Matthew Worwood:
Hello and welcome back to our final, final episode of season 11, which is when we will be joined by our emerging scholar in residence, Jimmy Wilson, who will be debriefing all of our episodes from season 11 and connecting it back to his research on creativity and education and focusing in this particular episode on micro schools, alternative school models, and today’s most innovative approaches to creative teaching that fit and shape the future of learning. Hello, everyone. My name is Dr. Matthew Werwood.

Cyndi Burnett:
And my name is Dr. Cindy Burnett.

Matthew Worwood:
This is the Fueling Creativity in Education podcast.

Cyndi Burnett:
On this podcast, we’ll be talking about various creativity topics and how they relate to the field of education.

Matthew Worwood:
We’ll be talking with scholars, educators, and resident experts about their work, challenges they face, and exploring new perspectives of creativity.

Cyndi Burnett:
All with a goal to help fuel a more rich and informed discussion that provides teachers, administrators, and emerging scholars with the information they need need to infuse creativity into teaching and learning.

Matthew Worwood:
So let’s begin.

Cyndi Burnett:
Jimmy, welcome back. It’s great to have you on the show again.

Jimmy Wilson:
It’s great to be back. I’m so excited always to talk to you and Matt about research findings related to the podcast season. And there’s some new stuff going on with me as well.

Cyndi Burnett:
Oh, let’s hear about that.

Jimmy Wilson:
Well, on June 28th, we had our first little girl born into the family, Remy June. She’s adorable and taken up a good amount of snuggle time each day. So this episode I’m going to actually focus on just one of the topics within our season.

Cyndi Burnett:
Well, as you know, we bring Jimmy in at the end of every season to talk about some theme that he has seen throughout the season and relate it back to the research out there that he has found. So, Jimmy, what’s the theme for today?

Jimmy Wilson:
The theme for today is micro schools and alternative schools of education. Ooh.

Cyndi Burnett:
So tell us, and I can remember, Matt, some of the episodes we did on this topic. I do remember Henry Smith who was out of Johns Hopkins University. I remember David Richards who talked about micro schools. We’ve had a number of conversations around different types of educational platforms. So what really struck you this season?

Jimmy Wilson:
Well, I found this excite, this topic really exciting and invigorating, but I also know it’s very controversial. So I wanted to wade in a little bit and look at some of the trade offs of alternative modes of schooling or micro schools versus traditional big public charter or public traditional school districts as well.

Matthew Worwood:
Yeah, I think that is important, Jimmy, because I think Cindy and I, we definitely got super duper excited about some of the models that were presented and obviously when Henry Smith was talking a little bit about charter schools and possibly being opportunities to kind of reinvent the house. But the flip side of it is, to your point, it is a controversial topic. Jimmy and I do think it’s important for us to kind of on the show recognize that there are multiple perspectives. So what is a very complicated situation?

Jimmy Wilson:
Yeah, and I actually in teaching in public schools for 10 years, I started out in Dallas ISD, which is an interesting example of a huge, huge urban public school that’s trying a lot of different things. So I’m gonna actually bring a little case study of them to maybe bring an example of some of the trade offs, good things happening and then some of the not so good things happening from my personal experience and just an anecdotal level. But there are three areas that I think micro schools and charter schools can really thrive. And also a few trade offs to that too. The first one is autonomy versus resources. We can specialized, small, nimble schools that can get kids into the flow, state can have them self directed learning. And those smaller numbers can also mean maybe there’s not as many resources towards things in large public schools like auto body programs or CAD programs where these resources can cost tens of thousands of dollars and you have a critical mass. So one of the ways to think about that is the mini C and little C creativity, exploring new things versus pro C creativity once students get to high school level and are trying to specialize in certain skills and use different techniques and equipment to do that.

Cyndi Burnett:
So one of the things we’ve been talking about, you mentioned high school. And one of the things Matt and I have been talking about, particularly offline, is whether or not students should be able to concentrate in one particular area. Like should they have to take all the courses, should they have to take the big one that Matt and I have been talking about is physical education. Should they have to take four years of science if they don’t plan on going into a science degree? I’m curious your perspective, if you’ve seen any research in this area and what we might as we look toward the future of education, particularly in high school, because that’s the one you just mentioned. What do you see happening?

