ASU+GSV 2026 Summit | Wednesday, April 15, 2026, 10:10 am-10:50 am | AI & Frontier Tech
Speakers
- Brian Johnsrud, Adobe
- Gabrielle Rosemond, TikTok
- Will Ji, HeyGen
- Dan Quine, Learning Commons
Key Takeaways
- This panel challenged the ASU+GSV conference itself, asking whether the education technology community is too focused on solutions and not enough on the enduring human values of curiosity, creativity, and child development.
- Jean-Claude Brizard (Digital Promise) presented the "powerful learning" framework built on agency, purpose, curiosity, and connection, and warned that teens are simultaneously "bored and overwhelmed" due to decades of narrowed curricula, high-stakes testing, and technology for technology's sake.
- Panelist Katie (Siegel Family Endowment) argued the field should shift from a "solutions perspective to an unlock perspective" -- removing barriers rather than adding fixes -- and urged the community to seize the current moment of disruption to advance what learning science already tells us works.
- Brizard shared observations from Shanghai where he saw a coherent through-line from national AI-in-education policy to classroom practice, warning that the U.S.
- will be "leapfrogged" if it cannot replicate such system coherence.
- The panel agreed that assessment should not lead instructional reform, with Brizard advocating for starting with formatives rather than fighting summative "bean counters," and that joy and creativity in education is "not a luxury for the few" but essential for all children.
Notable Quotes
"Many of our teens are bored and overwhelmed at the same time... We fail to understand that education is human development. It is child development."
ā Jean-Claude Brizard
"If you're always looking for solutions, if you're always looking to fix, if you're always looking for the silver bullet, then you've already started from a deficit place."
ā Katie (Siegel Family Endowment)
"We saw national policy translated to regional efforts, to classroom work [in Shanghai]. We're gonna be left behind if we're not very careful."
ā Jean-Claude Brizard
"Joy and creativity is not a luxury for the few. It's something that needs to be for all children and for all students in the classroom."
ā Cyncil (LEGO Foundation)
"That human caring about your question... I wanna contrast that with what every AI I use does, which says, great idea, Jeremy, you're thinking really well, now let me solve it for you."
ā Jeremy (moderator)
Full Transcript
It's great to be here among friends, new colleagues, people who really care about the human in the loop. I know you're out there and we're going to reach you with our conversation today. I just want to set the stage a tiny bit by sharing a true confession. In 1985, I was an undergraduate engineering student studying AI.
And I learned that I could build solutions. But I drifted. I went astray. I drifted into the humanities.
And I met a professor named Jean Bamberger who was using computation in a completely different way. She was using it for music. To empower people to ask questions about music. And what Jean taught me is the thing that's more powerful than being able to have the capability to build a solution is the ability to form really deep questions.
To have curiosity. To wonder. And to let that guide you. Let that be your light.
And that is the question we're going to pose to this amazing panel today. Are we going astray? Are we losing our light? And can we, should we, bring curiosity, creativity back to the center?
We want to debate, discuss, drive that theme with you today. And hopefully leave you thinking all day about is this conference really talking about what it should be talking about? Is it too much solutions? And not enough questions?
Jean-Claude. Digital promise has worked really hard over the course of a year to define powerful learning. Tell us what it is. Jeremy, thank you.
I'm going to try to give a learning science answer to a learning scientist. Watch out. I'm going to be checking that answer. I'm also married to a learning scientist in the audience, so no pressure whatsoever.
I think if you've been here in this room long enough, you heard from perhaps two speakers ago talking about this idea of what makes us human in the age of the machines. I'd love to talk about the age of human intelligence instead. So this question of powerful learning has been really important to us at Digital Promise. And the why behind it I think is really, really critical.
So what makes us, again, a learner? What makes us an earner in this age as we watch the machines proliferate, frankly, what we do across our work? So this definition of powerful learning leans on perhaps four different constructs, agency, purpose, curiosity, and connection. And you can look at the definitions on our website and see how each one is really so critically important in how we learn content, how we work with content, how we extrapolate from content to really build the kinds of skills that kids need for perhaps 20 years from now, not just tomorrow, but 20 years from now.
So I'm happy to talk a little bit about, too, like why one and not the other. But, Bajong Kha, I know that where you come from is still built on the fact that you were a science teacher once. So just bring that to life for me a little bit. Where does curiosity fit with when you were a science teacher?
