imagination, um, example. How could we generatively engage community members in conversations about immigration? So that's another one, right? So we're civically imagining what is possible on the civic side of things to, um, discuss, have discourse or dialogue about, um, this phenomenon. How could the US support the freedom, safety, and economic opportunity of all its residents, right? So again, we are expanding there beyond just the sense of immigration, just to say, okay, well, in, in this immigration phenomenon, what people are seeking when immigrating is freedom, safety, and economic opportunity. So how do we provide that for all of, and again, language is really precise here, all of the US residents, people living in this space, right? You could even expand this out to say, like, how could the US support the freedom, safety, and economic opportunity of all people in the world, or in the Northern Hemisphere, or the, the North American continent? Th- there are a range of, you know, frames you could use. But I think the idea of, again, shifting to civic imagination, what could be possible, takes us out of that binary. Okay, we have talked about a lot of examples today. Um, there are far more examples in this Reframing Discussion Prompts freebies, um, that I'm gonna share with you. And so you can get that. Let me tell you where you can get that. You can get that at today's episode, which is going to be at lindsaybethlyons.com/blog/276 That will have the summary of the entire episode, a full transcript for accessibility, and, uh, this, this freebie. I do want to, again, extend an invitation to anyone who wants to either come on the show and talk about reframing. Like, if you have a discourse prompt in mind and you wanna grapple with it and language it and consider the purpose of it together with me on the show, happy to invite people on. If you would like to submit that in an email and be like, "Hey," you know, have, have another person come on who's a subject matter expert in whatever you teach, and like we'll do a, a show where you're not on but your idea is, is the central focus, absolutely, totally welcome. And if you have other ideas for how to reframe discussion prompts that are purposes beyond the four we listed here today, would absolutely love to have them. So please share anything that feels relevant, along with the, your typical questions and suggestions for episodes, and we'll talk to you next time. 
Listen to the episode by clicking the link to your preferred podcast platform below:
In this episode, we chat with Joe Schmidt and Nichelle Pinkney, co-authors of Civil Discourse: Classroom Conversations for Stronger Communities. The book connects current scholarship on civil discourse to meaningful, practical classroom practices.
Drawing on insights from their work and book, they speak on the necessity of fostering true discourse that values information sharing over a zero-sum game mentality and emphasize understanding as foundational to civil discourse and the importance of questioning and discussion in developing students' empathy and critical thinking. The Big Dream Joe and Nichelle envision a future where education centers around vibrant discussions and joyful learning. They dream of an educational landscape where students, despite varying backgrounds, engage in meaningful conversations that build empathy and understanding. Additionally, they aspire to empower educators to explore new teaching methods, thereby fostering a nurturing environment where learning is both a joy and a transformative experience. Mindset Shifts Required To foster a culture of civil discourse, teachers need to embrace the possibility of failure without fear. Both Joe and Nichelle stress the importance of understanding that not every discussion will go well. The topics and conversations are tough, and it might not always go according to plan. It’s crucial, then, to shift towards a mindset that values learning from missteps and encourages continuous growth. A second mindset shift is, “if not me, then who?” It’s an attitude of agency and embracing the opportunity ahead of you as an educator to bring positive change. Action Steps To start bringing meaningful civil discourse into your classroom, educators can start with these action steps. Step 1: Know your “why.” Why have civil discourse? Joe and Nichelle speak to the power of sharing ideas — we are better together than individually and sharing ideas is the best way to find the best possible solutions. Step 2: Identify a challenging topic or discussion you've been hesitant to address in your teaching practice. Reflect on the core concepts that students need to understand in order to engage meaningfully with this topic, and consider where their understanding has come from and what resources they’ve had access to so you can fill in the knowledge gaps. Step 3: Develop a comprehensive lesson plan that builds students' background knowledge and sets the stage for civil discourse. This should include building disciplinary concepts and defining essential ideas; for example, concepts like privacy, authority, rule of law, and other ideas are key when discussing contentious subjects and need to be brought into the planning. Step 4: When the groundwork has been laid — you know your “why” and are filling knowledge gaps — you can facilitate discussions in a structured way, practicing with non-contentious topics first to build students’ discourse skills. Use practical tools and patterns like sentence stems to structure the way these conversations go. Joe and Nichelle offer more practical strategies for discourse in their book. Challenges? One of the primary challenges in cultivating civil discourse is overcoming the fear of failure and our tendency to avoid contentious topics. Additionally, ensuring that all students have the necessary foundational knowledge to participate fully can be difficult, requiring a lot of preparation work. One Step to Get Started For educators feeling overwhelmed by where to begin, our guests suggest starting with "silly" but engaging topics like whether a hot dog is a sandwich or whether a straw has one or two holes. These seemingly simple debates can help students practice the skills of civil discourse in a low-stakes environment before moving on to more complex or contentious subjects. Stay Connected You can connect with Joe on Instagram, his website, or check out The Social Studies Field Guide. Connect with Nichelle on X or LinkedIn. To help you implement today’s takeaways, our guests are sharing Civil Discourse: Classroom Conversations for Stronger Communities with you for free. And, if you’re looking for more details on the ideas in this blog post, listen to episode 275 of the Time for Teachership podcast. If you’re unable to listen or you prefer to read the full episode, you can find the transcript below. Quotes:
If you enjoyed this episode, check out my YouTube channel where you can learn about more tips and resources like this one below:
TRANSCRIPT
Lindsay Lyons: Joe and Nichelle, welcome to the Time for Teachership podcast. Joe Schmidt: Well, thanks for having us. This is awesome. Nichelle Pinkney: Thanks for having us, Lindsey. Lindsay Lyons: Absolutely. Let's dive in by just, like, you know, what's something that people should keep in mind today? So having, you know, heard your bios both at the start of the episode, you know, what is either something else to keep in mind about you, something that's on your mind at the moment, um, anything that you want the audience to be aware of. Joe Schmidt: I think one thing that I think's always a big overarching takeaway for me that I feel like I've had to stress a lot lately or remind people a lot lately is I think we really need to just keep remembering that true discourse is an information sharing. It is not a zero-sum game. It is not a winner-take-all type stuff, and I think the more we can go into conversations with a goal of learning or acquiring new information, that doesn't mean having our minds changed, it doesn't mean agreeing with the other person. Uh, but just I think that mindset is something that you'll probably hear kind of threaded throughout a lot of my responses, um, coming up. But yeah, I think that's my big lead- Nichelle Pinkney: I would say under, in this time right now, understanding is really important. Understanding where everyone is coming from, where people's experiences, backgrounds, how they influence how we move in this world, and being able to acknowledge it, accept it, and being able to just live amongst it, 'cause that's what makes us so great. So I think if we keep that in mind, the idea of what is true understanding, what is true listening, I think, um, then that civil discourse becomes even better Lindsay Lyons: I love both of those framings, and I am just really excited for the audience. I'm, I've been talking about this book in other iterations on solo episodes and with other guests, but the book Civil Discourse that you both put together is brilliant and just such a testament for how to do all out of that, as well as, like, I thought a really great integration of both theory and practice. So like, what's the scholarship that informs it, and then how do you literally do it in the class? Um, so really excited to, to think about that today. And I think before we get to kind of the, the how or even the scholarship piece, I'd like to just zoom out a little bit and think about the, the big dream that you all hold for civil discourse or even education more broadly. Really inspired by Dr. Bettina Love's, um, ideas on freedom dreaming, which she describes as dreams grounded in the critique of injustice. So would love to know kind of what, what's that driving dream for you? Nichelle Pinkney: I would say my big dream that I hold for education right now most definitely is that, um, civil discourse and that idea that, like I said, that understanding that we are all from different backgrounds and places and experiences that are all, like, interwoven together to make something beautiful, and I think a lot of people have forgotten that. And so every day that I go to work, I used to say I became a teacher to make the world a better place, right? And then I was like, "Well, how am I doing that?" And, and now some, a lot of years later, it's the same thing, but I think it means even more now because that's my dream for education, that kids can have, um, that students have conversations, that students understand who's in the room, that students build empathy for people around the world. Like, I didn't, I didn't build that empathy until I went to college 'cause I was so surrounded by just everyone who looked like me. Um, and when I went away to college, I met girls, I went to a women's college, I met, um, women from India, from parts of the continent of Africa, from South America, like all of these different people and from different experiences and different things, and it just allowed me to build understanding and empathy for them that I would've never experienced if I hadn't left where I was from. And so I think for education, I just want kids, if they never can leave, right, they can still experience all of those things through grounded curriculum, grounded information that they can be able to see the world like that even though they may never get to leave their small town or different things like that. So there's a lot of pieces embe- embed- embedded into that Lindsay Lyons: That resonates. Nichelle Pinkney: Now my Joe Schmidt: dream I feel like I had so many answers, and I couldn't necessarily pick one, and I struggled for a moment. But after hearing Nichelle, I think if, what's my dream? That education is a joyful place for kids, for teachers. And that doesn't mean it's all play. That doesn't mean it's all easy. There can be joy in learning something you didn't know, doing something you couldn't do before. Um, and so I think if we can remember that or find more of that, I think s- would be my dream. And that's about, you know, as Nichelle said, finding others who are either the same as you and push your thinking or who are different than you and have a different experience and are able to push your thinking. And to find ways to look at things deeper and look at them differently, and feel like you can have those conversations and explore kind of those edges of what you know and kind