The following transcript has been edited for readability. Timestamps have been removed and minor transcription errors corrected. Speaker comments and context have been preserved.

Opening Remarks

Rich Portelance

Well, hello everyone. My name is Rich Portelance. I am your host of the EdGate Powers Podcast. With me today is Peter Coe. I want to welcome everyone back to our podcast series, where we are examining the structural decisions shaping the future of education. Today's conversation, I believe, is an important one. It dovetails on the conversation I had last week with Zarek Drozda, who is the executive director at Data Science 4 Everyone at the University of Chicago. And our guest today, Peter Coe, is a leader working at the intersection of curriculum strategy, workforce readiness, and institutional transformation. 

Peter has spent years helping institutions rethink how programs are designed, aligned, and measured, especially as technology, AI, and quantitative demands reshape nearly every industry. Because the real question is, are we aligning curriculum to what sounds innovative, or what students will actually need to do? And more specifically, are we building the mathematical and analytical foundation required for the modern workforce? Peter, welcome to the podcast. I'll give you a second so you can introduce yourself, and then we'll jump in. 

Peter Coe

Well, thanks, Rich. Hi, Peter Coe here. I currently serve as interim math director at Student Achievement Partners (SAP), where we are constantly thinking about the questions that Rich was just naming: how do we prioritize and modernize expectations for mathematics learning to acknowledge the world around us, which is changing rapidly. And I’m happy to be here. 

Rich Portelance

Thank you so much. 

And just a reminder to everyone, Peter will be on the webinar, which is March 25th. There is a link in the description below where you can register. Please join us, it's going to be a great conversation. Also joining us will be Zarek Drozda, as mentioned before, Hillary Rinaldi from Whiteboard Advisors, and Larry Johnson from EdGate. It's going to be a terrific conversation.

Discussion

Rich Portelance

So, Peter, to start, when institutions want to be future-ready, what do you think they often misunderstand? 

Peter Coe

That's a good question. I think that institutions carry some risk that… they don't consider a balanced approach to the future, right? I think, you know, our world is changing, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we want to toss everything out that's come before. You know, I think when we consider, say, the role of AI that's shaping the future, I think there's a great conversation happening around durable skills, and the ways that, say, critical thinking, collaboration, communication, right, those want to play a larger role in the kinds of educational experiences we provide. And it still means that our students need to reason quantitatively; it still means that students need to have a depth of mathematical understanding and analytical skills that are going to be required to work with a technologically-enabled, modern workforce, but it doesn't mean we forgo those skills. So, I think it's a really difficult balance as far as acknowledging the ways that things are changing, and really still ensuring students get the depth of understanding that they are going to need to be successful in the modern world. 

Rich Portelance

Well, that was terrific, and thank you for the answer. You actually covered– I wanted to kind of direct that into the realm of mathematics, and you did it naturally. 

Peter Coe

Sure.

Rich Portelance

Are we undervaluing quantitative reasoning and non-STEM pathways? You know, if kids are going in different directions? 

Peter Coe

Are– excuse me, are we undervaluing? Is that what you said? 

Rich Portelance

Yes.

Peter Coe

I think there's a risk there. I was actually just having a conversation with my wife about the way that we're using AI in our professional lives. And, you know, the question that we were discussing was, does the role, the presence of AI in our professional existence mean that we need to know less about all of the, you know, the quantitative, the communication, like, all the skills that we've developed over the last 20 years? And we both said no. 

In fact, if anything, it means that we have to be sharper. We have to, for lack of a better phrase, we got to be smarter than the machine, right? I think, you know, we are, you know, in the same way that when I taught students, they were using calculators. You know, this was 10, 20 years ago, and one of the things I noticed was the ways that a calculator can really lead you astray. And that's, you know, that's some pretty old school technology there, but what I came to understand then, and I think is still relevant today, is that using technology in your academic setting, in a professional setting, really does mean you have to be ready for that machine to make an error for you to commit a user error and recognize that. And so, I think that in the same way that having calculators has not really diminished the need for grown-ups and evolving students to deeply understand numeracy, I think the same is true as AI and other tools are making, you know, algebra and working with functions easier for us. It means we still need to be really sharp. So, I do think there is a risk in saying that because these tools exist, students no longer need a depth of understanding of algebra and other fundamental skills. 