Yeah. So, I mean, I'm a teacher, frankly, by heart. So let me give you perhaps a very specific example. When I taught physics in New York City, we used the Vernier software suite, if you're old enough to know what that is, from Tufts University.
And what we did was flip the paradigm in looking at how we do laboratories. You may remember your science labs in high school, right, your chemistry or physics lab, your follow procedure, cookbook lab. And at the end, you had no idea what the hell you were doing or talking about, right? I know I did that when I was a high school student.
So this particular system allows us to flip the paradigm, where the experimentation was about maybe 20 seconds, and the argument, the inquiry, the curiosity of kids wanting to understand, again, the gap that perhaps they had about really being interested in the topic, you drove interest in this particular work, lasted 20 minutes or half an hour. I'll give you one very specific example. They were using this ramp and this cart to look at the velocity, or even acceleration, but velocity chart. And this group of kids told me, when I asked them to predict what they're going to see, they gave me a vertical line.
And so giving them the answer, I asked better questions, as they showed it to me. And I started to watch in amazement, in amusement for 10 minutes, I couldn't replicate that. Then the curiosity really jumped in. Then we talked and argued for about 20 minutes.
And I can tell you, those kids now are physicists, they're engineers, and this was a vocational high school, a school named Hip Hop High in Brooklyn, New York. So that was the purpose, in my class, of driving inquiry and driving curiosity around specific science subjects. Fantastic. Thanks for making it real for us and bringing us back.
Katie, when I think of you, I think of the word ecosystem, and I'm just, like, John Claudis told us about curiosity in the science classroom, but what does it mean to take an ecosystem perspective? Yeah. You know, we talk a lot about ecosystems because we care a lot about infrastructure at Siegel, and we think about that through these lenses of physical, digital, and social sort of connection points for people that they need to have. And the infrastructure for curiosity needs to exist outside of the classroom, just like the infrastructure for learning overall should exist outside of the classroom.
Even if you consider the school day, you know, as the primary point where students are learning, they enter and move through a world outside of school walls for many more hours in the day than they do spend inside. And so we try to take the approach that all of these walls should be more porous, that you should have the opportunity to explore your career ambitions with your hands dirty in it, not just through the lens of here's what a webpage says about what that career is, here's what a worksheet says about what that job might be or how you might help your community or what it means to get involved in local government. These are all things that I've experienced myself as a student and also as a facilitator of different forms of project-based learning, different forms of experiential learning. We have so many different names for it, but at the end of the day, it's all about trying to spark something, something that little ember that then drives you to be consumed by the desire for more knowledge, for more understanding.
And curiosity is that ember that we're trying to continue to stoke and sort of keep warm as we think about where we want kids to be engaged and where their brains to be open. What's wonderful about this panel is so many rich perspectives on our topic. So we went from school, going out to the beyond school. Cyncil's going to take us further and hopefully all the way to what does it mean for children to be thriving?
How does curiosity relate? Yes. Curiosity and creativity is a big part of thriving and children's well-being, I think. And it's essential for that.
And we see that. And I guess we can all remember that fantastic play date where things were just, time was just like standing still. We were just, you know, it was just joy of creation. It was like we were building confidence together with our play date or playmate.
And you know, we are building the skills and the agency that we need also to thrive. And that's a big part of creativity as well. That's a big part of also being curious and have to actually, the confidence and the skills to actually ask good questions and also just be open-minded. So I think that's essential for well-being and children thriving.
And I definitely also think that is something that we need to have in mind today as we are looking into a digital classroom as well. And how do we then create for children's well-being in mind and for their creativity as well? So they go together, well-being. Exactly.
They are so closely connected. And I think today we're not focusing enough of that. You know, we all know that exercise and sometimes just breathing is a part of well-being and sometimes just being relationships. But creativity, where does that come in?
And I think that's essential. And it can be many things. It can be play, of course, which we are a big supporter of. But it can also be, you know, craftsmanship and other things as well.
I think that's hugely important for well-being. Yeah. Fantastic. So we've laid the table for you of our topic today.
And I want to try to stimulate some rich discussion by posing a couple provocations. You can pick one in any order. Anyone can speak. And just pick one that resonates with you.
And I'll just say two. One is this conference, ASUGSV, is too much about education and not enough about child development. Agree? Disagree?