of take a step into a place you haven't been before, but know that, like, if it's awesome, great. And if not, you know, there's kind of a, I can take that step back, and I'm in a s- you know, a supportive, um, community, a supportive learning environment where that growth can happen, I think would be my place, where kids are coming in to find that, and teachers feel like they can push their own learning, their own boundaries to try something new, um, and let that Like, that's a, I feel like that's a learning transfer cycle in there somewhere, right? The, the more the teachers are feeling equipped to push into new things that bring more joy to the classroom, the students are enjoying themselves more, and they're finding the joy, and they're wanting to do more, which empowers the teacher to get more into that and do more of that, and I think that would be a, a very glorious place to be. Lindsay Lyons: That's beautiful, and a great segue into what I was just gonna ask next. So usually I ask this question about mindset shifts, right? Like, what's a mindset shift required to do this work? And I am just thinking about, uh, you know, an audience member who may be engaging with this episode and have this voice in their head about all of the reasons that it might be hard to have civil discourse in their class, and you all touch on that in the book. Just wondering if you wanna bring here, like, maybe a challenge and then, like, a mindset shift, uh, that enables teachers to take on this work Joe Schmidt: Yeah, I mean, I think it's really important, a mind shift. It's not always gonna go well. Like, and that has to be okay. I remember in the early years in the classroom, I just started having the, like, these type of conversations. And I don't know why. I guess maybe 'cause it brought me joy, and I saw in the students. And I remember in those first couple years multiple times, like like the things kinda, like, going off the rails, and I'm like, "Ugh, this is, this is why I'm gonna get fired, huh? Like, it's this conversation." Or it's like And it wasn't necessarily the topic, but it's just like, that didn't go. And I actually, um, I did a welcome speech at, um, the local, uh, teacher awards, um, event last night, and I talked about, you know, in the classroom tho- the feelings we have when the, the lesson plans go well, but we also know a bunch of them don't go well. And that's, that's okay. Um, and I used the quote, I don't remember who says it, that teaching is, um, now I'm paraphrasing, teaching is, like, the eternal optimistic job. It's the greatest, uh, job of optimism or show of optimism. And I think that's, like, that understanding, that permission, just 'cause something doesn't go well, that becomes then a learning experience. I learned from this yesterday, so I'm gonna change this. And I think you have to have that mindset, uh, especially, you know, educators tend to, I'll speak in a very broad scope, educators tend to be people who enjoyed school. They, they were good at school, right? Like, they went and got more. They went to college for more schooling like And understanding that if you were always, like, that A student, you might not handle a failure really well, or if a kid doesn't react the way you want, or if a kid acts inappropriately, like, that's okay. That's part of that, that growth. And I think that mindset that you're dealing with, you know, dozens of kids for, you know, 180 days or whatever a year, they're not all gonna go great, and every lesson plan is gonna be perfect. And when I taught elementary methods, I used to tell, uh, the students, like, once you get a hang of it, you'll still need to figure, like, 20% of your stuff needs to be adapted or updated or thrown out because that, I think that's that freshness, but maybe that's a little bit of the joy as well, right? You go out, you learn something new. Where does this fit? Or that didn't work really well last year. Aha, I can grow as a teacher. I can grow as a professional. I can do this more. So yeah, absolutely, that's something I felt like I tried to get across when writing the book that, yeah, no, we messed up. Like, we tried these things, and we are not here to wag the finger and say, "Just do this, it's so easy," 'cause it is not. Nichelle Pinkney: And I was gonna say, um The mindset shift, if not me, then who? That idea. So like, um, oftentimes because it's so much, we're like, "Well, I can't do that," or, or, "It's not, it's not... I don't have enough room in my, um, in my standards," or, "I don't have enough room here." And so to make that dream come true, you eventually have to come to this point of, if I don't do it, who's going to do it? And then if that person doesn't do it, then who's gonna do it? So we build this perpetual, um, circle of, well, it wasn't my turn to do it, someone else's turn. It's my turn now. I have a twin, so we often used to get growing up like, "Well, it's not my turn to make the bed." Well then the bed never got made, right? And so if, if we really want this dream of what everyone, when you ask anyone who's in education why they're there, it's always along the lines of kind of what Joe said. "I want them to love," blah, blah, blah, blah, "as much as I did," right? But if you're not there, then who? And so, um, and Joe said this one time, and I was like, "Oh my God, that's it." So if I'm not gonna be the one to help make this dream come true, then who else is? And then how, how am I gonna go about doing that? So if I'm in... I'm from a s- I'm from a small town in Texas, and so if my teachers didn't say, "This girl says she wants to go to college," if I don't put the application on her desk, then who else is gonna tell her that she can go? 'Cause she was- she's a first generation. If that lady didn't say, "Here, you know, you could go to this school," where would I be? And so as a educator, as a leader even now, when I sit in meetings and I go through things and I'm like, "Well, if I'm not gonna do it, who's gonna do it? Like, who am I gonna wait for to do it?" So then let's not take that approach anymore. Let's say, "Nope, this is my opportunity to do it." Now, what does it look like? How? And then taking on, like what Joe said, it may not be perfect when I do it. But that doesn't mean I g- don't do it now, then that next person has to do it means, nope, I gotta go back to the drawing board. 'Cause we also are in a place of people are afraid to fail. So it's not my job, or somebody else has to do it but we don't know who that person is. And then what if I suck at it? Then now kids are gonna fail. And so the mindset shift I would tell them to take is what Joe just said. Hey, it may- it's not gonna be perfect, 'cause we most definitely weren't. And then the other thing is if we don't do it, then who's gonna do it? We're gonna live in a place of no one's done it, and then it's not what we expect. Lindsay Lyons: Mm. Yeah, and those conversations are out there. Like, we don't need them, like, radicalized on YouTube or something. You know? Like, there's like places that have the conversations that are not, like, safe and supportive and so school is that place. Yeah. Oh, both of those points really resonate. So now I wanna shift to kind of how we do this, and y- I mean, your book is so comprehensive. I wanted to shout out just like a few things and maybe get to some pieces that I really enjoyed and have been thinking about since reading it. So one of those I think is really, like, the purpose of discourse. Like, why have- the contentious conversation in the first place. Um, and I, I love that you had... I just wanna shout out a couple of things, though. You had this quote from, I'm gonna try to make sure I say it correctly, from the Metropolitan State University of Denver, "In dialogue, one submits one best- one's best thinking, knowing that other people's reflections will help improve it rather than destroy it." Mind-blowing, huge, loved that. And then I also really like that you shared specific talk moves. I mean, we've seen a ton of sentence frames in classes before, but these I thought were really intentional to grow the thinking. What blank said challenged my thinking because, or changed my thinking because, or confirmed my thinking because. So those are the two nuggets that are resonating in this kind of category of, like, why we have this discourse and how we kind of create that culture. Do you wanna add anything else about kind of contentious conversations or discourse more broadly like that? Joe Schmidt: I will say that quote, that first quote that you threw out there, um, reminds me of something that's in the book, and I find myself quoting us all the time, but I actually don't know where it's found in the book. I think it's early in the book. Um, but the idea that by excluding people or not having conversations, that somehow we're gonna get to the best possible idea is, uh, like that's... I don't... H- how can we think that, like, that's a thing? Yeah, there... You don't, you don't have to agree with everybody. Your idea doesn't have to win, right? Back to that idea, like, it, it's okay for me to not have this. But if you're like, "Okay, between the three of us, we have all the knowledge," and thinking that the three of us are gonna be better than the five of us, or the seven of us, or the 20 of us, or like, I... We just can't, um, ha- And I used to have a, a mentor, a professional mentor, and I did a TED-style talk for NCSS a couple years ago, and the title was None of Us Are As Smart As All Of Us. And I remember the first time Harris Payne, shout out to Harris Payne, told me that, and that resonated, right? It, like, you get into that part. So yeah, the best way to get to the best answer is to put ideas on the table, have people critique them. It's something I spend a lot of time working on with my team right now, right? Like, let's have the talk, and let's be willing to hear it, but where's the place that we're coming from, right? Are we coming from an attack? Am I trying to show Nichelle that I'm smarter than her? Am I trying to win? Again, we're back to that same thread. Or am I trying to improve Nichelle's idea? Am I willing to withdraw and be like, "I have a good idea," and then Nichelle's like, "I have one," and I'm gonna be like, "Nah, yours is way better," right? And then is she willing to maybe hear something from you, Lindsay, that makes it, even if we keep her core idea, is she willing to hear something that's a little, that makes it a little bit better? Let's take out that little part and put, put in that part. I think, again, part of that mind shift, but then part of some of those structures we put in place that are very intentional about setting up the speaking and listening and feedback components to the conversation. Uh, it will probably surprise nobody at all listening to this or anybody who definitely knows me, like, if you give me a microphone and an hour, I'll fill the hour, right? But that's, that's not the back and forth. You have to s- be able to step back and have the pauses and hear the more information and process that, which I think is, uh, um, hard for a lot of people. Nichelle Pinkney: And I think those, those frames help, like what Joe said, those frames, those same frames that you shared help because a lot of times people feel like, "Oh, I don't agree with what they said," but they can't tell you what because they weren't listening. Um, and so that idea of that discourse, um, I am not listening to hear you, I am listening to respond. Um, or not even respond, just disagree, but I'm listening. So because I'm listening and I'm... If I'm using those frames, like in a classroom, we use those frames. Um, when I do teacher trainings with all my teachers here, we use those frames. Like, "Don't tell me I don't agree with this. What part don't you agree with?" "Well, I don't know." "Well, let's go back." Okay. Um, let's look at, um, what we have in front of us. Let's look at what was discussed. Because now we're pinpointing, um, things, and it's not breaking apart. It's not breaking it apart, but it's more or less so we can address it so that we can be on the same page. When you teach it in a classroom, it's so that we can make sure what primary and secondary sources we're utilizing are tied to and we're understanding it, right? With normal conversations that we're trying