Jimmy Wilson:
So I think the answer to all these questions is yes, but it’s so frustrating. Yes, I feel like specializing can be very powerful. But there’s a trade off of diversity of thought. When you have diverse people thinking diverse things. When you have an engineering focused student in a arts program or an English program with many Arts minded students, they tend to produce more creative solutions. In those heterogeneous teams, there tends to be more friction too. So that’s a little bit of a trade off of that. So you want to think strategically about, okay, how am I structuring my program so that I can specialize but also have these really enriching experiences with people who are outside my discipline and consent.

Jimmy Wilson:
So one of the other trade offs or interesting things about this paradox of school choice is in economics, and this is called the isomorphism effect, which I had to look up a lot about because I’m not an economist. But a lot of times when schools are competing for students and resources, they tend to copy what works. And what works in a lot of highly competitive places is test scores. Right. Because that’s what they’re rated on. And so from an anecdotal experience, as I was working in Dallas ISD, we had a school that had 5,000 called Skyline right next door. And we competed with them in Our school of 1200 students on athletics and programs. And it led to a lot of test pressures on, like how do we get our test scores to look like skylines so more kids can come to our school instead of theirs? And that was good.

Jimmy Wilson:
But there was a lot of pressure as an English teacher on moving those test scores. But it’s not all doom and gloom on those fronts. There are really cool things that can come from the competition when schools and structures are strategic and thinking creatively.

Matthew Worwood:
Jimmy, you know, just to try and connect the first point you made with the second point, it sounds to me that there is with the. Yes, but we get to specialize in things we’re really interested in and perhaps don’t get to take up our times with things that we are pretty sure we’re not going to do, but that also can create silos. So now we become super laser focused on certain things. And what I found fascinating with the second point, and I’m going to perhaps be just critical because my experience in sports at the moment, but everything is a competition, particularly in the US and you want to be the best. So even, even if it’s just not test prep, I could imagine with our culture that if you begin to specialize in STEM very quickly, you’re going to find a way of identifying, proving that you’re the best in STEM and everything else will go away. And likewise, if you are a school that specialize in sports or soccer, you’re going to focus everything on just soccer. And very quickly everything then just disappears and it all becomes about one thing, and we in essence make those silos even bigger. And it sounds to me there’s a danger that actually could negatively impact creativity, might increase the skill set, but in the broader sense of the collaborative nature and culture of creativity and education, we might find ourselves harming that.

Jimmy Wilson:
Yeah, I think that’s a very real danger. And another argument to really thoughtfully design when you’re using your curriculum framework, what kind of experiences do I want students to have? So if I’m starting my own micro school and it’s STEM focus, am I also going to expose them to dramatic arts? Am I going to have the students create a dramatic tableau to represent the structure of some biochemical like polymers? Right. I’m really out of my depth when it comes to biochemistry. But you understand my point. Like, how are we infusing these STEM courses with the arts and vice versa? How are we having kids interested in the arts, understand these foundational knowledges about foundational information about science and math?

Cyndi Burnett:
And Jimmy, I’m curious. You mentioned the test scores. And from my experience, the schools that achieve the best test scores are not necessarily the most creative because they are teaching toward the test. Right, because that’s how they’re getting good test scores. So you’re in a school that may not get as strong test scores, but did you find the curriculum more engaging and creative and focused on the student versus that end game of the test score?

Jimmy Wilson:
Yeah, I think there’s ways that bigger school districts can try to infuse with creativity and not just focus on test scores. In that case study of Dallas isd, they interviewed parents and said, like, what are your kids interested in? What kind of schools appeal to you? And they made public micro schools. And so these schools, like Montessori or Steam or Design Thinking schools, personalized learning schools could leverage parent and student choice, but also have the backing of public money and an economy of scale. So they could give them resources to use a lot of cutting edge technologies. Another interesting thing that they did was to try to gain more diversity in schools and to fight back against the siloing. They use a controlled choice model for those schools. So in the neighborhoods, there’s a weighted lottery system and 50% of the kids have to come from this certain zip code that the school is nearby. And 50% of the kids can come from outside in the outlying suburban areas, or parents who want to drive or bus their kid in from neighborhoods around.

Jimmy Wilson:
And so that helps have a more diverse student body and really try to integrate economically, like racially, across interest, all sorts of Ways to mitigate that siloing effect.

Cyndi Burnett:
Do you see the downsides of micro schools?