Rich Portelance

Yeah. Yeah. And I would agree with that. You almost compare it to, you know, a carpenter using a hammer. There has to be a certain level of expertise if you're going to truly command that tool, whatever tool it is. And so if we don't understand and can't command AI, there's a huge risk with that, right? 

Peter Coe

Yeah. And just add on to that, and I think understanding how the tool works, right, is I think another dimension to that, right? I think there is, even today, with the way that folks are using AI. Knowing that AI is essentially predicting based on large volumes of text and other resources that it's consumed helps users know how to treat it and interpret the results. So I fully agree, and I think there are skills around the tool, but even knowledge of the tool itself is important. 

Rich Portelance

Yeah. 

And do you see there are strong signals of positive change happening right now? And also, do you see complacency? I know that's a juxtaposition, right? It could go both ways. I'm curious what you're seeing. 

Peter Coe

Yeah. 

Well, I think from a national perspective, you know, sometimes asking what education is like in the United States is kind of like asking, “What's the temperature in the United States?” And the answer is, you know, realistically, we've got 50 states and a very decentralized system. And so I think the answer to that question is going to be yes in some places, and no in others. So I think, you know, some of the momentum that we're seeing is around durable skills. I think that's a clear trend. As many states adopt graduate profiles and graduate portraits, they are concretely naming the ways that these very important skills should be built over the course of a student's K-12 trajectory. 

I think at the same time, from a mathematical perspective, you're also seeing efforts, one, to name what's important, right? And I think that high school mathematics has rightly been criticized for a long time as being sort of a diffuse set of, you know, vaguely related ideas. So I think we're seeing many states make efforts to say, "Hey, we're going to put some stakes in the ground. Maybe there are 50 standards in this course, but these are the 25, these are the 30 that are most important”. And then I think the other component to that is folks really rethinking this, you know, unilateral path to calculus. And, I'm sure Zarek had a lot to say to you about the role of data science and how many states are considering the ways that may play a larger role in a student's high school trajectory. So, I think there's ample opportunity right now, and our hope at Student Achievement Partners is really to try to see where that consensus is and build momentum around those key ideas. 

Rich Portelance

Yeah. Fantastic. And Zarek did mention durable skills and, you know, Hillary and I, when we spoke last year, we talked about the portrait of a graduate as an important component, and how those durable skills are coming to bear in that program. And I can probably have like three or four different tangential conversations with you on some of those topics, but I do want to talk about curriculum design a little. 

Many institutions update programs by adding new courses, such as AI, data science, and emerging tech, but they rarely rethink the math and analytical foundations underneath them. Is that a mistake or is that..?  

Peter Coe

I think so, yes. I think that, you know, when it comes to math content, excuse me, there is this urge to add more, right? And in almost any context, I can think about my own time as a curriculum developer when, you know, part of the team wanted a course to focus on area A, the other team felt like area B was more important to resolve the conflict. We just put both in, and that is, you know, it works on the development side. And you could even argue that maybe users would want that, like, “Hey, there's choice A, choice B. I could do either one, I have more resources, more that I can expose my students to”. But I think the reality is that, you know, when I talked about high school math being this “large diffuse set of learning objectives”, it presents a real challenge for folks that, you know, I think my hypothesis that about the lagging achievement that we're seeing, I mean, obviously not only in high school, but definitely especially in high school, is that we are really not paying heed to the depth required for students to really understand the core mathematics that they're learning, right? 

The difference between tackling 50 learning objectives versus 25 in more depth is really stark, and I would definitely urge everyone to think about, from whatever vantage point you're in, how can I bring more focus to the learning experiences we provide for students? And that doesn't mean, you know, the argument on the other side of that would mean, you know, “Well, we're taking stuff out, we're lowering expectations”. That's not at all the stance I'm taking, right? I feel like having students work in depth and from different angles, right? Work with, say, a quadratic function that is, you know, building students' fluency in being able to graph and manipulate those expressions. Also, building students' conceptual understanding, what do these parameters mean? And in a modeling context, right? How can I use this function to understand the real world and answer questions? So I think, you know, instead of adding more, my approach would be to really think about how we can do more with less, right? And help students build that deeper understanding. 