to understand in debates or in different arenas is, once again, to make sure that we have built that understanding and clarity before we say we just automatically disagree. So those frames help to be able to pinpoint and articulate what we're looking at. And I just think it also, um, I remember in the classroom, it just allowed people to take a moment, 'cause you couldn't just jump up and be like, "Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah," like you had to have to say, "I did not like... I didn't agree with this statement here because it made me think of this." And so now you're even, what, once again, building understanding for those other people that's like, "Oh," um, and how many times have you been in a conversation and someone says, "Oh, I didn't mean it like that. That's not what I meant by that statement," or, "When I said this, I was more or less referring to this component," and then it just changes. Like how you said, "Oh, well let me make sure I get that quote right," or Joe just said, "Oh, let me... Um, it's a quote. Well, now I'm paraphrasing." So like he even autocorrected so that it c- it can phrase out with that discourse to ensure that it's there. I love those two things you pointed out, 'cause I was like, "Okay, where are we going with this?" And then when you said it, I was like, "Oh, that's it." So those conver- But people don't use those type of frames. Like, they're like, um, "I heard you say," and then they just start talking or, "I think this," not making it where you had to listen. You can't just respond. You have to listen and point out where you got it from, and then add your point. So it just builds that I heard you, I understand you, this is what I think. It just allows everyone to have a voice in the space. Joe Schmidt: And I will often, like, acknowledge when doing trainings on this, like it feels a little stilted, it feels a little choppy sometime, right? I just wanna jump in and be like, "No, N- Nichelle, uh, I- I'll... I'm sorry, uh, when you said that it challenged my thinking..." C- And yeah, let's acknowledge that. But like the analogy I make is, you know, people, I think for the most part, are worried about like the boil over, the things blowing up in the classroom. And by imagining there, it's like really hard for things to boil over when you keep almost kinda chopping, like having kids get into that, right? Like even just the, "Oh, I can't believe Nichelle would say that. I have thoughts." And you're like, "Use your sentence stem." And now they have to, they have to turn their brain almost off of emotional mode, go back into this thing, look at, "Okay, um, okay, now, uh, what was the thing? Okay, um, mm, uh, okay." And it's, that's still, it might feel a little stilted, and kids get better at it, right? It's just like anything else when they practice, but I feel like it almost does intentionally bring down the temperature of a comment and helps slow things down, which I think are super important when you're dealing with some of the most contentious, um, topics Lindsay Lyons: That makes so much sense, and it, it connects to... I just read Marie Nichols' book, um, Building Better Ideas, B- Bigger Ideas maybe. And one of the things she says for, like, purposeful discourse or whatever she calls it, is that you need to have a range of ideas and diverse perspectives to grow the thinking. And what I think for me, what resonated about these three sentence frames different from others, is that it's all about growing the thinking, right? It's like, what was my initial thinking? What did that person say? To Nichelle's point, I listened really deeply, b- but then I had to come back and, to Joe's point, pause and reflect before speaking or responding, and integrate it or figure out how it fits with my initial thinking, which is, like, very purposeful and feels very distinct from, Nichelle, the one you said, like, I agree with because, or, or I agree with you or I disagree with you, just straight up. So yeah, this feels really good and, and intentional as opposed to just, like, oh, I was told I needed to use sentence starters or frames. I also was thinking in the kind of framing of questions, this is kind of my favorite part of e- all of education, I think, like discourse is, but then even more narrow, the framing. So you guys shared several examples in your book of how narrowing may actually bring down the temperature and, like, having a specific, like, policy-focused question about a factual thing that's happening in the world could actually be better for conversation than this, like, big amorphous, perhaps very intense high emotion thing. And I am really curious to just get your thoughts on, like, any tips you have for question framing, uh, around, like, what's the question we pose to students? That would be really exciting. Joe Schmidt: Yeah, Lindsay, I knew we were gonna be best friends. I tell people, like, writing questions could be like a hobby. Like anybody who wants to, like, write compell- I'll sit with you all day. I love that. Um, but there is such a difference between those big open arch compelling questions and then as you're talking about, like this narrowing down because I think what it very intentionally does is, I think so often we talk past one another. We haven't really figured out the thing we're disagreeing on. Um, and I'll give the example where this really resonated with me. Nate Odie, um, one of the co-founders of Thinker Analytics, first saw him, I don't know, probably a decade ago now, and he talked about, um, being a Peyton Manning fan but attending school in Massachusetts, right? During Tom Brady. And they would have these huge arguments, who is, who was the GOAT, Tom Brady or Peyton Manning? And they go, "Well, Tom Brady has more Super Bowls." "Well, Peyton Manning has more yards." I mean, this is before Brady had all the stuff. They go back and forth, and he said it dawned on him they weren't arguing W- w- who the GOAT was, the greatest of all time. They were arguing, how did you define it? The argument was, is it most Super Bowls? Is it most touchdowns? Is it most... So just by figuring out what is the thing you're actually talking about, if you have a really big question, Nichelle could say something that's true. I could say something that contradicts it and true. And then we both feel like we're doing something, but then she's like, she's like, "No, but you don't understand." And I'm like, "No, no, no, but you don't..." We're not getting anywhere. And so that narrowing down helps us to figure out, because that's what we're pulling on. We're pulling on usually a pretty clear thing, but oftentimes we envelop it in a big, vague discussion statement, which is great for crafting a unit. But when you're having a discussion, it's really hard for people to react back and forth. If it's a really big question that has 10,000 right answers, well then I don't know, how do we, how do we kind of work through that? We're just basically all saying our truths separately Nichelle Pinkney: So I think it's grounded, um, some of the, um, work that, um, I did previously with, um, Julie Stern was really around, like, the questions you asked, right? And, um, in her Learning That Transfer book, she talks about, like, um, her different model where you have to acquire what you're thinking, and then from there the, all the, the concepts that you know, and then all those things. And so when I think about strong questions, I used to think I wrote really good questions when I first started teaching, and then when I started reading her work, I was like, "They're not good questions. That's why I'm not getting the discourse that I want from it." So I started, like Joe just said, that idea of what are we talking about first, because a lot of times you- people, you ask a question and they're like, "Oh, I got an answer," right? Versus, like, breaking it up and thinking about it so that you can have that conversation. So in the book, um, we talk about just different ways to get people prepared to have discourse so that they can, though. Like, um, I work in an area where a lot of students don't have a lot of experiences. And so because they don't, before we have a lot of discourse planned within our curriculum, we are doing a lot of building of prior knowledge because I, um, some of the things the kids know currently are things that they see, um... I hate to s- uh, not that TikTok is a, you know, a bandy, but that's what they, that's where they are. TikTok or Instagram. I'm gonna go with what my, my 13-year-old, uh, 14, sorry, 14-year-old does. TikTok, Instagram, all that stuff, right? And so all of their knowledge is from that. So when first I wanna build that background knowledge so then when I ask you a question, you have knowledge of the things I'm asking to be able to give me an answer or have some actual discourse about it. And I think a lot of times, so in building that strong question, also having the things or the resources so that people can have the knowledge to be able to respond, and a knowledge that's not just centered around just their nucleus, I guess you can say, or their area where they are. Yeah, that's, that's what he said, yeah. So, like, I know more, um, he gave those examples, the football example. Me and Joe both love sports. I just wanna point that out. We do have a chat that we go back and forth about these. So if you... But if you don't know anything about those two people, you'd have to preface, like, "Okay, so Peyton Manning was, um, here between these years and these years. Here's a little background on him. Here's a little background on him." And then you get to really have the conversation. Then you bring in people who don't know sports, right? They're like, "Now I can have a conversation," or at least know what they're talking about, versus when me and Joe go together back and forth, especially during basketball season, like, "No, no, no." Like, and you're like, "What are they talking about?" But you built that background knowledge for somebody else to at least jump in so that it won't get too intense. So I think those solid questions, but then also building the, um, what do we call it, Joe? The source. Um, the primary source- I don't know what we call it, the packet, the information for them to be able to have the conversation so that they're not just going off of, um, other people's ideas and being... Yeah. Joe Schmidt: You got tech set, Michelle? Nichelle Pinkney: Yes. And we'll create that one. I was like, what is that thing called? You, you can see, if, if people can see us, my hands are like, "What is it called?" Lindsay Lyons: Yeah, 100%. And it's making me think about what a beautiful blend, like a factual-based text set is with different people's experiences and lens, which are also valuable. So I'm thinking about that exact question of like, okay, who's the GOAT? Like, I, as maybe a person who doesn't watch football as much, might think about the value of role models in general and be like, "Well, I also think your actions off the field are equally important." So like, let's l- you know, there's so many areas you can explore, and you need that factual grounding and like the stats and the, what these people did and how they live to be able to have those different lenses come in, which is so cool. Nichelle Pinkney: We do, like, um, one of the lessons, I, I did it one year at nine. I probably have it throughout every grade level. My curriculum just looks different. We do like the report cards of like, in my state, they give like standards, and in the standards, there's like people named and you're like, "How do we study these people that are not connected at all?" Like, they're just not. In lower grades, some higher grades, they may be a little more connected. And so we just do like this report card thing, and it just looks different at each grade level. Like younger grade levels, they may do emojis with smiley faces thing, but they have to determine, like you said, like if he's really, if this person's really the GOAT, it's determined by what? By, by these actions, by these actions, by these actions. Same thing with people getting in the conversations with the basketball players, you know? Like what determines if like their involvement in the community? Do we count that or do we just count what they're doing on the field or