Jimmy Wilson:
I think the downsides come in a lot of those trade offs that we were talking about. There are really great ways to be autonomous and to be interested and flow, but there might not be an economy of scale. Another thing is that teaching certifications, right, there are required trainings that I went through traditionally and other people have gone through traditionally. And there’s a problem with the training that it doesn’t have a course. I never had a course on creative learning until I went to graduate school and I pursued that individually. And the same thing with people who are starting micro schools. Where can they access creative learning training? And that’s where I’m excited about this research from Ross Anderson and Jen Katz. Cindy, you’re going to have to help me with her last name.

Cyndi Burnett:
Jen Katz, Bonancontra.

Jimmy Wilson:
Yes, they have the MakeSpace project, which is focused on getting teachers to be more creative through these hybrid modules and institutes where they can really explore what does it mean to teach for creativity, what does it mean to teach creatively, and what does it mean to integrate arts in your curriculum? So this actually connects back to something that Selchuk Akar said in the episode in the season that when schools teach well, they are teaching creatively. And I remember a story from earlier in the season of Matt with these marshmallows building a structure and having the students cut them apart because he didn’t have tape and it making sticky mess, but having the more interesting and creative structures because they were able to cut those marshmallows apart. And that really spoke to me about creative teaching. So there’s three different ways of thinking about creative teaching according to Ross Anderson and Jen Katz. Buon Cointreau. The first one promotes a learning environment that encourages agency. So teaching for creative creativity means that the students are taking the knowledge and transferring it to a different mode. So maybe they know about division and you’re having them use dramatic arts to, with their gestures, represent how to do a division problem.

Jimmy Wilson:
Creative teaching is the capacity to be imaginative and take risks. So I feel like, Matt, you were taking a big risk when you were like, sure, cut up the marshmallows, heat the marshmallows, turn them into a sticky glue. And that’s that willingness to be like, oh, let’s try something different and take a risk on it. And then we have the creative learning and arts integration, which I personally have seen. This isn’t research, but a lot of people say this is the only thing about Creative teaching. Right. I want to have my concept, but then have the students draw a picture or color in something nearby it, which is a great first step, as long as you have those other two ways of teaching as well. And with the MakeSpace program and their creative learning modules, you can check it out online.

Jimmy Wilson:
They have a lot of really great resources for teachers to get involved and to kind of educate themselves on what it is to be a creative teacher.

Matthew Worwood:
I think, I think sometimes that’s probably why Cindy and I can find ourselves gravitating sometimes towards micro schools or alternative models of learning, because it’s where we see perhaps opportune more opportunities for creative learning for all the reasons we’ve just spoken about and spoken about extensively on the show. But, you know, I, I, I, I think that transferring of learning is, is really important. And the word agency for me is really important because one of the things that I know I’ve done over the years in one of my classes, and I recognize higher education is a very different experience, but, you know, it was about teaching students a little bit about design thinking, a little bit about design research, just some core principles. For example, check your assumptions. You know, be open to the fact that you only know what you know and you don’t know what you don’t know unless you begin to ask questions. Now, I can go and do small activities. There’s lots of ways I could get them to, to transfer that learning. But I know that I also wanted to make it about agency, to make them feel empowered to do something with these skills, to do something with the knowledge that they’re acquiring by going through this process.

Matthew Worwood:
And yesterday I did my annual thing where I invite some key stakeholders on campus to listen to the students presentations on problems that they’ve identified on campus and solutions that they have to solve it. And what’s always important to me is this idea of making sure that the people in the room actually can be, can enact the ideas that the students are presenting to them, which has happened in the past. And the reason why I bring this up is that I realize that that experience really does bring everything together, because until then, it really is just a classroom environment. And they’re presenting it to me, and to a certain extent, they’re just presenting it for the grade. Whether, whether, whether they say that or not, I feel like they’re just going through the motions. But when they actually are in that position of presenting to other key stakeholders, and there’s a feeling that actually, wow, their idea could be enacted, they suddenly feel empowered and they get that sense of agency, which I think is. Is really, really important. And I think, you know, someone used the word co solving.

Matthew Worwood:
You know, we hear co create, co design, but someone, yes, they said, oh, this is really about co solving. And I said, you know what? It kind of is. And the reason why I bring this up is I just started to. Just over the last 24 hours, I’ve been thinking about all the different co solving opportunities that may exist. Regular K12 teaching environment, what problems exist within the school and how might you apply that knowledge that you’ve acquired in the classroom to help co solve that. And when you’re saying co solving, you get to bring in the stakeholders and the, the teachers as subject matter experts as well.

Jimmy Wilson:
I love that, Matt and I think that the topic we’re talking about, micro schools and alternative modes of schooling, really speaks to CO solving and student autonomy and getting away from scripted methods of curriculum and helping it be about students getting into the flow state and being exposed to real stakeholders that want to make difference. One of the things that I really latched onto or drew a connection to in research is something I’m very involved in because at the University of Connecticut, we have the Renzulli center for Gifted Education, Talent Development and creativity here. And Dr. Renzulli and Sally, Dr. Sally Reese have a school wide enrichment model that really focuses on creative productivity. How are we bringing experts at the school, parents, community members, the custodial staff that’s at the school, the cafeteria staff that’s at the school, what are their interest in their hobbies and how are we connecting them? Students to do Enrichment clusters is what they call them, or small groups where they can learn about an interest. But then the important part of that is to speak to what Matt said and what you do in your classroom is having them present it to an authentic audience and make a difference in their community at the end of that. And that whole school, which we have a school in Hartford, Connecticut nearby me, that’s focused on this, it’s focused on that.

Jimmy Wilson:
What is the creative action? How do I make a difference in my community?

Cyndi Burnett:
And that really speaks to our upcoming book, Jimmy, I don’t know if you’re aware, but we’ve got a book coming out in 2026 about the podcast called and we have finally finalized the name, it’s called the future 10 actions for fueling Creativity in Education that will be published with Prufrock Press. But we’re really talking about that aspect you’re mentioning, which is like making a positive impact on the community. And the world. And that comes from our conversation with Robert Sternberg and transformational creativity. So really looking at how are we using our creativity to transform the world in a positive way and looking at our future creatives like that. And I think that having these opportunities, whether they be in micro schools or in enrichment programs or in something that gives students the opportunity to learn about creativity. And something that really struck me about what you just said is, is this lack of training for teachers around creativity in the classroom and what that actually looks like. And it brings me back to a conversation I know you just mentioned Ross Anderson and Jen Katz, Bone and Contro, that article.

Cyndi Burnett:
And I remember Katie Trowbridge, who was on our show, who was an educator for several decades, talked about teaching creatively and teaching for creativity. And one of the pieces she mentioned is you can teach creatively, you can come in and do all these things, fun exercises. And she brought up the, the. What is it called? The, the thing that flows up in the air.

Matthew Worwood:
The parachute.

Cyndi Burnett:
The parachute. And you know, that’s really fun, but that doesn’t really teach kids creativity. And I was writing about this in our chap in one of my chapters for the book. And I was thinking it might not teach them creativity, but it gives them a sense of community. It gives them a memorable experience. So I think even when you’re teaching creatively, even if it’s not teaching for creativity, you’re not teaching like, like curiosity or openness or risk taking, you can still have fun. And that playfulness can really amplify the learning experience to make it more meaningful and effective for students. So even if you’re not necessarily teaching them something, giving them those learning experiences to make them love learning.

Cyndi Burnett:
And I think for me, that’s what’s really missing in our system, educational system right now is this, you know, teaching students to become lifelong learners and to love learning new things and to get curious about things so that they, they want to dig deeper and go into that sort of flow state of, of understanding something in, in more detail. And you know, I’m thinking about my own kids and some of the kids I’ve been working with recently. And there’s a lot of that missing because it’s just all still, there’s still a lot of straight up lecturing in the classroom.

Matthew Worwood:
You know what, just to build on that. What, what I’m also thinking a little bit about is it’s about the assessment. Do you see the learning? Can you evaluate the learning? Can you assess? The reason why I bring that up is the parachute Activity which so many of us can remember. You, you’re probably learning things, you know, your brain is probably making connections of one, you know, flinging the parachute up. I mean, how many of us actually get the fact that when you first do it for the first time, you got to throw the parachute up. In the end, you’ve all got to do it at the same time by, by, by, you know, the third time we’re doing it, we’ve totally got it. And we all feel that pressure for a second as. And then you get a sense of the fact, but it’s, it’s going to come back down again.

Matthew Worwood:
And there’s probably questions that are taking place during that. But the key thing is, is do we always recognize those types of activities as learning activities because they’re not necessarily a deliberate structured part of the curriculum that’s evaluated. And I think, you know, some of the stuff that you’d referenced, Jimmy, this idea of autonomy and sometimes that freedom to just go and engage students in an experience and then have faith that if it’s a creative learning experience, that some learning will take place. That’s probably something that we don’t have, have as many affordances within the traditional teaching model.

Jimmy Wilson:
Yeah, I can definitely agree with all of that that you just said. And I think you both hit on a key thing, which is assessment. And in micro schools, depending on state by state, some of them don’t have high stakes assessment that they have to undertake. And that means that they can use a portfolio or project base assessment system that matches creative workflows and really speaks to students. And as long as there is like strong training and quality assurance, like we’re getting that to those kids, I feel like that’s a beautiful way to do it. I think a lot of teachers in public classrooms too are striving to make the work about that portfolio and that growth and that creativity, even with high stakes testing looming. One of the other things that I took a look at was their research behind alternative modes of schooling. And there isn’t a lot of research on micro school movement because it’s so new and it’s so varied and small.

Jimmy Wilson:
So it’s kind of hard to do a systematic study. But there are a lot of alternative modes of schooling that have very long histories. And two of the big ones are the Waldorf Steiner schools that are popular in Silicon Valley Valley. Those go off on a model of head, heart and hands. So in early childhood it’s all play, no academics, no reading instruction until 7 and 7 to 14. It’s about imagination, self directed learning, learning through art, storytelling, music, no computers, no screens. And then in high school, that’s when they introduce intellect, critical thinking and academics. And there’s criticism back and forth about those things.

Jimmy Wilson:
There’s another model that most people are familiar with called the Montessori schools. And one of the things I connected it to is, Cindy, you were talking about being able to get in a flow state with things. And Montessori schools for young children, they allow them three hour flow states to work on things. Now their tasks are often convergent. They have a pink tower blocks where they’re stacking, and there’s only one way to stack it in the correct way. And kids are problem solving all the way through. So both of these schooling models don’t perfectly align with current creativity research, but they are well established modes of teaching that are popular. And there’s a lot of research out there that Creative production.

Jimmy Wilson:
A study of Kirkham and Kidd showed that the Waldorf pupils were significantly higher when their test of creative thinking on drawing than both Montessori and national curriculum schools. In Montessori schools, Fleming and colleagues in 2019 found that Montessori schools were doing better in creative production. And especially they measured interaction effects as well, which means they looked at gender and race and socioeconomic. And they found that boys in Montessori schools were doing a lot better in creativity, which is interesting because a lot of educational interventions will work mostly for female students, but not for male students. And another thing that they noted was that the Montessori students scored a little bit lower on pretend school stores than Waldorf students, but they didn’t differ very much from traditional schools. So it wasn’t hurting their pretense. So anyway, I know it gets a little slowed down when we dive into research, but I do think it’s really interesting for people to go out there, start something new, start their own version and their methodology, and then go through and test and say, okay, how is this helping creativity? How is this helping academic achievement? What are we valuing and how are we making sure that that’s happening in our students education?

Cyndi Burnett:
Now, Jimmy, I just want to comment on that. I have very strong feelings over Montessori school because they don’t actually. A traditional Montessori school does not encourage imagination. And I learned this in a challenging way. In fact, my first book, My Sandwich is a Spaceship, Creative Thinking for Parents with Young Children, was based off of my son’s experience in a Montessori classroom because he was using puzzle pieces as a spaceship to fly it around the room, and they took it out of his hands and they sat him down and showed him the real way to use it because it’s focused on work and not play. When I asked, and I was watching through the window, and I was watching, I talked with the teacher after, and she said, well, this is, you know, Montessori. Traditional Montessori doesn’t encourage play, and it doesn’t encourage imagination. Now, I have met schools.

Cyndi Burnett:
In fact, we had Donna Luther on the show maybe season one, and she has a Montessori school which I visited, and it’s Montessori inspired. So it’s not traditional Montessori, and it has a lot of arts and imagination. But if you look for those of you listening and Jimmy, I know, as we mentioned, you just became a parent. When you’re looking at Montessori schools and you want creativity, make sure you go and observe and ask questions about that imagination piece. Because oftentimes in Montessori schools, they don’t allow for artistic expression or imagination. So if kids are playing like, you know how you have two little animals and you go, hello, Hello, I’m here. And yes, I’m here. They don’t allow that in.

Cyndi Burnett:
They don’t encourage that. They might allow it, but they might not. Like in the case of my son, they. They sat him down and. And made him use the puzzle pieces as a puzzle, which caused him to be very stressed because he’s a very imaginative kid. He was a very MA and still continues to be very imaginative at almost 18. But I would encourage anyone that’s listening, that’s looking at early childhood programs to look at Reggio Emilio inspired, because it is all about the hundred languages of children and looking at diversity of thought and artistic expression and play. It’s all based on that.

Cyndi Burnett:
So I just want to mention that because I did have such a strong experience, and I’m sure other people. I know, lots of people have had great experiences with Montessori, but I think what it comes down to is good fit. And I think as we look, you know, you sort of gave us the big scope of how we might start looking at micro schools. But as you’re thinking about, you know, students and your own children, to really think about what’s the best fit for your child. Because what might work for. Best for my daughter might not work best for my son. And they both were both brought up in the same way, but we, we always have to look for that right fit. You know, like some, some.

Cyndi Burnett:
Some kids need, you know, they. They need to have that breadth and depth of different subjects, and other kids probably don’t need that. You know, so what is it that your child needs? And, and, and how do we get your child to have the most meaningful experience so that at the end of it, they want to continue that lifelong learning? That’s what I would say.

Matthew Worwood:
And just.

Jimmy Wilson:
I think that’s a huge limitation of. Of research in general. A lot of times you’re looking at average and mean effects of what’s happening across a broad population, and it doesn’t speak to the story of your individual child or a student or person that you’re working with.

Cyndi Burnett:
Yeah.

Matthew Worwood:
And just. Just to connect these two and your point, Jimmy, and even just the microscope piece, you know, there is what we value and what we say we do, and then there is that what we know we do through action research. And what I’m hearing, Jimmy, is that you’re ultimately encouraging if you’re a micro school and you’ve got this new idea, and you’re implementing this new idea because you think it speaks to your values and it’s teaching something that you think is important for those students to learn. Make sure there’s some research put out there, and to a certain extent, maybe there’s some. Some credible research that actually shows this is where it is effective. And maybe to Cindy’s point, and we feel it’s effective for this particular type of group of student or this particular type of student. And if we suddenly found ourselves in a situation where there was a responsibility or maybe, dare I say a requirement. Right.

Matthew Worwood:
Am I getting close to accountability measures? Right. So it’s interesting how we complain about so many things, but we start ideating, we find ourselves sometimes getting really close. But. But there’s some type of. Yeah, we. We actually do this really, really well, and we know it because we’ve conducted research in it. And of course, at that point, then maybe it’s okay to have all of these different varied models of learning, because then to your point, Cindy, you get to choose what’s most appropriate for your child at a particular time in their. In their development.

Matthew Worwood:
Development.

Cyndi Burnett:
Yeah.

Jimmy Wilson:
Yeah. And I would really encourage, like, everybody who’s experimenting with something interesting in the classroom, like reach out to a grad student or a program if you have one nearby you and you’re lucky enough to be in a community, because that’s one thing that we love as doctoral students is finding teachers to partner with and, you know, experiment with new things in the classroom. And how do they work, how do they affect, you know, student motivation and achievement and Imagination. Like, those are all so fascinating. And you’ll find a nerdy researcher near you if you have a university or college system nearby.

Cyndi Burnett:
I love that idea. Jimmy.

Matthew Worwood:
Well, I think. I think, Jimmy, we’re about the end of the episode. I think this has been an incredible episode, a really great conversation. And I think what I like it the most is Cindy and I have spoken about the book that we hope to be out in the summer 2026. But you think about, ask questions and be open, initiate discussions. By having you on the show, Jimmy, at the end of the season, bringing the research, but also bringing in your unique perspective, I think it really provides Cindy and I with an opportunity sometimes to kind of expand our thinking or actually look at something in a very different way. So I just want to say thank you for that because I think in this particular episode, I certainly felt that.

Jimmy Wilson:
Well, thank you both for this opportunity. And as I get further into my PhD, I’m learning more how to communicate very technically to other academics. And it’s so important for me to reach out and work with you all about how do we make sure that this information about P values and like, individual, like, statistical techniques is actually useful? Like, there’s not a point if none of this is used by. By teachers and parents and educators out there. So I think it’s so important the work that you all are doing.

Cyndi Burnett:
Thanks so much, Jimmy. And to wrap up this season, we appreciate all of our listeners and we look forward to seeing you in 2026. And if you don’t already subs to our newsletter, our Fueling Creativity newsletter, please do so. You’ll find the link in our documents. My name is Dr. Cindy Burnett.

Matthew Worwood:
And my name is Dr. Matthew Werwood.

Cyndi Burnett:
This episode was produced by Cindy Burnett and Matthew Warwood. Our podcast assistant is Anne Fernando and our editor is Sheikh.

Jimmy Wilson:
Sam.