What do you think? Number two, this conference is too much about chasing the next technology and not enough about doubling down on enduring human values. Pick one you want to talk about. Let's get a discussion going.
I'll start. And I feel like I'm somewhere in the middle. But maybe I'll answer the second provocation more than the first. But I think the reason I say both end is because too much of education has become about chasing the next big thing.
And I don't know if that's just market forces coming into the education space and driving different attitudes or if it's something intrinsic to how we're thinking about education broadly. I think we're looking for solutions, for fixes, and that makes everything a problem, right? If you're always looking for solutions, if you're always looking to fix, if you're always looking for the silver bullet, then you've already started from a sort of deficit place. I don't know that you do the best work possible for sparking curiosity, for encouraging creativity when you're starting from a deficit.
I think in our work in philanthropy across the board, recognizing that every place has assets, every person has assets, every person has value, is such an important part of being able to do good work that actually makes a difference, that actually allows us to learn something that we can then apply to the next community to help them. I think the same can be true when we think about our approach to education, not that we need to be looking for the next thing that's going to finally solve it, but what are the things that we want to put in students' hands because we think that they will be good for them? What are the things that we want to have that would help us better reflect the values and the opportunities and experiences that we want young people to have? Those are the questions I would rather start with, the curiosities, than, okay, here's another solution for a problem you have.
I fully agree on that, and I think to a large extent that in some way all the players who are out there today, they are also focused on getting a return on the investment, and that's the big tech and others who are right now designing also for the education system, and we are forgetting to have the children at the center, and we need that, so I think that's critical. That's one thing, and I also think there is an excuse all the time about, oh, but our education system is so conservative, and it takes a huge time or a long time to actually change that, and I don't think that should be the excuse. I think we need to be much more visionary in that, and I think that's what is needed as well, that we actually need to actually take the reins and say we need to start to put the children at the center and design for that instead of what is making the best return and what is actually adopting the education system is into what it is today and not what it needs tomorrow. So I know we are all going to agree, frankly.
But violently. We'll agree violently. But violently agree. So I spent yesterday afternoon with 1,300 CIOs, CTOs, and school superintendents in Chicago yesterday afternoon talking about a very similar topic, and in that conversation we talked about Rebecca Winthrop's book, The Disengaged Teen.
If you have not seen that book, you should really read it, and I think it's the outcome of what we are not doing very well, frankly. In that discussion, we talked about a paradox that we have, frankly, right now in the world of education, which is many of our teens are bored and overwhelmed at the same time, and the question is why. When you take a look at the last few decades of narrowing curricula, of high-stakes assessment, of technology for technology's sake and not for education's sake, you get this place where kids are completely disengaging from education because we fail to understand that education is human development. It is child development.
And we fail to understand that preparing young people or thinking about the newer science of young people who are wired for agency, for curiosity, for purpose, right? And you put them in a room and say, sit and get. Or we outsource education to a machine, then you begin to lose your way. For technology to really do what it needs to do, we have to understand this is really about teaching and learning.
It's about human development. The technology, and this is what CIOs and CTOs, the technology becomes a means to supporting the coherent instructional work we have in our school, the pedagogical work we have in our schools, to elevate what it means to be a learner in today's environment. I mean, are we getting that message to the kids, really? I mean, I resonate with what you're saying, are what they're getting when they wake up and go to school every day, you have a developing brain, you have a developing body.
We want those to develop you into a person who's curious? What are they getting? I don't think it's that. I mean, I think at some really excellent schools, it may be a version of that.
But for the most part, it is not that. And I think, you know, I know we haven't said the magic words AI yet enough. That's amazing, actually. Listen how long we've been able to go.
I know. I know. Don't worry. I'm not going to say anything positive about it.
But I think, I think much like what we need as we bring new technologies in is like a measure of transparency with teachers and with students about what this tool is, what it's supposed to do, what you do if it's not working, where the human still matters in that, like, we need to be more transparent. There's information overload. And we expect students, we expect young people, particularly teens, to both exist in a world of information overload where they're seeing the same things that we're seeing, but then walk into a school building and behave as though they don't have that knowledge because we're trying to impart something to them that feels so divorced from their reality. Which is not to say that we have to try to make every learning experience relevant in the modern context.
Right? Like, sometimes you do just have to read about what happened in World War I, and it was World War I. So it was not 2026. But you can get at these concepts, you can get at these experiences we want them to have through, I think, greater transparency about, yes, you're here to gain some knowledge, but also to develop as a human.
What does that mean to you? And what do you want it to be? Yeah. So, I mean, I completely agree.
I was reading an article in the Washington Post about what's happening right now. I think it was Catholic University, other universities around the country, about can war be ethical? You think about that kind of pedagogy in a school, where the information is readily available through the machines or technology, et cetera, and you engage young people in a kind of meaningful discussion about ethics. Can war be ethical?
Kind of a question of what's happening right now, frankly, with us in Iran and Israel, right? So these kinds of sort of deep questions, I have a board member who often says to us that we have to move from answer-getting to having kids ask better questions. The fact is the kids are moving, they've moved to social media because they find that entertaining, and it's hollow experience, it's dumb schooling, which is leading to this kind of bipartisan push against screen time, parents going nuts, et cetera. We are losing the battle, the narrative, because we're forgetting this is about really getting kids to ask really good questions and engage in deep.
This is not new education, we've known this for a long time. When you get kids engaged in deep dialogue and deep argument, then you get really amazing education actually happening. So I agree, of course, and we all agree, we're agreeing, I want to know how we get there. And so the word that keeps coming to me as I listen to our panel discuss is moving from a solutions perspective to an unlock perspective, or a breaking down barriers perspective.
What is it that we can change or remove that opens a space for curiosity to develop? I'll give one example that I've had some experience with, and it gives me hope, this example. It's from science education, and of course science should be about inquiry, that's the fundamental word, and it's the OpenSciEd curriculum is my example, because that curriculum really reformulated what a curriculum means around two ideas. One idea is it has to be about students' questions, so how does every unit start?
Not by telling students facts or history, but by helping them develop a question that will sustain them through the unit. Number two, a storyline. Curiosity and inquiry develop through stories. And so that kind of thing gives me hope, because it shows we can reformulate things to be curiosity centric.
What do you see that we could reformulate, unlock, release? Where's there hope that we can bring more curiosity to children's lives? I can answer that, or at least add a comment to it. First of all, I think we definitely need to design for children and their curiosity and have them in mind, and I've already said that.
But we definitely also need to take the perspective of the teachers and what do they need in order to actually help and support that curiosity in the classroom. And right now they are being overwhelmed with all different kinds of stuff and all different kinds of apps that they need to, you know, enter just to actually get into the curriculum. And I think, so we need to give more space and more freedom to the teachers to actually allow them to get the children to ask the right questions. So it needs policy change, and it also needs the support and putting educators and teachers at the center together with the children.
That's how I see it. That's general, but what specifically for teachers? Do you have an idea? Because I think there's a lot of work.
This is a very different way of teaching than what teachers feel themselves to be accountable for. So, for instance, what I heard was one of the things that we see the teacher in a different way. I heard the word flip model, where you're actually putting the teacher in as a facilitator. So AI can help with all the basics.
I honestly believe that, and I think the opportunities that we have with AI and also, you know, adjusting to the different learners' needs is amazing, and no doubt about that. But what we need is the human interaction, the collaboration, the creativity in the room and the agency. And that is something that the teacher can support, but we need to help and support the teachers to actually drive that in the classroom. So we need to look at the real implementation and how we can support it in the best way possible.
Go ahead, John. Let me add to that. I completely agree, Cecil. Perhaps a concrete example, as a former superintendent, I can tell you what we need, what I see the need is, to get a kind of curricula.
that speaks to this in schools, with good professional learning and pedagogical support for teachers, right?
So for example, like creativity. To tell a teacher, go teach creativity. What does that mean to them? Would they have no experience in doing that?
And frankly, if you have creativity that would have deep knowledge, you get thin results, right? So you think about ways in which, well, let me step back, give you a concrete example. So we have a district in Alabama, Talladega County, Alabama, who've taken this kind of work, until the curriculum providers and other folks get this stuff together for us. They're actually taking matters in their own hands supported by Digital Promise, where groups of teachers buy content, sit down with experts, and they're taking units of study and integrating the units with real skill development around things like, you know, curiosity, other kinds of things which we know are pretty critically important.
But the units are changed, redesigned with the teachers at the table. So they own the work. When I visited the school district, the ownership was not in the hands of the superintendent, it was in the hands of teachers and kids. We're talking about the kinds of skill development, the portrait of a learner, those kinds of collaboration, et cetera, right?