on the court? Like all these components so that we are speaking the same language about what we're talking about before we even have the discussion. So yeah. Lindsay Lyons: You know, another thing I'm thinking about too is this idea of like connecting to broader disciplinary concepts which you all brought in. I think you had listed a bunch. Okay, so I have that list here if you want me to read it, but you were saying that, you know, there's some key concepts that are really helpful to know, and I think you used the word essential even, to know when talking about contentious topics. And so things like privacy, authority, rule of law, role and size of government, alliances. Like these are just these disciplinary concepts that we have to kind of build and thread over time. And so I'm so curious to know if you have any kind of like tips or feedback for a teacher who is wanting to build those disciplinary concepts and maybe looking to, you know, current events or some sort of framing to dig into these a little bit deeper. Um, is there any sort of like, I like sometimes I like disciplinary concepts or lenses that have acronyms or are easy to remember, or like what should they consider when introducing and using and encouraging students to use the disciplinary concepts in these conversations? Nichelle Pinkney: So when, um, and I'm, I'm, I'm gonna shout her out again because that's how I got better with using concepts and using them throughout units, was when I worked, um, did some work for Julie Starn. And she's big on conceptual thinking and big on transfer thinking. And so one of the things was that first stage is all about acquiring what it means. Um, a lot of times we don't know what we don't know what it means. Um, some of the terms are just thrown out. The... and different audiences have different definitions of what those things mean. Um, I watch the news daily and I'm like, "Oh, that is not what I thought that was defined as," but we have a new definition right now. And so the first thing would be, how is it defined? Um, very old school model, but it's something that works. I, I say it's a Frayer Model, but we do different parts of the Frayer Model for kids to actually know, like when we use the term freedom, this is our, this, this concept of freedom, this is what we mean when we say freedom. This is, this is, when we use it in context in this class, this is what we're gonna use it as. Um, if I'm teaching a colonial history course, the definition of what freedom was in one point of history compared to another point of history is completely different. That's actually a good question to even drive, like, a whole course is. Like, what, how does, how has freedom evolved over time? And actually building that, those definitions of what it is. 'Cause a lot of times we don't have a common definition. Um, me and Joe both talked about, like, it's speaking the same language. Like, that is really crucial in understanding disciplinary themes and, and, um, concepts, making sure that we know how we define it in... And I almost think it's in time and perspective, 'cause a lot of times we look at a lot of issues in history from our lens right now- Um, and doesn't change the events that happened, it's just it was a different lens. Um, um, on this call currently, myself and Lindsay would've had a different lens, um, of certain issues at different times in history. But we have similar lenses now because of where we are in time and space. Um, so I used to always start off my history class, we would define time, we would define space, um, on purpose, because understanding time is, like, really huge. Um, I also used to, um, I used to teach a sociology class, and in there we would talk, we'd define race, gender, and all this. So then kids would leave out talking about, "Oh, well, that's a social construct," and teachers would be like, "What?" And we would just build these themes to, um... You can tell I have a sociology degree. Um, you can build these themes, what is class, what is gen- like, all of these things. So these themes I just think we, a lot of times we build on vocabulary that we think kids, "Oh, they don't know this, they don't know this," but we build those big concepts which are normally found in state standards or, um, when- if you teach AP courses, they give you those themes at the beginning. It... Like, all those different places, they're there to allow you to say, "We're gonna say this. Our course is framed in these themes, and we're gonna define them. And then as we go back, we're gonna... Everything we do, we're gonna go back to those themes and those, and those, um..." So just really being able to define it. I think a lot of times we don't, we just keep moving. We assume people know. Um, especially in the school system, we assume... What did I say earlier? We assume that the person before them taught them. We assume the person before them taught them. And, "Well, you should've learned that." No, let's start from the ve- very beginning. What is government? What is, what is democracy? What is republic? "Oh, we learned that in such and such grade." Okay, well let's, let's see if we all got the same definition, okay? So 'cause, or in this class, this is what we're gonna use to define it Joe Schmidt: I was sitting, I'm completely blanking, Nichelle. You blanked on text set earlier. I'm thinking about, is it GUIDE? What is the acronym that you used and said... Okay, that's what I thought it was, but I was trying to... Like, I think there's such a great in there, in the book. Uh, so I might just turn it back over to Nichelle, 'cause clearly I don't remember it well enough. I tried to think what the GUIDE is, but it's like setting the stage to get to these things, but it's that shared understanding. You know, it's that second step, like we're gonna give you some of this knowledge, but if you don't have a shared understa- you can't continue if, if nobody knows. And so I don't know, Nichelle, I don't know if you wanna go deeper into that GUIDE idea. It's one of those little things, like do this and you should be okay. Nichelle Pinkney: So this gonna make us laugh. I went through talking about it 'cause I could not remember the letters I used. You should. I was like, "Oh my God." I was like, "Well, then we're just gonna talk through the process." So yes, so what I just talked through was the guiding process. It's that idea that we, that we build this stuff, that we build it ahead of time because a lot of times... And I, when I came up with that, I, where I taught or where I spent most of my years in education, I had really strong students, they just didn't have experiences. 'Cause experiences build you to be, um, to be able to have conversations, right? Like, we're having these conversations. Who knows h- how, what type of experiences on this call, right, like, for us to have these conversations, right? From the books we read to all those different things, but we built, um, this schema of knowledge, right? And so what happens when we're talking in a K through 12 class, depending on where you are, that schema isn't built. So it's our job to build that schema. And so in a social studies class, it looks different than if I'm in a math class or anywhere or a science class, right? So I have to first of all give that information for them to be able to say, "This is what we're gonna do." So I'm gonna give you that question, I'm gonna build that understanding utilizing text sets, right? And then I'm gonna let you explore and investigate and inquire about what's in those text sets. And, and this place I always used to... I was a Post-It queen or just cut up scrap paper queen. Um, um, and that idea where you didn't have to write the questions, you didn't have to ask questions out loud, they could've been on paper. I used to move around the room and pick up the sticky notes and be like, "Oh my God, somebody asked this question about this. Well, does anyone have an answer for that?" And, and so it was gotten to a point where students wanted to ask questions because they didn't have to ask them openly, right? I never said, "Joe's table asked this question. Anybody got something?" "No, y'all, as I was walking around, I picked this up. Somebody asked this question." And very rarely did people say, "That was mine, that was mine." But you could see kids, like, put their head up like, "Oh, that was me," and then they put their head down, like, waiting for an answer, right? And so then from there, then they got to build their knowledge. Like, they get to prepare, like, what am I gonna answer, 'cause a lot of times teachers wanna have a discussion and there's no preparation. There's just no preparation. And I, me and Joe will tell you that's when the, the wheels fall off. That's when the rail... I mean, that's when it just all goes up. And letting people, like, map it out, what do I wanna talk about, what I wanna do. And then I said something in that guide that a lot of people were like, "Wait." I was like, at the end, if you have a student who's just like, "I've done all this work, I've read it, I understand it, I did all this, but, um, Ms. Pinckney, is it okay if I just sit back? I really don't wanna have the discussion. I get it. I'm just not that kid." I was like, "Oh, yep, that's fine. Uh, so what I want you to do is just sit back and just take some more notes, see if you can build upon what you think, add to what you wrote." And they didn't get a lower grade. But why didn't they do a lower grade? Because they did all this other stuff leading up to this component. So did I grow their knowledge? Yes. Did they learn new things? Yes. Did they do all... And, and it just works. Then you have some students, I had a student, he was not good at writing all the stuff down, but he did go through and read it. He did do this. He just loved the oratorical part of the course. So did he get a lower grade because of the kid who was like, "I do not wanna talk. I wanna do all this writing"? No. They probably did just the same because they did get to expand their knowledge, 'cause the whole point is to expand your knowledge, build your understanding, build your empathy for people. It is not to, like Joe said, um, not always win, like, or change somebody's mind for the rest of their lives. Like, that's not the goal. It's just to build understanding and empathy for all the people that are within our world and our community Joe Schmidt: Yeah, I think it's important, I feel myself pointing out a lot that the discourse strategies are chapter five of the book, and that's intentional, right? You shouldn't just jump into it. And I have been contacted by people who's like, "Can you come in and do this 45-minute training about how..." I'm like, "No, because I'm not just gonna demonstrate a strategy," 'cause that you- there are so many other things to do it. If you're looking at the GUIDE acronym, it's D is that day of d- like, that's the fourth step. Like, there's so much into there, and I'm glad Nichelle brought up that exit strategy, 'cause I think that's a really important part. One, because I don't want myself or to have any teacher having to try to, like, litigate the truth around, like, someone's trauma. Like, let's talk about this highly contentious thing, and if a student's like, "I don't, I don't feel comfortable," having to be like, "Oh, yeah, you, yeah, you are." Like, why? If they don't wanna do it... But then I think it pushes back to the teacher. Why are you having this discussion? Right? Does, does this fit? Did you plan on something, or did you just kind of wake up on Tuesday like, "Um, we should have this discussion," and, "Well, if that kid doesn't participate, then I don't know how to grade them," then that might not be a, a good approach, right? Have you been getting that information together? Have you been building a shared understanding? Have you had kids kind of wrestling with some of the stuff? Like, okay, well, what's your understanding of fill in the blank? Okay, well go, you know, here's a text set, here's some articles. Where do you see this reflected in different places? Do you see differing points of view? Can you find the, the pro and the con? Can you find the yes and the no? Can you find some trends? Like, what type of people or organizations or political parties or athlete or whatever tends to say yes and tends to say no, and