Rich Portelance

So all that learning projects forward into the future for every single learner when they step into, you know, graduation and employer expectations. Where's the biggest quantitative skill gap between those graduates and what employers are expecting today? 

Peter Coe

Yeah. Well, I really think it's two things, and I've sort of briefly touched on both of them, I think, but, you know, one of them is this idea of durable skills, right, which is another place where you can encourage depth, right, in the curriculum. So, in that example I just gave of, you know, working with quadratics, sorry if people aren't into math. I'm putting them to sleep by talking about quadratic functions here. But, you know, not only building that depth of understanding, procedural skill, ability to model, but thinking about ways that students could develop collaboration skills or communication skills, right? This could be an opportunity for students to write a report summarizing findings for a particular audience, right? So I think that the first gap really is around durable skills and, you know, especially as we do acknowledge the role of more technology. The human side, I think, is really where employers are seeing that gap. So, not only can students, yes, I still want quantitative skills, I still want analytical skills, and I want people that are comfortable sitting in a conference room together grappling with a challenging problem, having that resilience, and being able to communicate their results. So I feel like, especially when we talk about high school mathematics, if we increase depth, what opportunities does that afford us? Can we imagine a modern version of high school math where students, alongside the mathematical skills, are having those opportunities to really collaborate, build resilience, and communicate results? 

I think the other is probably data science, and I know Zarek spoke to you. The other is probably data science, and the ways that so many roles right now are relying on employees to grapple with really messy data sets, right? I think that the age of clean word problems, you know, a data set with two columns and 12 entries, right? That's really not kind of where we are today as far as what employers are looking for. 

So, to me, those are kind of the two major gaps, and what I'm hopeful about are the ways that if we can really build consensus around a core set of mathematical expectations, so that educators and developers don't feel like they have to teach 100 things in 100 days, then we can really build time for those more relevant opportunities. 

Rich Portelance

So– and Zarek did mention the same thing, that, you know, the existing kind of construct needs to be adjusted. In terms of scaffolding curriculum, you know, how do we embed mathematical reasoning across disciplines? Is there some kind of thought process, and how do we do it in a more level fashion so that, you know, it's not all just embedded into the math curriculum? 

Peter Coe

It's a good question. I would say that it is… you know… I think the math classroom is still the primary place where students are going to learn these things. I think there are opportunities for interdisciplinary connection. Especially when you think about a science or technology class. I think that is a little bit of an untapped resource that we don't see. You know, high schools today are still pretty siloed places where teachers are not necessarily collaborating in that way. But, you know, to use that quadratic functions example, I think there's a great opportunity there for connections to physics and other disciplines. The durable skills, really, are, I think, the real fertile ground for connection, and thinking about the ways that, you know, if we are working together on a real-world problem involving quadratics and we're writing a report summarizing our findings, right, is there a place where literacy can play a role? So, I think, you know, in the modern workforce it's never, “Here, go solve this sheet of word problems and come back to me in an hour”, right? People are bringing all their different skills to bear on a particular problem. So, I think the more that we can offer students opportunities like that in high school, the more prepared they'll be. 

Rich Portelance

And are you seeing any institutions that are doing this well? Are there any examples out there that you said, you know, “All right, this kind of group or this state is starting to get to the right place?” 

Peter Coe

I think… I’m trying to think of a specific example. We've got a report out right now on durable skills that names, I think, a few states that are not only naming durable skills, but also naming specific connections to math. Places like Colorado, Idaho, Massachusetts, South Carolina, and Tennessee. So I think there's, you know, a handful of states that really are at least setting the vision for the ways that we can really purposefully not only attend to these durable skills, but make sure that they are also showing up in math classrooms. So I think there are some states that are showing real leadership there. 

Rich Portelance

And is there a– and you might have answered this. I guess I want to just get a little bit more specific about institutions prioritizing those durable math skills and thinking, the modeling,  statistical reasoning, etc., over narrower technical skills. 

