The Harvard EdCast

00:00The case for rethinking how we challenge advanced math students 00:49Why focus on high-performing students during a time of learning recovery 01:09The tradeoff: prioritizing struggling students vs. supporting advanced learners 02:51Inside the classroom: the real challenge of differentiation 03:17Why accelerating students can make teaching more difficult 05:21The downside of treating math like a race 06:37A better approach: depth over speed 07:44When accelerationdoesmake sense (and for whom) 10:43What “math enrichment” really means 11:07Why worksheets and puzzles aren’t enough 12:13Simple questions that push deeper thinking 13:39What to do with early finishers 15:06Practical strategies teachers can use right away 16:19Why grades 3–5 is a key turning point 19:13Why this issue looks different in high school 20:03The reality of teaching accelerated students 21:31How common is deep, discussion-based math teaching?

00:00 Why families fixate on elite colleges—and the rise of the “panicking class” 01:15 How rankings shape decisions (and why they mislead) 03:10 The truth about differences between top-ranked schools 04:45 Why choosing a college feels so confusing 06:15 How test-optional, early decision, and the Common App changed everything 08:20 Inside the “black box” of holistic admissions 10:05 Who makes up the “panicking class” 11:40 Reality check: most colleges accept most students 13:00 Prestige pressure as a parenting culture problem 14:30 What “fit” really means—and where to start 16:00 When prestige leads to the wrong choice 17:10 How to decide after admissions disappointment 18:40 What should change in college admissions 20:10 Will parent attitudes shift in the future? 21:30 Closing thoughts

0:25 — Why reading scores still struggle 2:15 — Rise of the science of reading 5:00 — Aligning leadership to drive reform 7:30 — Consistency and long-term commitment 10:00 — Implementation matters more than policy 12:30 — Where literacy efforts break down 14:30 — What teachers need to do 17:00 — From percentages to individual students 19:00 — Why some states lose momentum. 20:30 — “Mays vs. shalls” in policy 22:00 — How long it takes to see results 23:30 — Third-grade retention 25:00 — Why early intervention matters most 26:01 — Mississippi Marathon / Closing thoughts

0:00 — Introduction 1:05 — The three types of sex education most people receive 3:20 — What comprehensive sexuality education actually means 5:10 — Why consent alone isn't enough 7:00 — Why sexuality education shouldn't be siloed in health class 9:20 — Why conversations about sexuality should start early 11:30 — Teaching body awareness and safety 13:30 — Why kids ask questions about where babies come from 15:20 — The biggest challenges educators face today 17:30 — Why teachers often fear administrative backlash 19:00 — How school leaders can move forward despite resistance 21:00 — What progress would look like in 10 years. 22:30 — Closing thoughts

Harvard Graduate School of Education ProfessorKaren Brennan sees classrooms as magical spaces when we begin with curiosity, not just content. “When I think about design process, from the initial moments of young people working on projects, all the way to the end where they've gone through the highs, the lows, the emotional vicissitudes of bringing their ideas into the world, the messy middle through to the end, there is a role for questions in every moment,” she says. “Start with questions, for me, is really about an attitude of leading with student interests.” Drawing on a yearlong study of 25 teachers across elementary, middle, and high school classrooms, Brennan describes how powerful learning begins by asking genuine questions, or really questions teachers don’t already know the answers to. She is the co-author ofStarting with Questions: The Classroom as Design Studio, which explores what happens when educators take students’ ideas seriously. Rather than treating questions as a closing ritual at the end of a lesson, Brennan argues for an orientation shift: start with what learners are thinking about, what they care about, and what feels hard or exciting to them. Grounded in traditions of progressive education, this approach does not reject content knowledge. Instead, it reframes the role of teachers as expert guides, offering domain expertise, metacognitive scaffolding, affirmation, and structure within a classroom culture that values intellectual humility. Brennan comes to the classroom from a design studio background, a space that embraces tinkering and where self-directed learning happens in community. In studio-based environments, students pursue projects that matter to them while learning alongside peers and with the support of teachers. Self-direction, she explains, is not scriptless chaos but more structured, scaffolded, and deeply relational. That mindset also shapes her optimism about artificial intelligence. Brennan argues that AI is not about offloading thinking, but about expanding what learners can imagine and build. “I feel like we don’t give learners enough credit,” she says. “When there’s all this handwringing around AI stealing assignments, maybe we were asking students to do things that weren’t that important to begin with. If AI can do it, maybe we need to be looking for new opportunities for interestingness for learners. In this episode, Brennan pushes beyond traditional classroom approaches toward a powerful idea: how classrooms become transformative when we make space for students’ questions and trust their capacity to pursue them.