can you kind of lay that out and see the bigger framework? And then how are you assessing their learning? Is it really just, well, we've got this 45-minute talk time, you ha- need to raise your hand three times? And it's like, no. Like, g- what's the reflection? I, you know, I love having the assessments for a discussion be like, "Okay, we've done this. I'm not grading you on whether you talked or how many times you talked. If I've given you a structure, if we've done a structured academic controversy, there's things you had to bring into it, and I'm kind of watching the moves. We're going from there." But then questions like, "Okay, what was the best, um, argument you heard somebody from the other side make? And why do you think that was the best one? What's the best argument your side didn't make? What is the best argument the other side didn't make that you would have," right? And this-- And I don't know if anything's AI-proof nowadays, but I, like, I don't know how you then go into AI and be like, "I just finished a 45-minute discussion. What was the best argument the other side didn't make?" Well, I mean, I guess the AI could list, well, like, were these 10 things talked about? But they're-- Like, no, that's not one. Okay, like I guess there's ways around it, but at some point you're putting almost more effort in learning into... You know, if you're like, "Well, I'm gonna put in all my notes." Great. Put in all the notes you took from the discussion into AI to like, okay, they still did some learning in there. But thinking through, like if I know how I'm getting to the discussion day, the discourse day, and I have this reflection piece not being assessed on number of times you talked. Like if you can build all that out and you understand why and where it fits, you know, that, that pre-knowledge, um, you know, I think it's a like little bit of a heat check when you're like, "Oh, well, this happened in the news. My kids want to talk about it." I'm like, "Well, does it fit in your curriculum? Do they have the background knowledge?" Because if they don't have the background knowledge, you haven't taught it, and now it seems awkward that you're gonna do this hard left into this discussion about a topic. You might be out of the sandbox. I always tell teachers like, "You do have to stay within the sandbox." Now there's, there's things in there, right? There's different ways to approach a lot of different topics. But like if all of a sudden you're like, "All right, well, before we get back to the Greeks and Romans, let's talk about this completely like..." Mm, like might not be there. And so again, that's just another way. As you're starting to build it, what are the key concepts they're gonna need to know? And if you're like, "Oh, well, we've already talked about these things," cool. You're probably working from a good place. If you're like, "Well, they're gonna need to know this," and they don't have a clue, you might want to just pause for a minute and consider if this is relevant for the class. Lindsay Lyons: That makes total sense. And just to kind of synthesize what you were both saying is just thinking about, like, the quiet listener who is, you know, silent for the entire duration, but doing all of the thinking work. I think that that person, in addition, Joe, to some of the questions that you said, like, "What's the best argument that the other side made or didn't make?" Like, I think also they could just be a really good synthesizer. Usually the listeners are such good synthesizers. Like, oh, here are the two, to your, your point about themes or trends, like, here are the two trends in conversation, and here's the main point of disagreement. And actually, you guys agree about these things. Like, there's so much value there that we just forget about when we're trying to go to assess. It's like, oh, that kid, that kid could summarize the whole thing for us. Um, so I could talk to you guys all day long, and I'm recognizing that our time is limited, so, um, I'm going to do kind of like a lightning round of final questions if that works for you. And we'll do kind of like one thing that you would either encourage the audience to do once they end the episode, like a good starter step for kind of teaching in this way, or just like a key idea you want them to hang onto. Either approach Joe Schmidt: I would say a first step, um, when I do trainings on this is to ask people to find something you're gonna be teaching in the next two, three, four weeks, something coming up, something that maybe gives you a little bit of the butterflies 'cause you're like, "Oh, this didn't go well last year," or, "I'm nervous that it might go like..." Because... And start thinking about it now. Like, grab that topic. What's the question you want kids to wrestle with? What would they need to know in order to wrestle with that, right, to build that base? Where is it fitting? And let's make sure our instruction fits it. What are the resources you want them to give? As Nichelle was saying earlier, right, that text set. You wanna help kind of bring it into a spot. We're reading these primary sources. We're reading these news articles. I used to tell my students, like, I would give them these handouts, and I'd say, "You have to point at it." And if you can't point at what you're referencing, then, right... And I don't want you saying, "Well, I saw this TikTok video," or, "I saw..." I'm like, "No, no, no, no, no. We have... I built you this text set. You are pulling from this or you are quoting," like one of those C3s, "Well, what I heard Lindsay say is this," and that you need to tie it to that. So then start to think about that longer term plan. Like, I wanna do that topic better. I want them to think about it this way. I need to teach them these concepts, and here's the diverse multi-viewpoint set I want them to wrestle with. So then that almost becomes like, well, on, on the Monday then I need to pose this question and see where they're at, and Tuesday give them that background knowledge, and Wednesday give them that text set with the time to explore on it, and Thursday we're gonna have the activity, and Friday we're gonna do the... Oh, okay. Well, now that fits into a something where you're starting to think about I pulled it from my curriculum, it's doing these alignments, I'm reading these key things, I know these concepts, and starting to go for that. So if you just, I would say, start from there. What's the thing you're like, "I don't know about this," think through that lens. Nichelle Pinkney: So, and I'm just gonna, I'm gonna piggyback on Joe's 'cause I would've said the same thing, like picking a topic. Especially it's at the... You're close to the end of the school year. You listen to this and you're like, "Well, how can I do this?" What Joe just talked about is building their empathy muscle, like, uh, helping them to become good at inquiry. So like, you're like, at the end of this, "Oh no, I haven't done any real discourse all year." And if you took my words at the beginning, Nichelle said, "If not me, then who?" I just made it then who 'cause I didn't do it this year. Um, I'm gonna tell you to go to chapter four where we use some of those Joe's favorite ones. Is a hot dog a sandwich? Something super, super non-content based, but it teaches students the process of how to think through and answer and have conversations with people, so build their empathetic muscles. And so that would be the first step 'cause we're, we're in May. You're almost at the end. Don't go... Well, I don't want you to go and do something crazy. Do something small first, then go to the next one. So use some of those examples with... There's multiples in the book on those little, um, uh, safe, but I call them silly questions that you could do. Um, um, which superpower would you want more, to be able to see the future or, I don't know, fly or do... Like, those things, and then have students... Like, and then give them the text set on, like, what does it mean to see the future? Like, what does that mean? Like, you know, little things like that that build up and you're showing them what I would do with this silly topic, and then go into the, the topic that you're already like, "Ah, I don't know about," so then they understand the process. Joe Schmidt: And if you're listening to this early in the school year, right, if this is late summer like that, this is how you start, right? You don't start with those highly contentious. You practice these things. So students, if you're like, "We're gonna do a philosophical chairs," you have to get the muscle memory of the process down. 'Cause if they're still like, "When do I raise my hand? How do I step forward?" And you introduce emotion, the emotion will override that part. It needs to flow. They need to, "I know how to do this quick and easy," and stuff like that. Um, there are text sets. There have been multiple state Supreme Court rulings regarding is a hot dog a sandwich, or like, is it... Like, you can go read those. But Nichelle, actually my newest one that I'm struggling with is does a straw have one hole or two? And people always say two, but I was like, "Well, that's only 'cause like, if it's long enough," right? If it was just a, a piece of paper and I put a hole in it, people wouldn't say there's multiple holes. So i- does the straw have one hole or two, and does it matter? What if it's like, a, a half-inch straw? What if it's a three-foot straw? Nichelle Pinkney: What is it- Absolutely. You can even use it in d- like to cross, cross-curricular and be like, "Well, well in math, what do they tell you when you're looking at a three-dimensional thing? Is that still the same hole, or is it different because it's on a..." Oh, my eyes have been widened. Lindsay Lyons: This is my absolute dream jam brainstorming of questions. Thank you for this. And finally- Nichelle Pinkney: We do this all the time when we get together. Lindsay Lyons: Oh my gosh, I think we're gonna have to book another call just for this. Um, what, where can our audience learn more about each of you as we wrap up? They're gonna wanna be in touch and get your book and all the things, so where can they go? Nichelle Pinkney: So, Joe Schmidt: um- Nichelle Pinkney: I'm- Oh, I'm sorry, Joe. Joe Schmidt: Okay. I'm active on social media. I'm @MadisonTeacher, um, and my website is, uh, Joe Schmidt, joeschmidtsocialstudies.com, all one word. Um, and I have a, a newer book out, The Social Studies Field Guide, and that's, um, socialstudiesfieldguide.com as well. Nichelle Pinkney: Um, and so I am active on the Twitter still. Um, and so it's, um, and I'll give it to you as well, Lindsay, but MsNikki_P, and I do a, a lot of stuff on there. And then I, um, have my up and coming website, so super excited. It's actually my name, .com, so it's really excited, um, to just do different things. And then I'm just gonna throw a plug. I am the current, uh, president of the Texas Social Studies Leader Association, um, which is an affiliate of one of, that Joe did not add. He's gonna have to go back and add. And so if you really wanna hang out with me or see me soon, I will be at all the Texas Social Studies conferences, and at the national conference in Chicago with Joe Schmidt: s- And yes, I neglected to say I'm the incoming president for the National Council for the Social Studies starting July 1st, 2026. And so I will be leading our conference in Chicago December 4 through 6. Come join more than 5,000 social studies loving friends. If you're a social studies, uh, lover and advocate, Nichelle and I will be there. Find us both. We'll take a picture with you. We'll get you, we'll go viral on social media with all sorts of civil discourse selfies. Lindsay Lyons: Oh my gosh, I will be joining you all. This sounds amazing. I'm really excited for NCSS. And congratulations to both of you in these awesome leadership positions. Oh my gosh, Nichelle and Joe, this has been such a absolute pleasure. Thank you so much for your time today. Joe Schmidt: Awesome. Thank you for having us, Lindsay. Nichelle Pinkney: Thank you, Lindsay. 
Listen to the episode by clicking the link to your preferred podcast platform below:
In this episode, Lindsay talks with Emily Read Daniels, an internationally-recognized trauma specialist and trainer in the trauma-informed schools movement.