The computational thinking skills, we saw that live and concretely being done in pre-kindergarten classrooms and in 12th grade honors level ELA classrooms, where those skills were powerful. Give you another quick example. I had a call yesterday with the CEO of Franklin and Calvary. We're talking about how you bring the leader in me, if you know that, the seven habits into the very fabric of the school.
The question we asked was, what does it look like Monday morning, 9 a.m., fourth grade math class? That level of granularity is what we need in our schools. Otherwise, telling folks, go ahead and teach creativity. Yeah, right.
You know, that doesn't help the average teacher who doesn't know frankly what the science says and what it looks like. We have to get that level of granularity. Ultimately, the big companies are gonna help us get there. I know I'm watching BrainPop, frankly, do this kind of work as well, too.
And their move to reshape the organization and the company to get to where it's gonna go, and I wanna watch and I hope that Franklin and Calvary gets there as well, too. Because what they teach there are the kinds of skills that, again, my daughter was not 25, she experienced a leader in me when she was six. And those skills remain with her today and what she does today as a young woman. So that's the level of integration we need, frankly, in our schools every single day.
Yeah, I really wanna double down on getting, well, I'm a learning scientist, I'm a researcher. I want precise definitions. But I'm thinking when you both were talking about my example from the beginning of the session, Gene Bamberger and music. And one of the amazing things about Gene that I'll always remember is we'd be listening, it was a music appreciation class, and we were using technology to help us take apart and do things with music.
And somebody would say something, it might be me in the class, and she would say, that is a really great question. And that human caring about your question, and that human, let's think about how we could go deeper, and that support. Like, I will support you to pursue that. And I wanna contrast that with what every AI I use does, which says, great idea, Jeremy, you're thinking really well, now let me solve it for you.
There's a real difference there. I think that caring element, caring about kids' questions, wanting, it's the child development part, wanting to see the child develop with their question. Well, you're nodding a lot. Let me, let me get that.
Well, I think it's interesting just to think about how we actually got there, because I feel like there's two paths. What Jean-Claude described about granularity and wanting to get down to brass tacks about how we integrate these things to the systems we currently have is super important. And I think at the same time, we should be thinking more radically about how we could reimagine the system that we want to have, and do the things that get us there. And I think particularly, I know we're in a windowless room, but the world outside is kind of wild right now.
I don't know if you've seen anything about that. But in the midst of this sort of chaos, in the midst of this AI disruption, in the midst of everything that's happening, why not take what we know to be good and true and what we've worked so hard to envision and try to make it happen, right? Like I think in all of the, if people are gonna bust down regulations, then let's not only let the bad actors who wanted those regulations to be gone so that they could do nefarious things like sell you crappy ed tech products. But we're not gonna have any controversy on this panel.
It's okay, I have like a once every few years I'm allowed back. And instead have like a rush to promote the things that we know to be good and where regulation was standing in the way, where bureaucracy was standing in the way, where barriers were standing in the way. Because I think in education as a philanthropist and looking at the field, I think we're always waiting for that perfect set of conditions to emerge so that we can finally do the best and highest thing that learning science tells us, that sound pedagogy tells us. But we never are going to have that happen.
So what are we going to do with what we've got so that we can actually make the progress that is available to us? Yeah, I mean, so yes, bravo. You know, so when I was at the Gates Foundation, we talked a lot about strategic agility, which is can you see the system? Can you see the 1,000 feet?
Can you see the ground level work? Can you connect all of it? I was in Shanghai with 40 leaders in November. We're completely blown away.
And what we saw was system design around AI in education. Let me give you a quick, quick example. We saw a sixth grade language arts lesson and we connected that to work at a local university, to work at the regional ministry, to work at a national policy structure. We saw a through line.
We're blown away. We're sitting with the head of Denver Public Schools. We're like, holy crap. They're a decade ahead of us in pushing for this.
So very quickly, we saw national policy translated to regional efforts, to classroom work. We can't replicate China, as you may have heard when John Schneider was talking about this workforce. The question frankly is, what does it look like in the American context? Some of us right now are obsessed with can we take three states in the U.S. and replicate that kind of through line in looking at AI in education in the American context and show what that means for policy, what it means for design, system design, what it means for classroom learning experiences.
That's the kind of work that we would love to see as a proof of concept for what this could look like in the American context. If we don't do this, folks, we are gonna be leapfrogged by not just the folks in China, but many countries are looking at this. Uruguay in South America is barreling down the road with the same kind of construct. We're gonna be left behind if we're not very careful.
I wanna build on your point as well. I think the fact that what we can do in philanthropy on this topic is actually amazing. And I think we can actually move a lot if we are working together, if we are focusing on high quality solutions in the classroom, if we're working on things that can actually support the teachers in the best possible way. Because I fully agree with your point as well, Jeremy, that the teachers are the most important thing for the students, for sure they are.
We can all remember that teacher that makes a huge difference for us and saw us as children and as kids and as confident learners. And I think that's the most important thing both today and tomorrow. And we need to build that and we need to support that in the best way possible. And we can do that if we focus on more than just, again, coming back to the financial returns, but actually building good solutions that are out there.
And yeah, we need that. Okay, we're up to surprise challenge round. So we've talked about a couple of design factors that I believe we could make some progress on, do the agile thing you're talking about, some system coherence efforts, some curriculum efforts, some teacher professional development efforts, but is assessment gonna block us? Are we gonna get stuck because we can't assess something in the realm of creativity, curiosity?
Is that gonna, if we don't knock that down or do something, are we just gonna be getting nowhere because of assessment? No, but we have the opportunity to assess that. We know that from research already. So that's not the question.
The question is more, does the current system allow for that and do we have room for that? Because we are so focused on scores and the normal kind of exams and learning, yeah. So I mean, I will call out the Carnegie Foundation for the Invisible Teaching, sorry, the book is still being called out here in the audience. And they work on the progressions, looking at ways of measuring some of the skills that we're discussing right now.
But just to be very clear and very careful, we don't want assessment to lead the work. You know, Michael Fullan talked about this maybe 20 years ago, why America and Australia will not win the war because we lead with assessment, we lead with accountability. I'm not entirely accountability, but I can be the driver, frankly, of the work that we need to do in our schools. Right now, assessment is a thing, it's a place that kids experience.
We have a 13-year-old who couldn't care less about your test. I know Brooke had to convince him to take math and MBA seriously because he's going to high school. Because he sees no relevance in that particular exercise. By the way, most teachers don't either.
We do autopsies on these things, we blame folks for accountability. So there needs to be huge work done in changing assessment. That, again, I'm hoping the experts will do that kind of work. Fundamentally, it cannot be the barrier for us getting there, which is why I tell everybody, if you want to change the world, let's start with formatives first and not summatives, because you're going to get into the fight with the bean counters.
It's a losing battle, right? But go to what really informs instruction. And when assessment becomes embedded in pedagogy, embedded in the activity, right, it no longer is a kids need not know they're taking a test, where the learning experience provides feedback, by the way, it happens in aviation right now, as we're talking, if you flew here, the data from the flight, it feeds back into the professional development folks for the pilots, and their learning experience, their professional learning is shaped around that. What can't that show up in education?
I love that. Like, how could there be a feedback system for curiosity and creativity that just wraps around the child and nurtures and grows that really unique and special part inside each child? That wasn't really a question. That was a...
Let's talk just briefly about research. Is there a research question that you think would really help us with these unlocks? What would you like researchers like me to be focused on as we try to unlock curiosity and creativity in children's lives? I was really fortunate recently to go to Scratch, and we learned from some of the coolest brains and minds in neuroscience, learning science, you know, computer science about sort of these questions of curiosity, creativity, and what it actually looks like when the brain is activated in that way.
So I'd be curious for more on that. For more of that deep academic research to be brought to life for the people who need to action on it. And I would love to see that be a research agenda that we have. Okay.
We've got 30 seconds left. So, Jean-Claude, one parting thought for our audience. Just as a last point, joy and creativity is not a luxury for the few. It's something that needs to be for all children and for all students in the classroom.
And I think the question that we need to ask ourselves, are we really designing for that today? Or else we need to really start designing for that. And I don't think we are there yet. And just quickly, ditto, right?
So how do we make sure that the folks in accountability understand that this work is really critically important to get the outcomes they want in math and literacy? That was quick. Thank you. Well, thank you for joining us for this wonderful panel.
Please share an applause for our wonderful panelists.
This transcript was put together by our friend Philippos Savvides from Arizona State University. The original transcript and additional summit resources are available on GitHub. Licensed under CC BY 4.0.