When Doug Larkin and Suzanne Poole Patzelt set out to study the relationship between teacher pay and retention, what they found surprised them. “Without fail, no matter what school we went to, what state we were in, that was always the number one response,” Poole Patzelt says. “We did nothing to put that at the top. That was far and beyond the number one reason why teachers stayed was because of who they were working with.” She adds, “We are relational organisms. We rely on relationships and other people.” Pay, Larkin explains, mattered but differently than we often assume. Teachers generally felt their compensation was adequate. What didn’t hold up was the idea that increasing pay would directly increase effort or retention. “It doesn’t fit that behavioral logic,” he says. “If we pay teachers 10% more, they’re going to work 10% harder. That’s not what was happening here at all.” Instead, what consistently surfaced were collegial cultures where teachers felt supported rather than scrutinized. In their new book, The Reasons Teachers Stay, they draw on a six-year longitudinal study of US schools, districts, and communities with high rates of teacher retention. In the districts they studied — spanning rural, suburban, and urban communities — a defining feature was a “real lack of teacher isolation.” Teachers shared resources. They kept doors open. Administrators fostered trust. Poole Patzelt notes that many of the top retention factors were intertwined: supportive leadership strengthened teacher relationships, and those relationships reinforced a broader culture of care. Each district operated within its own cultural and political context. Still, the strongest schools resembled what Larkin calls a “healthy ecosystem for teachers,” where induction went beyond onboarding and new teachers were not left in “sink or swim” environments. To make sense of these dynamics, Larkin introduces the “teacher embeddedness” framework, a way of understanding retention not as a single decision, but as the accumulation of many small connections. He shares a metaphor from elementary schools where principals are duct-taped to a wall as part of a reading challenge. One strip of tape does nothing. But layer enough pieces together, and they hold someone in place. “Each little thing you can identify,” he explains, “is another piece of tape that holds that teacher in place.” In this episode, they introduce the “teacher embeddedness” framework and gain better insight in why understanding what keeps teachers in the job might be the biggest shift a district can make.

Disagreement is a part of everyday life, yet most of us avoid it whenever possible. Harvard Kennedy School Professor Julia Minson knows where and why our conversations often go wrong and how we can learn to disagree better.Minson, whose research focuses on how people engage with opposing viewpoints, says fear drives avoidance. “Most of these conversations are a pleasant surprise, but people don't expect that. And so they just continue going around with the worst-case scenario in their heads, instead of exploring the reality that's out there,” she says. People worry that disagreements will be unpleasant, fruitless, or that the other person’s perspective will be shocking or even “crazy.” Research shows these assumptions are often wrong: when we actually engage, opposing views are usually more reasonable, moderate, and defensible than expected.The problem isn’t only avoidance. Many conversations fail because participants focus on persuasion, treating arguments like battles to be won. Minson says that shifting the goal from winning to understanding changes the dynamic entirely, turning disagreement into an opportunity to learn rather than a contest to conquer.To help people navigate challenging conversations, Minson and her colleagues developed a practical toolkit called conversational receptiveness, or the framework they call HEAR. Minson emphasizes that these skills take practice. Starting with low-stakes conflicts, like deciding when to set an alarm at home, helps build habits that carry into more emotionally charged conversations at work or in classrooms. “I really think that practicing on small, daily disagreements makes you more able to come up with the words when it's a big, important one and you're really frazzled,” she says.In this episode, the Harvard EdCast explores how to disagree better, practical steps for transforming conversations, and the obstacles that often get in the way of constructive dialogue.

As the United States approaches the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, how should schools teach this foundational document?Harvard lecturer Eric Soto-Shed joins The Harvard EdCast to discuss how civics education is evolving from patriotic education and action civics to media literacy and reflective patriotism. He explains why students should engage not only with the Declaration’s democratic ideals, but also with its contradictions.In a politically charged moment, Soto-Shed argues that classrooms shouldn’t just prepare students for civic life, they should function as civic spaces themselves. The goal isn’t memorization. It’s helping young people understand that democracy is a work in progress — and that they have a role in sustaining and strengthening it.

With about one in four children in the U.S. now living in immigrant families, Harvard Associate Professor Gabrielle Oliveira argues that supporting their wellbeing should be a national priority – not just for the children themselves, but for the strength of society as a whole.Yet for many Americans, migration is often seen as risky or even reckless, especially when it involves bringing children across dangerous borders and leaving everything familiar behind. Oliveira reframes this perspective to migration is an act of profound care.“Almost [no one] wants to leave their homes,” she says. “All things being equal, you want to stay where you were born with the people that you know, and love, and close to your roots. Most people that are coming, they're running for their lives in many ways. So, this is not this idea of people trying to come here to take something from the society, here to take their jobs, to take their safety, to take any of that, but it's kind of almost this beautiful thing about the United States being the safe haven where things are possible, and there's hope.”She has spent years embedded with Latin American migrant families living in Massachusetts, documenting their journeys, their struggles, and the hopes that drive them to uproot their lives, which she shares in her book, Now We Are Here: Family Migration, Children’s Education, and Dreams for a Better Life.Oliveira explains that while public conversations about immigration center on fear and scarcity, the families she followed see education as a stabilizing force and a pathway to dignity. For parents, schooling in the U.S. represents the chance for their children to flourish, not merely academically but as kind, purposeful human beings. Yet for teachers, supporting these students can be complicated by the pressures of curriculum, testing, and limited training in trauma-informed practice or what Oliveira calls “constrained care.”“If you're going to talk about a multicultural piece, why not actually talk about the home country of that child, and let that child write, and talk about that, and tell the stories, which then will increase trust in the classroom,” she says. “We know that if teachers, and students trust each other, the students are going to be a lot more inclined to want to engage more, to want to show up, and learn more in the classrooms versus if they feel that they cannot be their whole selves in the classroom.”In this episode, Oliveira shares how children and families navigate migrating to America and its schools, and offers strategies for educators.

Looking back at the early history of U.S. education, Harvard Professor Jarvis Givens says we’ve long told the story in fragments: Native education in one lane, Black education in another, and the rise of white common schools somewhere else. But in his latest research, he shows just how deeply interconnected these histories actually are, particularly how the development of public schools was entangled with Native land dispossession and the economic engine of slavery. This history is the focus of his new book, American Grammar: Race, Education, and the Building of a Nation.“The reality is that it's not that Black and Native people were not included in the project of American school development, because public schooling in the U.S. was actually developed over and through Native and Black people's dispossession through their subjugation,” Givens says. “It's Native land loss and it's the kind of capital generated from race-based slavery that's really driving the economic development of the nation and also its internal institutions, schooling in particular.”Givens introduces the idea of an “American Grammar,” a framework in which race, power, and knowledge were built into the structure of schooling itself. That grammar hasn’t disappeared, he says, noting how today’s debates over curriculum, representation, and educational justice reflect it.“If we're not being clear and if we're not being as nuanced and detailed as possible in how we're naming how we got to this place, then we can allow ourselves to work with faulty assumptions or faulty understandings about this history that then come to inform the solutions we try to create,” Givens says. “And that's one of the major issues I think that we're up against. How we narrate the past and how we narrate injustice has direct implications for how we go about bringing about justice in the context of schools.”In this EdCast, Givens discusses what it means to rethink what we believe we know about the origins of American education and what becomes possible when we finally reckon with the full story.

Harvard Graduate School of Education Professor Jal Mehta knows that education research matters – it has the power to shape schools, classrooms, and policy. Yet, today, in increased political polarization, many may question whether education research can be neutral.“As a researcher, you have a lot of choices about what topics you study. Those choices are driven by a whole variety of things. They're driven by what researchers would think is interesting and sort of like where the edge of the field is. They're driven, to some degree, I would imagine, by people's own kind of values. And they're also driven by the interests of the moment,” Mehta says. He points out that education research inevitably echoes the issues and values of its time — from No Child Left Behind to Black Lives Matter to the current backlash against diversity and inclusion — but that doesn’t mean its partisan. Instead, it mirrors the social and political moment in which it’s conducted.“There's a lot of interest among researchers about how can we talk to each other, how can we work across difference, how can you have constructive conversations,” he says. “And it's not that those things were any less important five years ago. They just weren't at the kind of the center of the zeitgeist. So, sort of wherever the middle is, you'll find a lot of researchers kind of studying that at that moment in time.”Funding and politics, Mehta notes, also play major roles in determining which studies get done, particularly as recent cuts threaten the data infrastructure needed to track student progress. Yet despite those challenges, he sees hope in growing partnerships between researchers and schools, where the questions being asked are grounded in the realities of teaching and learning. He notes that we are all impacted by research whether we recognize it or not. In this episode, we take a deeper look at whether education research can ever truly be neutral and what happens when ideology and evidence collide.

In the wake of the pandemic, tutoring has become a central strategy for helping students recover academically but not all tutoring is created equal. Liz Cohen, vice president of policy at 50CAN, has been closely studying the rapid rise of tutoring programs across the country, especially the emergence of high-impact tutoring as the gold standard.“There's a funny thing about tutoring is that there's a lot of flexibility in it,” Cohen says. “So, in some places it might look like other interventions and in other places it might not. But one thing I want to be really clear about just to start with is that high-impact tutoring in particular is not homework help and it is not on demand.” Instead, high impact tutoring is structured, frequent, and aligned to what students are learning in school: at least three sessions a week, 30 minutes or more, in groups of four students or fewer, with the same tutor each time. Research shows that when tutoring is consistent and connected to classroom instruction, students make significantly greater learning gains, especially in early literacy and math.Cohen points to examples like Tennessee, Louisiana, and district leaders in places like Baltimore and Guilford County, where strong funding, clear expectations, and hands-on implementation support led to meaningful results. But scaling tutoring can be complicated. As Cohen discovered and reveals in her new book, “The Future of Tutoring: Lessons from 10,000 School District Tutoring Initiatives,” there’s many details that need to come together for tutoring to be a success. “What I believe is the most powerful part of the story of the high-impact tutoring movement and the tutoring movement at large that's happened in the last five years in America is that it's a human centered story that is in part empowered by tech,” Cohen says. “This is fundamentally a story about humans, and it's a story about the fact that young people in America are very hungry for meaningful relationships with adults, and those can be young adults in high school and college, or they can be older adults too.”In this episode, Cohen tells us what has made high-impact tutoring so valuable, how districts are successfully implementing tutoring, and how it has become more than just as an academic intervention.

In an era when many Americans believe the country is too divided to come back together, Tufts University political scientist Eitan Hersh believes higher education has a crucial role to play in bridging divides and he’s putting that belief into practice through a new university center devoted to viewpoint diversity.“What do we want from students when they graduate high school or college,” Hersh says. “We want them to be able to engage with lots of different kinds of people in the workforce or in civic spaces, and know how to handle disagreement, and know how to fight for the things that they care about and know how to listen and learn and develop new ideas.”Too often, he says, universities and social networks confine people to intellectual bubbles. However, when students understand how others’ beliefs shape their views, they learn to think critically, listen better, and handle disagreement with more nuance. That philosophy drives the creation of Tufts’ new Center for Expanding Viewpoints in Higher Education, which Hersh leads. The center will host reading groups, workshops, and in-person discussions that encourage open, offline dialogue across disciplines and ideologies. The center’s mission extends beyond events. In fact, Hersh wants to rethink curriculum and teaching practices to ensure dissenting voices and unfamiliar perspectives are part of students’ education. “It doesn't mean that you, as a student change your mind on every issue. But you just realize that these issues are complicated for a reason, which is that there is a lot of gray area,” he says. “And to me, that is quite depolarizing. Because all of a sudden, it takes something that looked like an us versus them story into a story of people with different values and senses of the world reach reasonable, different conclusions.”While “viewpoint diversity” has become a politically loaded term, Hersh sees it as central to higher education’s purpose, not a partisan issue. In this episode, Hersh discusses his hope to rekindle a university culture defined by curiosity, conversation, and understanding.

Curiosity is one of our most powerful, yet often overlooked, human drives, especially in education. Elizabeth Bonawitz, associate professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, explains that while there’s no single definition of curiosity, it’s best understood as an internal desire to resolve gaps in our knowledge or a wondering about how the world works. That innate drive begins in infancy, fueling our rapid early learning. But as children grow older, especially within structured school systems, that spark too often dims.Through her research, Bonawitz explores how curiosity operates like mise en place for learning preparing the mind to absorb, connect, and retain new information. It activates attention, memory, and motivation, setting the stage for deeper understanding. Studies from her lab show that simple practices, like encouraging children to ask more questions, not only increase curiosity but also improve learning outcomes.“Children who are more curious do better in math or reading scores in school. And that's particularly true for students that come from more under-resourced communities or students that might have other challenges associated with school,” Bonawitz says. “So, curiosity is the great equalizer for education.”But curiosity is not the easiest thing to cultivate, especially in a classroom where barriers like test driven school structures and cultural differences link to uncertainty. The good news is there are things educators and even parents can do to help foster a child's curiosity. In this episode, the EdCast takes a deeper look at curiosity and explores ways to home in on what Bonawitz considers the simple act of wonder.

Dreama Gentry grew up in Appalachian Kentucky, in a community often defined by outsiders for what it lacked. But what she saw was strength, connection, and possibility. Today, as the founder and CEO of Partners for Rural Impact, she’s working to make sure the 14 million young people growing up in rural America can see those same possibilities for themselves.“What I see in Appalachia is that a lot of young folks have lost hope. And they've lost the ability to dream of a future and of a path. And some of that is because their parents also have lost that hope. And some parents are afraid to have dreams for their young folks,” Gentry says. “And I think that's why programs, schools, community systems have to wrap around the whole family and support the whole family in learning how to dream again, holding the hope of a better future, and providing them with those supports.”Despite rural students often graduating high school at higher levels than their peers, they also have lower enrollment rates for college. Part of Gentry’s work is developing that path for students. She explains how “place-based partnerships” are transforming rural schools by bringing together educators, families, and community leaders around one goal: every child supported, from cradle to career.“Career pathways for rural students are the same as career pathways for students in urban areas and other areas. And I think sometimes, we don't make that distinction,” she says. “I think we have a responsibility and a duty, when working with young folks, to help them actualize and develop a dream, a goal that they want to work toward, and then to make sure that they're leaving high school with the skills to achieve that, if possible. And they're college ready. They're career ready. And so, the pathways are unlimited for young people in rural places, just like they are in others.”She says there are many surprising connections between rural and urban education. In fact, Gentry notes how her work with Geoff Canada of the Harlem Children’s Zone changed her perspective. Now, she emphasizes that while the settings may differ, the core work of supporting children and families is universal. Rural and urban educators, she says, have much to learn from one another if they’re willing to move beyond perceived divides and recognize their shared mission to create opportunity for every child.In this episode, Gentry challenges assumptions about rural life, reminding us that the challenges and outcomes facing small towns are deeply tied to the nation’s future.

When educators talk about artificial intelligence, the conversation often begins with excitement about its potential. But for Stephanie Smith Budhai and Marie Heath, that excitement must be matched with caution, context, and critical awareness. “AI is a piece of technology. It's not human, but it's also not a neutral thing either,” says Budhai, an associate professor in the educational technology program at the University of Delaware. “We have to be intentional and purposeful about how we use technology. So, thinking about why we're using it. So why was the technology created?” Budai and Heath, an associate professor of learning, design, and technology at Loyola University Maryland, are the authors of “Critical AI in K-12 Classrooms: A Practical Guide for Cultivating Justice and Joy.” Their research explores how bias is built into artificial intelligence and how these biases can harm students if left unexamined. While bias in technology isn’t new — it’s been present in tools as old as the camera — both scholars argue that educators and students must learn to approach AI critically, just as they evaluate sources and evidence in other forms of learning.“What does it mean when we ask children…to partner with or think with a machine that is based in the past, with historical data full of our historical mistakes and also doesn't really explore? It's not looking at the world with wonder. It's looking in this very focused way for the next answer that it can give the most likely possibility,” Heath says. “And I think as learners, that's actually not how we want kids to learn. We want them to explore, to make mistakes, to wrestle with ideas, to come up with divergent creative thinking.” Both Budhai and Heath believe that using AI responsibly in education means grounding teaching in equity and critical engagement. Budhai points to projects like Story AI, which helps young students tell their own cultural stories while revealing bias in generative image tools. Heath’s Civics of Technology project encourages “technology audits,” helping teachers and students uncover the trade-offs and values embedded in everyday tools. In this episode, we explore how to use AI critically in classrooms, and the responsibility of educators to cultivate AI literacy, develop thoughtful policies, and consider broader implications such as environmental impact, equity, and student privacy.

Congress has passed the nation’s first federal school voucher–style program, set to begin in 2027. Supporters call it a landmark expansion of parental choice, while critics fear it will divert billions from public schools. Harvard Professor Marty West says the program raises important questions about the future of American schooling and even how the program will operate.The new program, part of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” is officially called the Educational Choice for Children Act. Although it isn’t a direct voucher, it will operate as a tax-credit program where individuals can receive up to $1,700 in credits for donating to nonprofit scholarship-granting organizations. These groups can then distribute scholarships for private school tuition, tutoring, transportation, or even special education services. Families earning up to 300% of their area’s median income are eligible, and states must opt in, giving governors control over implementation.“What is clear, is that in any state that wants to do so, the program can be used to support private school choice, and that's what makes it significant,” West says. “It really does have the potential to turbocharge the movement to expand private school choice in the United States, which already had significant momentum at the state level.” The idea of vouchers has a long and varied history in the U.S. tracing back to 1955 when economist Milton Friedman proposed funding education through competition rather than government-run schools. Early programs often focused on targeting low-income families, but as West explains, this shifted over time, especially in recent years as the pandemic accelerated private school choice options. The research on vouchers is often mixed. As West points out, studies often showing modest academic gains, especially for disadvantaged students, and positive effects on civic outcomes and graduation rates. The need for further research on the effects of vouchers is needed. If one thing is certain, politically, vouchers remain deeply divisive. “The issue of private school choice has for decades, been the one education policy issue that most cleanly divides Republican and Democratic elected officials,” West says. Going forward, West will be paying close attention to how and whether the new federal program is adopted throughout the country. “What will the governors of blue states decide? Will they opt into the program or will they not? If they don't, this will further extend a new phenomenon in American education really in the past several years-- --which is that we're starting to see a red state model of education delivery and a blue state model of education delivery,” he says. In this episode, West shares the history of the voucher movement, what research tells us about its success, and whether this national policy will transform American education or further fracture it.

Schools around the world are cracking down on student cell phones, with many turning to outright bans as a fix for distraction, bullying, or mental health struggles. But as University of Birmingham Professor Vicky Goodyear and Harvard’s Carrie James explain, the story is more complicated than a simple “phones are bad.”“School phone policies alone are not enough to tackle some of the issues that we're seeing in adolescents,” Goodyear says. In her study of over 1,200 students, she found no differences in mental health, academic performance, or well-being between schools with strict bans and those without. While restrictions cut down on in-school phone use, they didn’t meaningfully reduce students’ overall daily screen time. “Schools are not the silver bullet for addressing the negative impacts of smartphone and social media use,” Goodyear adds. “We also need to optimize on the benefits that are available as well. And there are also unintended consequences of these bans that we do not yet know.”As James points out, for many students, cell phones can be an important tool for safety, connection, or learning support.“Removing the devices doesn't remove some of the challenges that are associated with growing up with technologies, but it can remove some of the benefits of those connections,” James says. “So, this is not to say this is an argument for not having bell-to-bell policies. I think that they can be very, very important in a lot of cases. But it is an argument for being very alert and aware of some of those unintended consequences.” Both researchers agree schools need phone policies shaped with input from students, families, and teachers — plus opportunities to teach “digital agency,” or how to use technology intentionally and responsibly. In this episode, we explore how the real challenge isn’t keeping phones out of the classroom, but how to prepare young people to thrive in a technology-saturated world.

Strategic leadership may be one of the hardest — and most vital — skills for school leaders to master. Liz City, senior lecturer at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and a long-time coach to school and system leaders across the country, says strategic leadership is not innate but a skill that can be learned and strengthened over time.“We're in a context which, over the last five years, has been full of uncertainty and ambiguity,” City says. “I think that makes it harder for people to be strategic. It puts people in a kind of reactive survival mode, which is not our best place to be.”Learning how to be strategic can mean the difference between finding success over being less effective, doing too much, and burning out, she says. Drawing from decades of experience and recent research, City emphasizes that being strategic is not just about setting goals — it’s about taking intentional action, maintaining focus over time, and deeply understanding people and systems. In her new book, “Leading Strategically: Achieving Ambitious Goals in Education,” she and co-author Rachel Curtis outline five key elements of strategic leadership: discerning, cultivating relationships, understanding context and history, harnessing power, and think big, act small, learn fast.She explains how leaders often get stuck, especially around power and discernment, and offers practical advice for moving from reactive leadership to purposeful progress. “You can lead from lots of different vantage points. I think we assume that if you have formal authority, you have power, and you'll be able to get things done,” City says. “It turns out, though, that most things are accomplished through a large measure of informal authority.” In this episode, City shares what it really means to lead with purpose, especially in today’s climate of uncertainty and change.