Together, we discuss the vital concept of polyvagal theory and co-regulation in educational settings. Emily highlights the importance of focusing on the educator's wellbeing first, arguing that teachers' emotional states significantly impact classroom dynamics. She introduces her framework, "The Regulated Classroom," which integrates practices that help synchronize educators' and students' nervous systems to ensure a calm, balanced learning environment. The Big Dream Emily envisions an educational setting where both educators and students feel understood and supported. She is passionate about her work and loves being able to focus, specifically, on educators, showing that they matter and they are important. Through her work, she aims to address injustices observed in education systems, where both parties often feel overwhelmed and misunderstood. Her goal is to bring about a shift that makes regulation a priority, facilitating a safe and inclusive atmosphere that nurtures genuine learning and connection. Mindset Shifts Required A significant mindset shift involves recognizing the importance of both cognitive and physical states in teaching and learning. While the mindset is important, Emily wants educators to really feel better, safe and secure in their bodies and in the environment. This starts with educators acknowledging that they are whole beings and that honoring the body's role in emotional experiences is essential for fostering a supportive classroom environment. Action Steps To begin the body state shift that Emily talks about — feeling calm and safe in an environment — there are things that educators and students can do to co-regulate. Emily’s framework includes four types of practices: connectors, activators, settlers, and affirmations. To get started, educators can begin to notice how you feel as you enter the classroom. Tracking your nervous system state is an important first step to see if you are feeling regulated or dysregulated, particularly in moments of stress over overwhelm in the classroom. Pay attention to your physical and emotional states to become more aware of your body's reactions. This helps educators know which of the three states in polyvagal theory they are experiencing:
From here, it’s important to engage in co-regulation practices with your students, such as sensory stimulations and rhythm-making, to create a sense of oneness and safety in the environment. Emily unpacks these practices and her complete framework, the Regulated Classroom, in resources available on her website. Challenges? Educators often face time constraints and overwhelming workloads, making it challenging to incorporate these practices into their routine. Emily acknowledges that the feeling of being too busy is often a symptom of dysregulation. It’s not necessarily about getting rid of dysregulation altogether. Instead, recognizing when you’re dysregulated — because you will be at some point! — and learning how to reset is the important thing to focus on. One Step to Get Started Begin by simply noticing your inner experience. As you walk into your school or classroom, observe your feelings and physical sensations. Awareness is the first step toward cultivating a more conscious and resilient presence, which is the foundation for deeper personal change and classroom transformation. Stay Connected You can find this week’s guest on Instagram and website. To help you implement today’s takeaways, our guest is sharing Letter to Families with you for free. And, if you’re looking for more details on the ideas in this blog post, listen to episode 274 of the Time for Teachership podcast. If you’re unable to listen or you prefer to read the full episode, you can find the transcript below. Quotes:
If you enjoyed this episode, check out my YouTube channel where you can learn about more tips and resources like this one below:
TRANSCRIPT
Lindsay Lyons: Emily, welcome to the Time for Teachership podcast. Emily Daniels: Oh, thanks so much for having me, Lindsay. I look forward to this conversation. Lindsay Lyons: Same. I am really excited to jump in and, and learn from and with you, and I was just saying before we hit record, I'm really excited to dive into, like, just the concept of co-regulation and, like, polyvagal theory, something that a lot of educators do not ever encounter. And so really excited, particularly as this will be dropping at the beginning of the school year- Emily Daniels: Mm ... Lindsay Lyons: for educators to just think about, and I mean families too, but, like, everyone to really think about how we are in spaces with children of all ages, and this is just gonna be good. Oh, it's so good. Is there anything on your mind that you want people to think about as we have the conversation today? Emily Daniels: I just, I love this so much because, so first of all, polyvagal is, like, my jam. I love teaching educators about it. But what I love so much about the work that I get to do now with the Regulated Classroom is that I get to make it about the teacher first, about the educator first. And having been a former school counselor for many years myself, that was never my experience. Nothing was ever about the adult. It was always about what we're gonna do with kids or what we're gonna do to kids or how we're gonna deal with kids, you know? So it was always very student-focused, I think with good intention, but it's really delightful when we get to talk about the adults. Lindsay Lyons: What a beautiful human framing. Educators have to go through a lot, so I'm glad we're focused on them. Emily Daniels: And I say all the time, "You matter so much." Like, I, maybe nobody's ever told you that, but you matter. You matter, and it's really important Lindsay Lyons: That is beautiful. And, and kind of touching on my next question a bit, although you can take this in any direction, but I'm always curious what guests' kind of big dream is, and I like grounding it in Dr. Bettina Love's quote on freedom dreaming. So she says, "Dreams grounded in the critique of injustice." Mm-hmm. And so thinking about that, what is that big dream you hold? Emily Daniels: So when I was a school counselor, I saw so much how much students were impacted by the adults that were in their lives daily. Um, I mean, I saw it firsthand, and I, I felt and witnessed the struggle for the adults, meaning the teachers in the classroom. And I also saw it in my students that I supported, um, and just really recognized the incredible sacredness of the relationship that is shared between educators and students. And I felt like the educators were trying, but they were so overwhelmed and so stressed about the expectations that were placed upon them. Um, and the students felt like oftentimes just failures, frankly, uh, 'cause they were unable to meet those expectations. And so that, to me, that just showed up as, like, a lot of injustice. Like, I just felt like both, both parties were misunderstood, if you will. And so I really-- It's funny you, you kind of, you know, you orient in this way because it really is about trying to get to the place of, like, we're all human, all of us, and therefore, there are vulnerabilities and fragilities as a result of being human, and we have built-in biologically based ways to protect ourselves. And so, um, I guess I feel like in some ways my work is related to trying to right what feels like I've seen a lot of wrongs. You know what I mean? Like, whether that's the way students have been treated or adults have been treated in the, in the educational setting, uh, even how teachers are treated today by the public. You know, there's a lot of injustice there. So yeah, I, I try to bring regulation as the way in which to tip that scale. Lindsay Lyons: Great points all around. I am, I'm thinking that this usually, I'm from multiple standpoints here. I'm thinking of educators, but I'm also thinking of leaders who often dictate kind of what teachers are focused on, right? And so I'm thinking about what needs to shift in our kind of mental model or conceptualization of what's important in schooling so that we can actually focus on this. 'Cause it's important, yet rarely-- I mean, the most I've ever seen is in, during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was very much like, "Wellness is important," but it was often lip service. It often wasn't the deep work you, you seem to be talking about. Emily Daniels: Yeah. Lindsay Lyons: What needs to shift in people's minds? Emily Daniels: Great question. So, and the interesting thing is it is a, it is a cognitive shift, it is a mindset shift, but the irony of it is, is that it's actually a body state shift that we're looking for there. And up to this point, like in all my training and all my years, um, everything was ori- oriented to trying to get us, the adults, and our children to think differently, to think better, to know better, to do better. You know what I mean? It's that idea that like if you know better, you do better. Uh, I really wish that were true. Um, because oftentimes what we weren't able to see is that we need to feel better to do better, right? And those feel- that feeling better comes from feeling safe, and feeling safe in the context of those that we share our space with, and feeling safe in the environment, the actual features of the environment and that sort of thing that inspires a sense of like, um, "Oh, I'm at home here," or, "I belong here," you know? So I think that the, the big shift in mindset is to recognize that we are a whole person, and that that starts with recognizing and honoring the role that the body plays in, in our, um, in, in our expression of human, of humanity. Lindsay Lyons: Oh, that's so good. I really needed that, like, body state shift language. That was great. And I, I'm thinking about, you know, there's so many things that I'm sure that y- you all talk about in terms of what we can learn and embody and do and, and all the things. W- what comes to mind first? Like, where should we go first in terms of, like, what does this look like in practice? Mm. Um, whether it's internal, whether it's, like, i- i- interactive. Yeah. What do we think? Emily Daniels: So it's, it's very much, uh ... So in my framework, the model that I've developed called the regulated classroom, these are practices that are practices of co-regulation. So the vast majority of things I teach people are, are things that they do, that they actually physically do um, with their students, uh, that they lead with their students and they engage in with their students. So, um, many of them include, um, certain kinds of sensory stimulation like, for example, thymus thumping, which is thumping on, you know, some acupressure points in the chest to try to signal to the body to calm and to, to de-stress. Uh, but yeah, for me in my model, the primary, the primary resource that we are, uh, leveraging is the, the, the y- wisdom and the design of the body and the brain and the connection there, and how much it plays into what we experience relationally, uh, with those that we're, we share space with. Um, so yeah, these are, these are simple, easy to do, very short practices of co-regulation. That's what I teach. Lindsay Lyons: Okay. I love that. Two questions. One, it sounds like you have a framework or a model that you, that you draw on. Could you walk us through that a little bit? Sure. And then could you maybe share one or two of those practices? Emily Daniels: Sure, totally. So the framework is, um, it consists of two educator capacities. Notice that I don't say skills. And then four core practices: connectors, activators, settlers, affirmations. Those four core practices actually represent, um, the body of a lot of different fields of research that help us understand what are the specific qualities of experience that help us reset our nervous system. So for example, um, can you do this with me? Okay. See when we do that together, I don't know if you can feel that or not, but this is a gesture. In the regulated classroom, this is a connector practice. I teach educators how to u- use gesture and mirroring on purpose in the classroom to get a sense of oneness and togetherness. So my connector practices are practices that build and repair relationships primarily through play, but not always. Um, and so that's, you know, that's what I teach them. Then you could do, um, like this one here, the thymus thumping is actually an activator practice in the regulated classroom. So if you wanna try this with me here, where we're just alternating in synchrony, pounding on our chest with our fist. If you continue this for about 60 seconds and then drop your hands down by your side and let your ar- your hands be open, you will notice a warmth, a tingling sensation, a kind of calming and centering, grounding sensation. Um, activators are forms of collective rhythm making, and they help to organize the nervous system in the collective. So it's a really powerful way to bring about, um, just organized states in the nervous system collectively. So, like, we need that in the classroom because there's so much... You know, when I was a counselor, we would joke about, it was like a game of Whac-A-Mole, right? You, you help one student over here, and then