Peter Coe

Great question, and I feel like it gets this idea of balance, right? I think sometimes we become very enamored with a phrase like “critical thinking” or “creativity”, right, and we forget that there's actually a big knowledge base that doing those things requires. You'll forgive me, but I always return to this example from The Simpsons, which is when… I don't know if the audience is aware of this, but there's an episode of The Simpsons where Homer is invited to design a car, and he, you know, spends all this time thinking, and comes up– and his prototype is the most ridiculous thing you've ever seen. It's, like, barely a car because he's like, "Well, you should put a, you know, a doorbell on the side, and add this other thing." You know, it's– I can't do it justice, but Google it, you'll find the picture. And that always reminds me that, you know, Homer may be creative, but what he did not have is knowledge of how to build a car, how cars work, and what customers actually want in the car. There's a ton of knowledge that's required in order to innovate, in order to collaborate, in order to, you know, these durable skills require foundational knowledge. 

So, I really… and I recognize I'm saying this in a field that is really prone to pendulum swings. That just seems to be what we do. That I think we don't want to have a pendulum swing that goes very far astray from the core mathematical skills and understandings that we know students need to have in order to be successful. So I think, you know, the two words I would use are really focus and balance. So we do want to stay focused on a small set of skills in each course across the mathematical pathway. And we want to have balance with not only those core mathematical skills, but also new forays into durable skills, into you know, that messy data science work. We want to resist the urge to just kind of throw it all in a blender and see what happens. We also want to resist the urge to say, “Actually, we don't need students to understand functions anymore. We don't need students to be able to solve a one or two-step equation anymore, because computers can do that or employers don't want that, right?” Those skills are still going to be relevant, enable our students to be successful with data, and really tie mathematical understanding to durable skills. 

Rich Portelance

So, if you've jumped into the middle of this episode somehow, I want to remind you that on March 25th, Peter will be joining us on the EdGate webinar, where we will be talking about the future of curriculum and how things are changing. He'll be joined by some other great panelists, Hillary Rinaldi, Zarek Drozda, and Larry Johnson. 

But, you know, I want to go from K-12 to higher ed for a second. If you were advising a university president today, what three structural curriculum shifts would you prioritize immediately, especially related to math data and analytical rigor, where you have most of your expertise? 

Peter Coe

That's a great question. I might have to do a little jotting to make sure that I remember three of these. I think… yeah. All right. Well, so I think one of them would really be to pay heed to data science, right? So we know that introductory college courses very often are named things like college algebra, pre-calculus, and, you know, we want to retain that option for students that are on a path to calculus and want to remain on that path. But I do think we want to open up our introductory offerings to make sure that we have other pathways that might enable a student to move towards algorithmic thinking, working with data, the kinds of skills necessary for that messy workplace I was talking about, right? Those gigantic data sets that are so prevalent now in today's modern workforce. So I think that would be one. 

I think the other would be to pay attention to the overlap between those introductory courses and the experiences that students are having in high school. We've got a great report out that actually examines the overlap between introductory college courses and high school mathematics. And I don't know if you'll find the results surprising or not, but there's a lot of overlap between, say, college algebra, and the expectations of high school mathematics. Even for a course like pre-calculus, there really is a lot of overlap with high school math standards. So, to think about, you know, how can you upgrade and update those courses? Yes, if students are placed in that course, it's probably because they would still benefit from exposure to those skills. But how can you think about ways to present that content, the learning experiences students might have that will help connect them to the real world, to the workplace, rather than just be sort of a warming over of content that they've seen before, which is not really going to inspire anyone to do their best work. 

And I think the last one would be to explore more of a co-requisite model. I think colleges are quite enamored, and I'd say math educators generally are quite enamored with this linearity of content, right? “You must pass through hoop A before you get to hoop B”. However, I think there's been a lot of promising results from colleges that have said, “Hey, actually, if you could take these two courses at the same time, you will see the relevance of maybe the review or the more remedial course, and you'll be more successful in a course that's new to you. So I think thinking about exploring more co-requisite models would be my third. 

Rich Portelance

Okay. You know, our Q1 theme is about alignment, not just innovation, and we talk about at EdGate how alignment is infrastructure, something that can't just be done in a haphazard way; there has to be structural integrity to what you do. Why is it so difficult for institutions to align math departments, program leaders, workforce partners, and administration around shared outcomes? 

Peter Coe

That's a great question, one that I ask myself a lot, I think. I think there are a few. I mean, I think one is that, you know, the “math wars” are real. We may be in the midst of one right now, or there may be skirmishes happening, or maybe it's sort of a brief interregnum, but they're always with us, right, and I think there really are in ways that are different from other subjects. I think there are a lot of deeply entrenched beliefs that are in opposition to one another, right? Whether it's direct instruction versus inquiry-based learning, whether it's procedural skill versus conceptual understanding, whether it's the path to calculus versus a focus on data science. So I do think that no matter what the person or people in charge are saying, I think individual schools or educators enter every math learning space with pretty deeply held convictions about what's going to work and what's the best thing for kids. And so, those kinds of beliefs can be really challenging to unpack and address from afar. So I think that's one alignment challenge. 

I think another one is that in math, the details really matter in a way that I'm not sure is the same as in other fields. You know, I was just giving that example of quadratic functions. I won't put everyone to sleep by talking more, but just to think about a topic, you know, you could have quadratic functions on your syllabus, and you know some people will read that headline and think, “Oh, okay, I know what that means. That means doing a whole bunch of factoring, completing the square, and solving equations using the quadratic formula. Someone else will read that and think, “Oh, that means I want students to solve real-world problems by graphing and using technology to interpret the results. And so, I think, especially in cases where, you know, an institution is leveraging, say, multiple curricula, right? I have this core curriculum, and then students are going home, and they're practicing with this digital platform form. And hey, they all, you know, my syllabus said quadratic functions, the curriculum said quadratic functions, and their supplementary practice resource said quadratic functions, but they're actually all saying pretty different things about quadratic functions. And so those details really do matter, and it can be hard to rally everyone around a clear common vision about what we do really mean? What are the outcomes that we care about? 

Rich Portelance

And I guess in that space and paradigm, where do most transformation efforts break down? 

Peter Coe

Yeah, that's a good question. I mean, I think… Where do they break down? I would say that in many cases, they don't even really start, unfortunately. And so, it's not necessarily a case of breaking down, but it's, I think, beginning with a really clear vision. And when I say a clear vision, I mean, you know, the documentation, the communication that can break through the noise of the math wars and acknowledge the different viewpoints that people may be bringing into an effort, right? I think that's really, really important. Not to just say, “We're going to do it this way”, but to actually acknowledge the different viewpoints that people may be bringing. 

And then secondarily, it's really the level of detail and specification required to clarify what we mean by this expectation, right? I think the… you know, the Common Core state standards in high school are really not immune from people having wildly different interpretations of what a particular standard might mean. So, I think, you know, people need clear language, they need a lot of examples, right? Really specific examples, and I don't just mean like one or two, I mean a real wealth of examples that can help people understand not only what does this expectation looks like on an assessment, but also what might a classroom-level activity might look like? What does student proficiency look like? There are a lot of questions that people are going to have about any expectation setting. And unfortunately, those don't always go answered. 

Rich Portelance

So, if you had to make a recommendation in order to achieve quantitative readiness, what would you say to institutions about what that alignment should look like? 

Peter Coe

Yeah. I think it really is starting with a clear and compelling vision that is focused and balanced, right? Those are– I'm going to draw on those two words I said before, right? This is where we want our students to be, and where we want our students to be is not a list that is a hundred items long. It is… I'll just say shorter than that. I'm not going to give you a number, but it's a short list that you could fit on, let's say, two pages, that acknowledges not only the durable skills and the demands of the modern workplace, but also connects those to the core foundational mathematical understandings that we know are important. And then, really goes into some detail via concrete examples, right? Show me, don't tell me. What are the kinds of tasks that you want students to do on what time frame? What are the associated teacher actions, the assessment items that might assess whether students have met those expectations? That's really the starting place. And from there, that allows you to develop criteria for developing curricula. But I really think that a clear and compelling vision with details attached to it, I think is important. 

Rich Portelance

And do you believe that there is a good and proper way to assess how the analytical curriculum is actually aligned to workforce demands? Is there a way to kind of put that? 

Peter Coe

Yeah, I mean, I think we need more… I think we need more stakeholders at the table, right? I think that, you know, one of the great privileges I've had over the last couple of months is to be engaged in multiple focus groups that I'm leading with SAP. And so I'm talking about conversations with classroom-level educators, but also with school leaders, with district leaders, with state supervisors of mathematics, and also the post-secondary community, right? And so, I think what we need is more conversations and collaborations that bring together these different groups of people, at least at the beginning, where we can all say, “Hey, if a student could meet this bar, if a student could do this and meet this expectation, that would be a great signal that they'd be ready to move on, and ready for the next phase of their life in college and careers”. So I think we don't do enough of that. We don't have enough of those conversations about where our K-12 students are moving on to next. I think we need to give them a stronger voice and a stronger role in this process. 

Rich Portelance

So, Peter, for presidents, or I should say for leaders in secondary education, where should they start if they suspect their math and analytical preparation isn't aligned to future workforce needs? 

Peter Coe

It's a great question. I think… I would… I mean, I would start by considering work in your own state, and I know that may sound silly, but, you know, I would investigate a little bit, as I was saying earlier; many states have developed some resources that are connecting K-12 work to durable skills, to a more modern workforce. If you happen to live in a state that's not doing that work, I'll give a plug one more time. We've got a great publication that really kind of summarizes where that conversation is right now in different states. So that could be a good resource for you as well. But yeah, I think it's a matter of really taking a look at your mathematics program and thinking about, you know, where can we focus our time, right? What are the big ideas in each course, and then what are some opportunities for connections to durable skills that might be evident in that work? 

Rich Portelance

So if, you know, just for the audience, if you follow Student Achievement Partners online, you can probably find some of those publications. If there are any links, Peter, we can always include them in the description too. You know, the things that will be valuable to our listeners as they kind of explore, you know, what Student Achievement Partners is doing and how it impacts curriculum today. 

Peter Coe

Great. Yeah, absolutely. We've got a page up. It's called “Math That Matters”. So yeah, learnwithsap.org/math-that-matters. Yeah. 

Rich Portelance

Perfect. Are there any ways or any early indicators that tell us that an institution is moving in the right direction?

Peter Coe 

Yeah, I think so. One is… you know, everything I said about setting the vision I think is important, right, so if we see some indication through frameworks, through communication, through, you know, when we see alignment in the ways that a leader is talking about something, and the principal and the teacher, I think that when you see some evidence that that vision is taking hold, I think that's a really strong signal. I think when we see… and again, I'm speaking my real bias here, but when we see people letting go of things, right, I think when we see people having the courage to say, “Look, this set of 80 indicators wasn't doing it for us. We're going to focus more deeply on these 40, or these 30”, I think that's a really strong signal. As counterintuitive as it may be, I think when we see people purposefully increasing focus, I think that is a really strong signal. 

And then the last thing I'll say is just, you know, when we see coherent connections present,  whether it's in a classroom, whether it's in a curriculum guide, or a set of materials in an activity, right? So we're not saying, “Here's where we do the math, here's where we do the durable skills, and here's where we do the data science”, right? But when students actually have these integrated, we see some evidence of integrated opportunities where I am learning about functions, and the way that they're a tool for working with data, and I'm having opportunities to build resilience, collaboration, and creativity. I think those are really the indicators I'd look for. 

Rich Portelance

Okay. I'm going to– and those are good, durable skills to have, I agree. 

I'm going to put you in front of a lecture hall, and in the room are– 

Peter Coe 

I’m getting nervous now. Okay. 

Rich Portelance

Faculty members who– and it could be interdisciplinary– want to be part of this transformation rather than resist it. 

Peter Coe 

Yeah. 

Rich Portelance

What advice are you giving them? 

Peter Coe 

They want to be a part of it? 

Rich Portelance

Yes. They want to be part of it. 

Peter Coe 

Well, keep working for me is what my first piece of advice would be. Don't go anywhere, please! 

I think my advice to them would be to play an active role in talking to your colleagues who might be more resistant, and sharing your “why”, right? Think deeply about why you want to be a part of this transformation, your rationale, and share that with colleagues as much as you can. And I think in particular, if you have a story about how you were resistant and now you aren't anymore, that is like gold. That is like the most important thing that people can share, of “I used to think… now, I think differently, and here's why”. 

I think I would also give them the advice to, I think, really look for and be able to name the positive changes that you're seeing in your students through transformational work. I think that with any transformation, there are challenges, and there will be dips, and we may see moments and places where student achievement and learning may decline for brief periods. And we have to be obviously conscious of that, and working to change that. And it's going to be really important for us to be able to name and tell stories of the ways that students are positively changing amidst a period of transition. 

Rich Portelance

Okay, so, you know, that's you helping these faculty members kind of gain perspective to get to that next level. 

Now let's talk about five to 10 years from now. Right? We are in the future. What does a truly future-ready institution look like? Your perspective? 

Peter Coe 

It's a great question. I mean, I think a truly future-ready institution is always evolving, right? So five to 10 years from now, they might be having some of the same conversations, right? That's sort of the nature of the future. And I think given the rapid changes in our world that we're seeing today, I think that's really a non-negotiable, that a future-ready institution is sort of always future-ready, and maybe always evolving. I think about… really kind of the reciprocal nature of teaching and learning, and the ways that… you know, an institution that is providing future-ready learning for students is also providing similar experiences for the grown-ups or the instructors, the leaders in that organization. I had a realization once, which is, you know, we can't expect students to develop a deep intellectual life if their teachers don't have one, also, right? Like that's really not possible. So I would say that, you know, if we are setting the conditions for young people to develop resilience, creativity, collaboration, we have to have those spaces for the grown-ups too, right? We can't treat instructors like widgets, and, you know, give them firm directives and requirements only. We have to really engage them in similar practices that we do with students. So, I think just, yeah, that idea of always evolving, and you know, maybe a different model of the way that the instructors collaborate, the way that the instructors communicate and do their work is also necessary. 

Rich Portelance

So, I spent a lot of years in advisement. I had a company called Career Path, and I spoke to, you know, counselors and advisors at different schools, and it was always apparent to me that it was almost impossible for them to advise a student on a career that they had no idea about. And, you know, as things were evolving, if we didn't keep them up to date on what was happening in the workforce, there was no way they were helping the students properly find those future-ready careers. So I agree 100% with what you just said, that you got to train the trainers and get those people thinking. And specifically, what role do mathematics and quantitative reasoning play in that vision? 

Peter Coe 

I mean, I think it's still this balanced approach, right, where we have to keep our eye on the foundational skills and understandings, which, you know, haven't changed very much, and I suspect will probably not change very much over the next 50 to 100 years. Students' fundamental understanding and skills related to algebra, quantitative reasoning, functions, and sort of desperately have to pay attention on the other side with the ways that students are applying those skills in new academic contexts and new workplace contexts. So, I think it's… you know, when I think practically about what that means for an institution, I think about sort of constantly having routines that, A, enable people at all levels to continue to engage with what makes math interesting and the timeless nature of mathematics, going back to, you know, Pythagoras, and before, right? And really to make sure that they are interested in those ideas, understand those ideas, and are ready to teach those timeless ideas in new and innovative ways. 

And also routines that help all of the leaders and instructors in that institution learn about the ways that those skills may newly apply to burgeoning fields. Today we're talking a lot about data science, but in 10 years, we may be talking about something else. But really understanding the role that those timeless ideas play in the future. And so, opportunities to learn about what's happening at the post-secondary level, opportunities to learn about what's happening in the workplace, I think routines that engage people in that area are important, too. 

Closing Thoughts

Rich Portelance

So, I want to thank Peter for joining us today. You know, we create this content for edtech companies, publishers, educators, people in this space who need to create and build programs that meet the future-ready needs of our society and of our jobs, to help these students develop durable skills that will last. And so, Peter, I want to give you the opportunity, you know, are there any final thoughts? Something that I've missed? I mean, we could have gone in a thousand different directions with this conversation, but, you know, is there any last thing you would want to say to the audience that you think is critical as we wrap the conversation? 

Peter Coe 

Thanks for the opportunity, Rich. 

I can't resist the opportunity to double down on what I said about focus. I think those that know me know that this is a common refrain that I have, and that is really, no matter what happens as things evolve and as we develop the urge to add more to our courses, add more to what we expect of students, we've still got to be able to say on a page or less, what are these expectations for students, right? We have to find ways to deepen learning experiences, really with a smaller number of expectations, and I think that's where we're going to see true change. 

Rich Portelance

So if you get the chance, everyone, join us on March 25th for the Future Ready Alignment - Redefining Curriculum For What Comes Next. Peter will be there along with some other great panelists. We hope we see you. There's a registration link in the description below. Thank you very much for listening to the EdGate Powers Podcast, and we'll see you next time