another one pops up over here with a behavior that's kind of difficult, and then another one over here is shutting down and crawling under the desk, you know? So there isn't a lot of, like, collective synchrony, and what I'm trying to do is shift that, um, and help the teacher understand how to shift that so that they can feel that profound sense of oneness and groundedness, like, and reset regulation. Lindsay Lyons: My brain is going so many places to just connect to, to what I'm thinking about. But I love this idea, and also have done, like very n- not as good. But we've done like a group clap at the end- Yeah ... of our circles sometimes. We're all trying to clap- Yes ... at the same time. Emily Daniels: Yes. Yep. Lindsay Lyons: And I would say practically to teachers, "Oh, we're doing this 'cause the bell just rang and we need to wrap up this conversation, but we can't just walk away. We need to like end it somehow." But I also am now hearing that maybe that was actually a nice like moment of collective like, "Ha," at the end of maybe a heated conversation or something- Yes ... that we just needed. Emily Daniels: Exactly. So you didn't maybe know it cognitively, but you were bringing about a state of collective synchrony, and that is a very important experience to have, especially in community, like school community, to help us feel safe with one another, right? To help us feel connected to one another. And so that's very regulating for our nervous systems, to know that we're not alone, and to know that there's a sense of cohesion among those we share space with. Um, going back for a second though, just, so the two essential educator capacities that I teach educators about is tracking their nervous system state. So it's called tracking state. So it's like the first things that I invite them to do is just notice what they can notice in their body experience, especially when they're in a moment of stress in the classroom. Like, do you notice that your heart rate increased? Do you notice that your palms are sweating or clenching? Do you notice a tense, tense, tension or a tightness anywhere? So helping them to, to actually track whether or not they're feeling regulated or dysregulated, because once they are able to do that, they are able to then determine, "Hmm, I think I might need to dose in a core practice of the regulated classroom to reset myself with my students." Because a lot of times when we start to feel and experience dysregulation, it's because of something that's happening with our students in the classroom. You know, somebody's doing something, saying something, acting in some way that's triggering our nervous system into like, "Oh, what's that kid doing?" type of thing, or, "What are those children doing?" type of thing. So, uh, tracking state is the first essential educator capacity, and recruiting the realm of social engagement means helping to, um, bring online our students' realm of social engagement, which is a whole polyvagal concept Lindsay Lyons: Okay, there's so much going on in my brain. So now I'm remembering, Dr. Bridges, Patrick will be mad at me 'cause I can't remember these, the three, but there's like the three, like r- there's like a regulated state, right? And then like a two- there's a dysregulated, there's like the I'm completely like- Emily Daniels: Okay, Lindsay Lyons: yeah ... I'm shut down. There's that, right? Yes. Can you talk us through those? Yeah, Emily Daniels: yeah, yeah. So in polyvagal theory, which is a theory about, you know, how the nervous system functions, and in particular, how the nervous system shifts into states of defense when we don't feel safe. So when something happens in our experience, and I'm talking about us, the adults, let's say a student, um, has a tone of voice they're using with another student, and all of a sudden we know that that's a clue, like, ooh, that kid might be getting ready to be argumentative or even fight with that kid, 'cause we can hear it in the tone. Our nervous system will shift into a defensive state to protect ourselves. So we might start getting anxious, we might start getting agitated, or conversely, we can shut down. We can, we can drop into a dorsal state, which is a state of numbness and disconnection, dissociation, which is also a protective state. So maybe it's that kind of thing where you hear a tone of voice happening from a student and you're like, "Whatever. He's gonna always do that. Whatever. I don't care." So the person you mentioned, what they might be referencing is sort of these three primary states that are, um, identified in polyvagal theory. There's a ventral vagal state, which is a regulated state. There is a state of mobilization called sympathetic charge or sympathetic, um, activation, and then there's a dorsal vagal state, which is a state of shutdown. So those are the three primary nervous system states in the regula- in the polyvagal theory. Um, and those are, those, that, that theory and those principles of how the nervous system functions is embedded in my model Lindsay Lyons: Cool. 'Cause yeah, I mean, the language is very... Thank you for breaking that down, 'cause the language is kind of, uh, intense. Mm-hmm. But the, the feeling everyone can connect, I think kids included, right, to, to the feelings in your body that connect to those three terms. Exactly. Emily Daniels: Exactly. And when you feel dysregulated, you really can feel it. Like, when you, you can even notice numbness, right? Even if you can't feel, that's a feeling. So you can know you're shut down in a protective state, a, a dorsal state, and you can feel when your heart is racing. You can feel when your face is getting hot. Like, you can feel these things. They're sensations that are powerful. And so the sensations tell you, "Oh, my nervous system is functioning or shifting right now to protect me," versus when you feel at ease, when you feel safe, when you feel, um, regulated, you feel good in your body. You know? You feel like, "Woo!" Like, "Let's do this," you know? And you're able to access all of your conscious capacity, so you're able to be empathic, and you're able to be creative, and you're able to be curious and have really good ideas for how to solve complex problems. Like, all those things happen when you experience a ventral vagal state or a regulated state in your body. Lindsay Lyons: I love that you just explained that, because I also am now thinking about a, a lot of work I do is about student discourse, and discourse about current events or political topics in social studies, or just things- Oh, man ... that are like... Emily Daniels: Right? Oh, man. Like, Lindsay Lyons: this is such a good- Oh, Emily Daniels: you s- you need p- Yeah. You... This, this concept that I'm explaining here has so much application in what you're just describing. Because when you have... Let's see if we can talk about, like, political conversations. Part of the reason why those oftentimes don't result in fruitful discussion is because people get h- hijacked into defensive states. Then they're not able to access their empathy, their compassion. They're not able to access other, you know, uh, turn-taking or perspective-taking. They can't think through rationally what's being said. They can't access that part of their neocortex that helps them be reasonable and rational. Like, so there's a lot. Uh, the nervous system is incredibly powerful, and the shifting that can occur happens unconsciously. So it's not like you're telling yourself, "Okay, I'm gonna become defensive." It just happens. Somebody says something, now you're triggered, and now if you don't recognize that you're triggered, you could then say and do things that are gonna make less safety in that experience than more safety. Lindsay Lyons: And so I'm thinking of peer-to-peer in that, what you're describing, and I'm also thinking of peer-to-peer for adults in like a staff meeting- Yes ... Emily Daniels: right? Oh, girlfriend, this is why the, the regulated classroom, we have like, um, in the, in the guidebook that I, that I have, y- when people open it up and they look at like activators and they're looking at practices, they'll see like a little icon next to the practice and it says staff. And that's because when I train people in the model, I'm like, "This is not just to use with your students." We, the adults, desperately need this. And a lot of schools that I've worked with actually start with the adults first, and they bring the f- the framework into staff meetings, and they dose in these specific practices, these connectors, activators, settlers, and affirmations to shift the climate and the culture of how the staff is feeling with one another. Because when staff have a toxic pattern of interaction, it's gonna be really hard to do much of ... It's gonna be hard to do good work because you don't feel safe with each other, right? And that's a really common struggle that sch- a lot of schools and districts experience, especially in the wake of COVID. Even though that's so six years ago, it's so not. You know what I mean? Lindsay Lyons: Definitely. And yeah, I ... Oh my gosh, there's so many directions we could go. I do want to circle back to like you were saying- Good ... there's a whole thing about the social. Mm-hmm. And then I think you motioned near your face. Is that it? Can you tell us more about that piece? Emily Daniels: Yeah. So the realm of social engagement, in polyvagal terms what that is re- referring to is ... And, and Porges is, is ... Okay, so Dr. Stephen Porges is the author of polyvagal theory. He's the creator of it, and he's done extensive research since he first proposed the theory in 1994. But he is so brilliant in being able to really articulate that we have these very specific features of the head that include the eyes and the capacity for eye contact, brief eye contact, um, the, the striatiated muscles around the eyes, which are directly connected to the nerves that regulate the heart. So when your heart rate changes because you become defense mobilized, it actually can be projected through the m- micro movement of the muscles in the eyes. This is why the eyes are such an important, uh, feature, social feature in, in sophisticated mammals. Um, it's why like, you know, I know eye contact is a co- has become a controversial topic. Um, but in polyvagal terms it really shouldn't be because it, there is so much biological basis for why you can see state through the eyes. You can see someone's state through their eyes, right? And so you can s- you can, you can convey cue of safety through the eyes, and you can convey cue of threat through the eyes. So you know, they're, they're powerful. They're powerful, um- They're powerful social features. I don't know how else to describe it. There's a couple other things too. So like our voice, um, and the tone of our voice, and the prosody of our voice is also sending a c- a signal to you whether or not I am safe. So if I had an agitated tone of voice like, "Lindsay," you know, you can hear that, versus, "Lindsay, I'm so excited for this conversation." Like, you can hear that, right? So that's part of the realm of social engagement. Um, he talks about the middle ear because that's where you process, um, auditory frequency and auditory, uh, stimuli. And again, that's a really quick trigger for defensiveness. It's a quick trigger to... It's a quick, um, it's a short route to the amygdala from the middle ear. Um, so these, these things that are here, like facial expression, vocal prosody, eye contact, how the ear is functioning, all of these are the social features of the realm of social engagement. And when I am regulated, I can inspire in you and in your body and in your realm of social engagement, um, for it to become active and online through my conveying my state to you through these social features. Does that, does that make sense? Lindsay Lyons: Total sense. This is fascinating. Emily Daniels: Isn't it so? Oh my God, you have no idea. It's so fascinating. It's why I constantly am studying it and trying to, like, be like, "Okay, how do I say this in the simplest of terms?" Because it makes sense even with, I don't know about you, but, like, you probably saw in the video, I have my dog here with me, but even sophisticated mammals, this is a part of the reason why they can co-regulate with us so well because, like, when my dog comes over to me and she puts out her tongue and she gives me the softest, littlest, like, I can tell by how she's looking at me that she's regulated and feeling loving and wanting to comfort me versus you know what it's like when you approach a dog who doesn't know what to think of you, and they start to kind of back off, or they kind of have a weird looking face, and you're like, "That dog does not look quite safe." You know? Like, "That dog looks a little threatening," your body is picking up on all the cues projected from the realm of social engagement. And so that's the second educator capacity is do you know how to, uh, recruit the realm of social engagement in others that you share space with and with your students? Can you do that through your vocal prosody? Can you do that through your eye contact? Can you do that through your facial expression, through your gesture and physical proximity? Lindsay Lyons: It, which makes me think of this idea, um, that I, I, I don't like when we declare a space safe, and we're just like- Yeah ... "This is a safe space," right? Yeah. Emily Daniels: God, that's Lindsay Lyons: the worst. It's like... Thank Emily Daniels: you. It is. I know the intention is good, but it's, it's- Yeah ... it's not, it's not something you can declare. Lindsay Lyons: Right. Because everyone has to perceive their own safety, right? Correct. Is that... Am I good? Okay. Emily Daniels: And not only do they have to perceive their own safety, but the vast majority of your perception is at the unconscious level. So it's, it's rooted in your lived experiences. So what is a cue of safety for one person may not be for another, and so you can never say, "Well, this space is safe." I understand what the intention is on that, so I don't want anybody to feel scolded or shamed about it, but it's very much an individual, subjective experience. Felt safety, in, in fact, that concept of felt safety is synonymous with it being understood as it's a subjective experience. Do you feel safe? Um, does this space inspire you to feel safe, right? But, but with all of that, in my core practices, I am helping teachers understand, what are the experiences you wanna purposely bring into the classroom that would most likely inspire more experience of felt safety? So there are certain things we can do with each other, like collective rhythm making, that help us to feel in concert with one another, to help us feel synergy and to feel synchrony, and to, and to know that we can be cohesive and safe with each other. So yeah, safe- you don't get to declare a s- a space as safe. You get to bring about experiences in the c- in that space that may inspire felt safety. Lindsay Lyons: Love, love the way that you put that all together. Brilliant. Okay, now I'm imagining there are people who perhaps intellectually are like, "Yep, this sounds good. I know that I get dysregulated in my class. I want to try to do this." Like, what do you find is the biggest challenge for educators who want to make the shift, but there's just, like, a hurdle that they face, and, like, how, how do they overcome that hurdle? Emily Daniels: Yeah. It's a great question. So first off, I want everyone to know that you 100% get dysregulated 'cause you know what? You're normal, and you're human. Like, so this is something, like, even today we were having a conversation earlier with my team. Something came up that was really, really dysregulating for me, and I owned it. And I said, "Okay, if I'm, like, difficult right now, it's because that thing that we're talking about triggered me so bad. I feel my defensiveness." And it will change me. It will change my presentation. It will change my affect. It'll change my tone of voice. It'll change my movement. Like, it changes everything. And then others around me are like, "Oh my God, she's being such a..." You know, in the moment. They might... Not that I'm doing things overtly to be bitchy. I don't know if that's an okay word to say. Lindsay Lyons: It's fine. Emily Daniels: But it, I can't hide that I got defense mobilized, right? And anybody who knows me knows that in the moment. So that's part of the beauty of the regulated classroom is it's like we're not saying don't be dysregulated. We're not saying that that's, like, something to try to not be. You're gonna 100% get dysregulated more than once through the course of the day. And what you want is to be able to recognize that when that's happening, and then to know what to do to reset. That, that's the thing. Oftentimes the single biggest barrier that teachers will tell me is, "I don't have time for that. I can't do that. I've got so many things I gotta try to accomplish," da da da da da, you know, all that kind of thing. And I get that, and I think when that, when that question, when that, um- challenge comes about when they, when they, when they offer that challenge, you know, that's still the s- the overwhelm speaking, that's still the dysregulation speaking. Um, because if you really are able to get into a regulated place about it, you can come to see that regulation is foundational for everything we want to have happening in the classroom. It's not something you do as a reward. It's not something you do when you have extra time. It's something that if you are not doing regularly, if you're not resetting regularly, everything else about your day is gonna be difficult. You're gonna have more dysregulated kids. You yourself are gonna be just, over time, burning out because you're overwhelming your body's biological systems, your stress response systems, and not giving them opportunities to resource and recover. Um, you're gonna see that the kids are not performing at an academic level like you would hope they had because they need to be regulated in order to access the learning parts of the brain. So it's, it's really foundational work. And so my thing is, the way that I like to talk about it, though, is like I want you to love what you do. I want you to experience joy in what you do. I want you to have a good time. I want it to be freaking fun. Like, why do we have to make it so that school is, like, so not fun? Like, let's stop doing that. You know? Like, there's this, you know, myth I feel like that persists around if we're having fun, we're wasting time. No, you're not. If you're genuinely having fun, you're building felt safety, you're creating community in the classroom, and those are the ideal conditions for learning. That is, that is the fertile ground for learning, for real learning. Um, so yeah. Lindsay Lyons: This question may have already been answered, and feel free to just redirect us to your answer, but I, I always wanna, when I start to close these conversations, and we, we just talked about so many different things. I Emily Daniels: know, I know. Like, Lindsay Lyons: what is the one thing that someone who ends the episode, walks into school today, what could they do just a, a kind of like a first step to- Oh ... do things differently? Emily Daniels: It's a great question. I haven't already answered it, and it's the one that's common. And here's what I'm gonna say, and I'm gonna invite you. As the, as the teacher or the educator coming into a new school year or a new school day, I just want you to notice. That's literally what I want you to do. When it occurs to you, I want you to notice how you feel on the inside. Like, what's coming up for you in your body experience as you step over the threshold of the front door, or you step over the threshold of the classroom, and you enter. What's, what comes up for you? What comes up for you when your students arrive? What comes up for you when you see your colleagues again? Like, how do you feel on the inside? That's the first step, is just to notice. And if you notice that, like, noticing brings up a lot of ick, eh, notice that. You know, if noticing brings up a lot of like, "Oh, this is so good," like, "I love being here. This is so exciting," notice that. Like, it's all, all worth noticing 'cause it's all messages from your nervous system telling you how you feel in the space and with the others that you're with. You know what I mean? And that is really the beginning of, well, self-discovery and change, is you g- you gotta know yourself first. You gotta e- and the way to do that is to begin by noticing Lindsay Lyons: Great advice. Okay, this next question is just for fun. It could be related to anything we talked about or something totally different, but what is something you've been learning about lately? Emily Daniels: Mm. Mm-hmm. So one of the things that I've been rabbit holed on, like dig down deep, right? And I still, there's so much to dig into, is att- is attachment. So I just finished co-authoring a new book called The Early Years for early educators and early years educators, birth to age seven, and then also for parents. Very proud of this work, very proud of this work, and I'm co-authoring it with Chrissy D'Agostino, who's also in Massachusetts. And, um, one of the things that it's done is it's caused me to have to really dig into the research around the science of attachment. And it's a whole new lens for me through which to view teachers and students, because when we've had disorganized or insufficient attachment experiences early in life, those, ugh, lackings, for lack of a better word , they show up again. They show up, and they show up in the classroom big time. They show up with us with our students. They show up with us with our students i- in different ways. You know, a lot of times we like to talk about behavior as attention seeking. If you have kids who have not had secure attachment experiences, 100%, I don't even like to use the language of attachment, or ex- um, attention seeking, but they are seeking connection. They are 100% seeking connection. And they, and they, and they may need you to anchor in as, as an, as an attachment figure. Which frankly is not a new thing. That's something that, you know, many of us have done over the years, um, with our teachers over time. That's what, mm, that's why your role matters so much, because you get to be a part of a child's life in a profound way, because it's so much time, and they, they need adults that are present with them and, and wanna be with them. Um, so anyways, attachment is something that is, um, profoundly maybe reshaping some of my thinking around stuff we see happening in our schools today. Lindsay Lyons: Fascinating. Okay, I now need to get The Early Years. That sounds like a great book. Emily Daniels: Right? Lindsay Lyons: And I, I think the, the last kind of set of questions is around your work. I know you were just saying you, you came out with something like a guide for early childhood educators. Is that right? Can you tell us- Yes ... a little bit about this? Emily Daniels: Yes. So we have, so currently I have The Regulated Classroom guidebook, which is pre-K through grade 12. However, through demand, we created an early years version of that guidebook called The Early Years. It's called The Regulated Classroom: The Early Years, and it's to give those educators and parents the, the practices to use to build safe, secure connections, uh, safe, secure attachments. You know, it's- A lot of our, our, um, early years folks and young parents today, they don't, they just don't even know what to do with their kids, especially if their children seem to be a, have like vulnerable nervous systems or be a little bit, you know, have a more narrow window of tolerance. So this book is chock-full of practices to do. Um, and it also validates and acknowledges, like parents have never been more stressed than they are today. 41% of parents report not being able to function on a daily basis as a parent. 41%. That's from the US Surgeon General in 2024. And teachers have the second highest rate of occupation-related stress. Across all professions, teachers have the second highest reported rate of occupation stress. So we've got two groups of adults that are very stressed who are in the presence of children all day long. So the regulated classroom and the early years are resources to help shift the stress crisis that we have, the stress and trauma crisis that we have, um, today. Lindsay Lyons: Wow, okay. I need to get that. So we need to ... We will link to all the things in the show notes, but where should people go to get that? Is, do you have a website? Do you have a place people could reach out to you? Where should they go? Emily Daniels: Please, please, please. So our web- our website is regulatedclassroom.com, and our, um, socials are regulatedclassroom on Instagram and regulatedclassroom on Facebook as well. And we do a lot there on our socials, um, meaning we share very generously like ideas and affirmations and, um, practices to try. We also have monthly free webinars that are open to the public. Anybody can register the third Tuesday of every month. Sometimes I do them, and sometimes my trainer consultants do them, so you'll see other people there as well. But, um, we really wanna share this information and, and, um, help people become more educated about nervous system state regulation, what that means in the educational setting, and how important it is. Lindsay Lyons: That's incredible. Okay, thank you so much for all of the things you shared and all of the work that you do. Oh. Emily, this has been such a pleasure. Emily Daniels: Same. Same, Lindsay. Thanks so much for the opportunity. I really appreciate it. |
Time for Teachership is now a proud member of the...
AuthorLindsay Lyons is an educational justice coach who helps schools and districts co-create feminist, antiracist civics-based curricula, discussion opportunities, and equitable policies that challenge, affirm, and inspire all students. A former NYC public school teacher, she holds a PhD in Leadership and Change, and is the founder of the blog and podcast, Time for Teachership. Lindsay believes all students deserve literacy, criticality, and leadership skills. Archives
September 2026
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed