Product Marketing Strategist at PurelyHR | Web Designer | Content Creator

I’m a VC marketer and web designer with a decade of experience helping businesses grow through organic, creative strategies.

My career has spanned B2B tech, nonprofits, and some of Canada’s leading institutions, giving me a versatile perspective on marketing.

Today, I split my time between leading marketing for Panache Ventures (one of Canada’s most active early-stage VC funds) and running Dreamstate Agency.

I bring an end-to-end approach to marketing — from strategy and creative to full execution — ensuring ideas don’t just stay on paper but become websites, campaigns, and results.

At the heart of it, I’m driven by helping ambitious businesses find clarity, creativity, and momentum online.

Recognitions:
- Wix Studio League (2025)
- Entrepreneur of the Month, YES Montreal (2020)
- Top 10 Young Alumni To Watch, Concordia University (2017)

Alessia Priolo

This year, something quietly profound is happening.

Christian Lent and Muslim Ramadan begin today, on the same day. 

An extremely rare alignment of two sacred seasons.

Two traditions, inviting millions of people into a period of reflection, restraint, prayer, and generosity — at the same time.

Both ask us to slow down and look inward.
To fast not only from food, but from ego, excess, and distraction.
To realign with what actually matters.

In a loud and reactive world, there’s something very powerful about collective discipline.

Different traditions, yet strikingly similar moral journeys.

Wishing a meaningful Lent, and Ramadan Mubarak to all who are observing and fasting. ✨

VC Fractional Marketer | End-to-End: Strategy, Creative & Systems

The era of “quiet money” is over.

For decades, venture capital operated behind closed doors. Networks, access, and track record were often enough. Capital did most of the talking.

That model doesn’t hold in 2026.

Over the past year working inside the VC ecosystem, I’ve seen how firms build visibility, source deals, and engage LPs. One thing is clear: capital alone no longer differentiates a firm.

Today, visibility shapes access. Reputation shapes opportunity. And venture capital marketing plays a defining role in how firms build trust and attract talent.

The firms that stand out aren’t just strong investors. They:

– Articulate a clear, defensible thesis
– Build visibility around sector expertise
– Systematize marketing and engagement
– Earn trust before the term sheet

In venture, marketing has become part of the operating model. Visibility, relationships, and trust compound over time — just like capital does.

I wrote a piece on what this shift means for Canadian VC firms in 2026 — and the practical strategies behind it.

If you’re operating in venture, I’d be curious to hear your perspective. ↓

Many founders are confusing audience with authority.

They’re related, but they’re not the same thing.

You can spend years building a following on LinkedIn.
Post consistently.
Have millions of impressions.

And still wonder why you don't show up in AI search.

That's because AI doesn’t evaluate popularity the way social platforms do.
It infers authority from signals it can actually read on the open web.

That usually means:
– your website and how clearly you’re positioned
– public, indexable content (articles, interviews, podcasts, PR)
– third-party mentions and citations
– structured signals that connect your name to a topic or expertise

LinkedIn is excellent for distribution and audience-building.
But it’s largely gated.

So if your brand lives only inside social platforms, AI has very little to work with.

LinkedIn isn't the problem.
It’s your missing layer — a presence on the open, indexable web.

Audience and authority both matter.
They’re just built in very different places.

As AI takes on more execution, the real question for marketers is which skills set them apart — and which are worth developing next.

These three stand out to me:

1. Systems thinking
Designing structure, workflows, and operating models that scale.
AI can execute inside a system — but it still needs a human to design one.

2. Creativity
Original thinking. New angles. Making something feel human, not generated.
As content volume explodes, creativity is what cuts through.

3. Judgment
Context, taste, and prioritization.
Knowing what’s worth doing, what’s worth saying, and what not to scale.

Execution is becoming commoditized.

AI scales output.
But systems thinking, creativity, and judgment are what hold the value now.

VP Sales | 🚀 Propelling SaaS Companies to New Growth | Lifelong Sales Mentor and Teacher

Education is locked in outdated models while technology races ahead. So I bridge the gap and build the frameworks that define the future of learning.

I’ve spent my career moving between classrooms, boardrooms, and uncomfortable conversations about what actually works in education.

I started as a teacher.
Then, I moved into EdTech sales—helping founders, school leaders, and teams scale products, revenue, and strategy in one of the hardest markets there is.

Along the way, I noticed a pattern most of us avoid naming:

Education doesn’t fail because of a lack of tools.
It fails when motivation disappears—and we keep building systems that ignore that.

We’ve tried dashboards.
We’ve tried content engines.
We’ve tried accountability without agency.

And we keep acting surprised when students disengage.

My work now sits at the intersection of:
•	Learning science & motivation
•	AI-enabled mastery-based learning
•	Go-to-market strategy for education companies
•	Helping schools raise standards without burning people out

I’m especially interested in models where:
• students love school
• learning is deep, fast, and human
• technology gives time back instead of taking it
• and schools can actually sustain themselves

I advise founders, operators, and education leaders who want outcomes—not applause.

I’m the author of The Great Unlock—a practical, contrarian look at how AI can break education’s three biggest constraints and make learning more human, not less.

No hype.
No grownsplaining.
High standards. High support.

If you believe students are capable of more—and that education should finally be built around that belief—we’ll get along just fine.

Karim Kuperhause

GenAI is to education what Ozempic is to obesity: it works, and that's exactly what should worry us.

The OECD just released data showing students with AI access outperform peers on assignments — then score 17% worse on exams when that access is removed. We celebrated the gains. We buried the footnote.

Here's the contrarian read nobody wants: maybe the problem isn't that students are using GenAI wrong. Maybe it's that it's working exactly as designed — and we built the wrong thing.

Ozempic suppresses appetite. It doesn't teach your body to want less. The moment you stop, the hunger returns, often harder than before. GenAI suppresses cognitive friction. It doesn't build the tolerance for difficulty that turns struggle into mastery. The moment you remove it, the gap is worse than if it had never been there.

The pharma industry's answer to Ozempic dependency is: stay on it forever. I suspect EdTech's answer to GenAI dependency will be the same. And for shareholders, that's a great outcome.

But education isn't a chronic condition to be managed. It's a capacity to be built.

The OECD report calls for "pedagogical intentionality." That's the right instinct — but it soft-pedals the harder truth: most GenAI tools aren't designed for learning. They're designed for output. And in a system that still measures output, we'll keep rewarding the illusion of mastery over the real thing.

The students who will thrive in 20 years aren't the ones who learned to prompt well. They're the ones who learned to think — with or without the tool.

We should be building more of those students, not better crutches.

_________________

I curate the future of learning | Helping EdTech founders and Education Leaders co-design the future of learning

Open article: OECD Digital Education Outlook 2026 by oecd.org

The leaders who will get AI right in education won’t be the loudest.

They won’t chase every new tool.

They won’t confuse speed with progress.

They’ll be the ones who consistently ask:

Does this protect people?
Does this increase presence?
Does this honor the profession?

Much of The Great Unlock exists to remind leaders of this:

The future of learning becomes more human —
only if we lead it that way.

undefined undefined

The Great Unlock

Get a preview of my upcoming book at https://thegreatunlock.com/

AI SHOW @ ASU+GSV 2025 Attendee

HierSales is about providing a hierarchy in your sales process. Putting systems in place to consistently grow revenue. We put in place scalable and repeatable sales processes to drive revenue growth for companies in the $1-5M stage.

Most companies are still running outdated GTM playbooks.

Big budgets go into ads, MQLs, and funnels that don’t actually build trust or drive outcomes.

That’s where HierSales comes in.

I help founders and revenue leaders invent their own growth playbook instead of borrowing someone else’s. My methodology is simple but powerful:

Identify → Amplify → Multiply

•	Identify the sparks already driving traction — peer influence, referrals, customer wins.

•	Amplify them through customer champions and authentic founder-led storytelling.

•	Multiply by turning those sparks into repeatable, scalable growth motions (councils, referral loops, influence dinners).

With HierSales, I work hands-on with early-stage and scaling companies to:

•	Run growth ethnography that uncovers where influence really flows.

•	Design influence programs that turn customers into your best sellers.

•	Build 12-week experiment roadmaps to test, validate, and double down on what actually works.

•	Codify it all into a playbook that accelerates growth sustainably.

I don’t just consult from the sidelines. I’ve built, scaled, and sold in the trenches — from teaching in classrooms to leading enterprise sales to scaling EdTech ventures. That practitioner’s lens means I can spot the hidden levers most consultants miss.

If your growth engine feels stuck, or if you’re tired of burning budget on campaigns that don’t convert, let’s talk. Together, we’ll write the playbook that finally unlocks your next stage of growth.

Founder/Fractional VP Sales

“Transform the education of tomorrow, today.”

Provide strategic direction for the Trafalgar-McGill CoLab: https://www.trafalgar.qc.ca/community/colab

Board Member

"I wish you to gasp not only at what you read but at the miracle of its being readable.' - Vladimir Nabokov

The education system is in crisis. Too many students are reaching grade 4 not able to proficiently read at level. This can't go on - children deserve to read and Hoot Reading is on a mission to help every child become a reader.

VP of Growth

“Systems streamline success; they eliminate the need to reinvent the wheel every time.” - J.R. Rim

commonsku is a SaaS platform that enables promotional products distributors to automate and streamline their processes in order to grow and scale their business, including their e-com.

Built entire sales team and sales processes from scratch and went on to Increase client base from 600 to 800 companies propelling transactional revenue from $1B to nearly $2B in 18 months.

VP of Sales

“An organization‘a ability to learn, and translate that learning into action rapidly, is the ultimate competitive advantage.” - Jack Welsh

Clevr helps school districts consolidate and centralize manual forms and workflows into one clevr platform.

Developed and executed go-to-market strategy for landing and expanding into the US K-12 market. Landed in 7 US states and expanded market share which resulted in 45% year-over-year growth as well as landing the biggest client in company's history.

Director of Sales

“Efficiency is doing things right; effectiveness is doing the right things.” - Peter Drucker

Driving efficiency and transformation while reducing the cost of compliance for public sector organizations by providing the Laserfiche Enterprise Content Management platform.

Introduced Laserfiche's digital transformation suite of solutions in new verticals including K12, NGOs and banks. Continued expansion into municipals, hotels and retail. Together, these resulted in a double of revenue year-over-year.

Director, Business Development

“People buy from people they trust”

Help school districts increase student growth by better managing K12 talent through focused talent management software.

Landed and expanded new SaaS solutions into the Canadian K12 market while building out a dedicated sales team and process for Canada.

Account Executive - People Admin

“Systems thinking allows us to see the consequences of our decisions before we make them.”  - Peter Senge

Harnessing the power of research to inform data-driven hiring and increase student achievement. Hit President's Club year-over year as well as becoming the recipient of the Pinnacle Award for highest sales achievement and the Rainmaker award for closing the biggest deals in company history.

Sales Manager - TeacherMatch

“Putting the right people in the right seats is the first step to creating an effective system.” - Jim Collins

Strategically work with school districts from coast to coast to help minimize lost learning days by addressing teacher absenteeism and professional development through the SmartFindExpress software platform. Hit President's Club on my first year and subsequent years thereafter. Landed biggest deal in company history for Canada, locked up the Ontario market and landed and expanded into the Quebec market.

Regional Sales Manager (Canada) - eSchool Solutions

“Building a business is about creating a system that can run and grow without you.” - Robert Kiyosaki

Founder and CEO of the Learning Box which was dedicated to ensuring school success for students in K-12.  Providing individualized instruction based on skill based learning for all core subjects. Went to oversee programs in over 32 schools, 3 learning centres and service thousands of students.

Founder/CEO

“Great leaders understand the importance of developing systems that outlive them.” - John C. Maxwell

As an elementary school teacher for 12 years in this school board, I worked with students from K-6.  I was a lead teacher for school reform and a trained SmartBoard Instructor as well as First Steps Instructor.  My students consistently scored in the top percentile across the entire school board in both math and English language arts.

It's also where I learned many of the skills that made me an exeptional sales professional because teaching and sales are two sides of the same coin.

Elementary Teacher

From ABC to ARR | K12 Education Top Voice | Outcomes. Or. Nothing.

I analyzed 100 school districts' EdTech strategies.

Most didn't have one.

Not a roadmap. Not a framework. Not a measurable goal tied to student outcomes.

What I found instead were purchasing decisions dressed up as strategy.

Here's what that looks like in practice:

🔻 Pattern #1: Tools without a theory of learning
Districts have an average of 40+ EdTech tools in their stack.
But no one can answer: "How do these tools work together to move a student from where they are to where they need to be?"
📌 One district had 7 different reading platforms across K–8.
Teachers used whichever one they liked.
Result: No coherent progression. No measurable gains. Just subscriptions renewing on autopilot.

🔻 Pattern #2: Procurement masquerading as strategy
The buying process is the strategy.
Compliance boxes get checked. Pilots get approved. Contracts get signed.
But no one asks: "What does success actually look like for students in June?"
📌 82% of the districts I reviewed had no defined outcome metric attached to their EdTech spend.
Result: Millions allocated. Accountability to no one.

🔻 Pattern #3: AI arrived before the question did
Every vendor now has an "AI-powered" something.
And superintendents are being asked to adopt it—by boards, by parents, by state policy.
But the districts rushing to deploy AI don't yet have a clear answer to a more basic question:
"What learning problem are we solving?"
📌 AI without a learning framework isn't innovation. It's noise with a better interface.
Result: Teachers overwhelmed. Admins confused. Students unchanged.

🔻 Pattern #4: Data everywhere. Insight nowhere.
Dashboards. Reports. Benchmark scores. Attendance flags.
Districts are drowning in data and starving for direction.
Without a hierarchy of what matters—and why—data doesn't drive decisions. It justifies them after the fact.
📌 One district had real-time intervention alerts that no one had time to act on.
Result: The system flagged 400 at-risk students. 12 received follow-up.

🔻 Pattern #5: No one owns outcomes
EdTech vendors own the product. Teachers own the classroom. Admins own compliance.
But who owns the answer to: "Are students actually learning more this year than last?"
In most districts, no one does.
Result: Shared responsibility becomes shared avoidance.

Here's what that tells me:
The districts winning on student outcomes aren't the ones with the most tools or the biggest budgets.
They're the ones who started with a clear learning framework—and built everything else around it.

An EdTech strategy without a theory of learning is just spending.

An AI strategy without a theory of learning is just risk.

If you're a school district leader who's done settling for motion instead of progress, there's a different conversation happening at HierLearning

Come find out what a real learning strategy looks like. If it resonates, book a call. We'd love to think through this with you.

No alternative text description for this image

High standards + high support.
That’s the whole formula.
And somehow... it still scares us.

In sports, we don’t flinch.

We expect kids to:
• practice daily
• lose games
• get corrected—constantly
• work toward mastery over years

We call it character building.

But in academics?
The moment a student struggles, we panic.

We lower the bar.
We soften the feedback.
We confuse support with removal of challenge.

That’s the double standard no one likes to name.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth:
Kids don’t rise because things are easy.
They rise because someone believes they can handle hard things—and helps them do it.

High standards without support is cruelty.
Support without standards is coddling.

But high standards + high support?
That’s confidence.
That’s agency.
That’s a student who learns to say: “This is hard—and I can figure it out.”

The same playbook that builds elite athletes builds great students:
• clear goals
• fast feedback
• permission to fail
• coaching that doesn’t disappear when it gets uncomfortable

If we want resilient, capable, self-driven learners,
we can’t keep protecting them from the very conditions that create growth.

Raise the bar.
Stand closer—not farther—when they struggle.

That’s not scary.
That’s leadership.

Engagement is not an outcome.

But it is often used as a proxy—because when students are genuinely engaged, learning usually follows.

The problem (and this came through clearly in the Edtech Insiders webinar on Teaching and Learning in a Multi-Modal world) is that we’ve been sloppy about what we mean by engagement.

Too much EdTech has treated engagement as:
• clicks
• minutes on screen
• completion rates
• “students didn’t hate it”

That’s not engagement.
That’s compliance with better UX.

The webinar makes a sharper distinction that matters:

👉 Outcomes are about learning.
👉 Engagement is about the conditions that make learning possible.

An engaged student can learn.
A disengaged student won’t.
But engagement alone doesn’t guarantee outcomes.

So what kind of engagement actually leads to learning?

Not novelty.
Not gamification.
Not louder animations.

The kind that works is:
• cognitive effort
• productive struggle
• feedback that adapts in real time
• tasks that sit right at the edge of a student’s ability

That’s where traditional EdTech hit a ceiling.

You can’t manually personalize challenge, pacing, and feedback for 25–30 students at once. Teachers know this. The system just ignored it.

This is where AI becomes the unlock.

Not because it’s flashy—but because it can:
• continuously adjust difficulty
• surface misconceptions immediately
• personalize feedback without burning teachers out
• keep students engaged in thinking, not just clicking

The takeaway from the webinar is simple but uncomfortable:

We don’t have an engagement problem.
We have a meaningful engagement problem.

And for the first time, we have the tools to fix it—without mistaking activity for learning.

Engagement isn’t the goal.
Learning is.

AI finally lets us design for the difference.

🙏  Thank you for setting us straight Hayes Raffle Dr. Deepak Sekar Yair Shapira  Zhuoer C. and Florent Sciberras, and Ben Kornell for driving the conversation.
_______________________

https://lnkd.in/ebuckVWH

youtube.com

Teaching & Learning in a Multimodal World

Edtech Insiders

Hands-on Product Innovator at Google | Early-Stage → V1 | Consumer AI

Co-Founder/CEO @ Creatium | Inventor with 280 patents | Educator | Mountaineer

Founder & CEO @ NovoDia | 25+ Years in Education, Technology & Entrepreneurship | Designing Learning That Resonates

Enable your visual storytelling with AI

Co-founder @ Revyze

Educator, Entrepreneur, Advisor, Investor, Advocate

Most education apps don’t fail because of bad intentions.
They fail because they’re built on the wrong definition of learning.

At the bottom of the funnel, this is the issue most vendors avoid:

If your product lets students succeed without doing the thinking, it’s not an education app. It’s a confidence simulator.

That’s the core problem.

Many apps:

Let students recognize instead of produce

Reward speed and completion over mastery

Allow progress without proving understanding

Optimize for engagement metrics instead of cognitive change

The result?

Dashboards look great.
Students feel confident.
Teachers assume growth.

But the underlying skill?
Often unchanged.

This isn’t a UX issue.
It’s not a “teacher training” issue.
It’s a learning science issue.

Real learning has constraints:
- Struggle is required
- Retrieval beats recognition
- Mastery must precede progression

Shortcuts kill transfer.

Most EdTech products quietly design around these constraints — because enforcing them is harder, slower, and less “delightful.”

That’s why districts keep buying tools…
…and outcomes don’t move.

The next generation of education tools will win not by being easier — but by being more honest.

Honest about:
--> What students can actually do
--> Where mastery breaks
--> When progress should stop

And why friction is sometimes the feature. Yes, friction can be a good thing.

If your product can’t prove it changes cognition — not just behaviour — it won’t survive what’s coming.

Learning doesn’t care about your roadmap.
The brain doesn’t care about your engagement metrics.

And outcomes always win in the end.

________________

https://lnkd.in/eJfA-Sdc

Most math struggles don’t start in Algebra.

They start way earlier—when fluency gets mistaken for memorization.

Knowing your multiplication tables by heart isn’t about parroting facts.
It’s about freeing up mental bandwidth.

Here’s why that matters:

When a student sees
7 × 8
and has to figure it out, their brain is already working.

Now layer on:
• variables
• multi-step equations
• word problems
• time pressure

That’s not “productive struggle.”
That’s cognitive overload.

Fluency lowers cognitive load.
It turns “What’s 7×8 again?” into a reflex—like tying your shoes or braking at a red light.

And once that mental energy is freed up?
Students can actually:
• reason
• problem-solve
• spot patterns
• stay confident instead of panicked

This is why students who “understand the concept” still fail later.
Their brains are busy doing arithmetic gymnastics when they should be thinking mathematically.

Sports analogy (because it always works):
No one debates whether athletes should practice fundamentals.
You don’t reason your way through a layup in game 7.
You execute—automatically.

Math is no different.

Fluency isn’t old-school.
It’s foundational.

If we want students to succeed in advanced math,
we have to stop skipping the boring reps that make higher-order thinking possible.

Fast facts aren’t the enemy of deep thinking.
They’re the on-ramp.

I analyzed the "AI Strategy" documents of 25 school districts. Here is what they are prioritizing.

It’s not "student creativity." It’s not "critical thinking." It’s not "teacher connection."

It is almost exclusively: Efficiency. How to grade faster. How to write emails faster. How to generate lesson plans faster.

Here is the pattern that kills innovation:

🔻 Myth: "If we save teachers time, they will use it to connect with students."
📉 Reality: In a bureaucracy, saved time gets filled with more bureaucracy. 🔍 I watched one district use AI to help teachers generate IEP reports 50% faster. Did the teachers spend that extra time with the kids? No. The admin just doubled the caseload.
Result: Burnout arrived faster.

🔻 Myth: "Automating lesson planning improves instruction."
📉 Reality: It standardizes mediocrity. 🔍 One platform bragged it could generate a week’s curriculum in seconds. But the output was just generic worksheets wrapped in digital skin.
Result: We are using supercomputers to generate 1950s pedagogy.

The common thread? We are using the most powerful technology in history to polish the status quo.

In The Great Unlock, I argue that we don't need faster compliance. We need better questions.

Don't use AI to automate the mundane. Use it to unlock the things we didn't have time for before: Mentorship. Debate. Design.

If your product just saves time, you’re a utility. If your product changes how a student thinks, you’re a movement.

Check it out: thegreatunlock.com

thegreatunlock.com

We’ve been lied to about "Learning Styles."

We’ve been told that to lead or teach effectively, we should play to our strengths—and our students'. If they’re "visual learners," give them diagrams. If they’re "auditory," give them a podcast. We’ve spent years trying to make the path as smooth as possible, believing that comfort equals comprehension.

It turns out that comfort is the enemy of mastery.

If we only design for what feels "natural" or "easy," we aren’t building new neural pathways—we’re just coasting on the ones that already exist. For K-12 leaders and EdTech founders, the goal shouldn't be to remove every hurdle; it should be to create productive friction.

The graph below from Adam Grant highlights a truth we often ignore in our classrooms and our boardrooms: Waiting until you’re "ready" is a recipe for stagnation.

• The Comfort Trap: We often avoid the "struggle zone" because it feels like we’re failing. In reality, that struggle is the sound of the brain actually working.

• The "Fluency" Illusion: Just because a lesson or a new software UI is easy to navigate doesn’t mean the knowledge is sticking. High comfort usually leads to low retention.

• Active Production: Real breakthroughs happen when we are forced to produce and communicate before we feel fully prepared.

As we build the future of learning, we need to stop designing for "ease" and start designing for desirable difficulties.

Accelerating learning—whether for a Grade 5 student or a startup team—requires a specific kind of courage: being brave enough to use knowledge while you’re still "bad" at it. If your learners aren't struggling, they probably aren't learning.

There’s no "perfect" style or the "right" time. By embracing the discomfort, we let the friction do its work.

Are we doing our students a disservice by 'personalizing' away the very friction they need to actually grow?

————————

AI workflows are technically impressive.
But the real reason educators are buzzing about AI?

It’s not the tech.
It’s the psychology.

Until now, very few students have ever experienced what it feels like to delegate to competency.

Most kids don’t know this feeling:
“I’m stuck... but I can hand this off and trust it’ll come back clear, accurate, and judgment-free.”

In school, delegation usually looks like:
• wait for the teacher
• wait for feedback
• wait for permission
• wait to be told if you’re right or wrong

That’s not delegation.
That’s dependency.

But when a student can say:
“Explain this another way.”
“Check my thinking.”
“Give me a harder version.”
“Tell me where I went wrong — and don’t sugarcoat it.”

Something shifts.

They’re no longer waiting.
They’re running the play.

Teachers know this feeling well.
If you’ve ever handed responsibility to a capable student or a strong TA, you know the joy:
It gets done.
It gets done right.
And it gets done without chaos.

That’s real leverage.

AI gives every student access to that experience.
Not as a shortcut.
As a thinking partner.
As a pressure-free delegate.

What used to be rare is now widely distributed.

And when students feel competent, trusted, and in control of their learning?

They don’t need more motivation.
They’re already in motion.

That’s why the excitement is real.
And yes — it’s fully justified.

Walking the floor at TCEA in San Antonio this week, I was reminded of a persistent gap in our industry.

I have a lot of respect for TCEA—they are a "computer" organization by heritage, and they do a great job bringing the community together. But it’s 2026. We need to stop confusing "access" with "achievement."

Here's the breakdown of what I saw walking the exhibit floor:

--> 40% Infrastructure: Vital? Yes. But a laptop is a prerequisite, not a pedagogical outcome.

--> 20% Safety & Environment: Essential for a secure school, but a camera doesn't teach a child to read.

--> 30% Engagement: This is the danger zone. We’ve spent a decade treating engagement as the goal. It’s not. It’s a proxy—and often a misleading one.

--> That leaves just 10% of vendors who can draw a direct, unvarnished line to actual student outcomes (shout out to Prodigy Education as a case in point).

If we want to fix education, we have to move past the "indirect." We have to stop settling for solutions that "could" help if ten other variables align. We need solutions that move the needle on student achievement by design, not by accident.

This is exactly why I started HierLearning. We aren't interested in being part of the 90% that provides the "plumbing" or the "distraction." We are building for the 10%—the ones focused on the only metric that truly matters: whether the student is actually learning.

The "Great Unlock" isn't going to come from a faster network, a modern SIS or a flashier LMS. It’s going to come from a relentless focus on outcomes.

If you're building the future of learning, I want to know! Follow me and then DM me.

#TCEA2026 #EdTech #StudentOutcomes #TheGreatUnlock #TheFutureOfLearning

Prodigy Education

HierLearning

The most successful adults approach teenagers the same way great investors approach founders: they back the ones already moving.

Not because they’re cold.
Not because they don’t care.

Because they understand leverage.

Ambitious, self-driven teens:
• ask sharper questions
• act quickly on feedback
• turn guidance into momentum
• don’t need to be dragged—just aimed

When a driven 16-year-old meets a serious adult who actually shows up, something powerful happens:
→ confidence compounds
→ standards rise
→ effort accelerates

This is how future builders are made.

Not through endless motivation talks.
But through proximity to adults who expect a lot—and give a lot.

Here’s the thing:

We’ve built systems that spend most of their energy on disengagement...
...and almost none on acceleration.

Imagine if we flipped that.

If we treated ambitious teens the way elite athletes are treated:
• coaching instead of babysitting
• stretch goals instead of sympathy
• real-world exposure instead of busywork

The ROI would be absurd.

The future doesn’t need more engagement frameworks.
It needs more adults willing to say:

“You’re capable of more. Let’s move.”

That’s not pressure.
That’s respect.

And ambitious teens feel the difference immediately.

If you’re a leader, founder, or educator:
Who are you actively investing in right now?

Professor, AI and Education Thought Leader, Author and Speaker

AI Is Eating Itself. Education Should Pay Attention.

This week the Financial Times ran two pieces that should matter to anyone working in education, even though neither mentions a single school.

Goldman Sachs described what is happening in technology markets as a "tech wreck." Deutsche Bank's Jim Reid went further, saying AI appears to be "eating itself." The software sector in the US is down 16 per cent this year. The trigger was not that AI failed. It was that AI worked too well, automating the analytics and data services built by the very companies investors had backed.

If you have been reading The Skinny, the underlying logic will be familiar.
In December, I wrote about the economics problem at the heart of AI: OpenAI losing billions, only 2 to 5 per cent of users converting to paid subscriptions, free tools that would not stay free, and generative AI companies whose business models do not yet add up. Public markets are now repricing those fundamentals. That repricing will not hit education on the same timescale, but schools and universities that have built workflows around tools from venture-funded AI companies should be watching closely.

In January, I focused on a different constraint: the human one. McKinsey found that 88 per cent of organisations use AI yet only 6 per cent generate meaningful returns. BCG showed that 70 per cent of AI implementation challenges are people and process related. The technology landed. The value did not.

This week's market correction connects both problems. Seema Shah at Principal Asset Management said the AI cycle is shifting from an environment that rewarded almost all tech exposures to one that differentiates adaptive models from those that are easily automated.

That distinction matters for education too, although it plays out differently. 

Markets can reprice overnight. Schools cannot shed vendors, exit procurement contracts, or retrain staff at the same speed. But the underlying question is the same: is your AI adoption creating genuine value, or are you simply exposed to a technology whose costs and limitations you have not fully reckoned with?

Adopting AI is not a strategy. Understanding where it adds value, and where it does not, is. 

The technology is eating its own supply chain. The question for education is whether we are building the human capacity to navigate what comes next.

What I am listening to: 'Everything In Its Right Place' by Radiohead
What I am reading: Katie Martin and Hakyung Kim in the FT on the tech wreck and the diverging Magnificent Seven.
What I am baking: Still Sourdough, because some things still require patience and human hands.

#AI #EdTech #AIinEducation #TheSkinny #FutureOfWork #TechWreck #LearningDesign #HigherEducation

Sources: FT, "Tech wreck signals a market reset" (Katie Martin, 7 Feb 2026); Financial Times, "Chart of the Week: A diverging Magnificent Seven" (Hakyung Kim, 7 Feb 2026); McKinsey 2025 Global AI Survey; BCG AI implementation research.

The fastest way to kill elite performance in a child is to tell them they’re "gifted" at age seven.

We are obsessed with the "Professionalization of Childhood." We rank, we tier, and we specialize before kids even hit double digits. We think we’re building winners, but we’re actually just building a massive graveyard of burnout and untapped potential.

Norway—a country with the population of a single mid-sized city—dominates the world stage because they do the exact opposite. Their "Joy of Sport for All" model is the ultimate contrarian blueprint for K12.

In Norway, there are no national championships before age 13. No rankings. No "elite" tracks.

If we want to achieve "The Great Unlock" in education, we have to stop treating schools like corporate recruitment pipelines and start treating them like high-trust R&D labs.

Here is something for EdTech founders and school district leaders to noodle on:

1. Ranking is a Cognitive Load Disaster
When we rank children early, we force their brains into a "survival" state rather than a "growth" state. Neuroscience shows us that fear of failure kills the very neuroplasticity required for high-level problem solving. Norway protects that "messy" development window; we destroy it with standardized testing.

2. Early Specialization is a Market Failure
In the M&A world, a business with a single, narrow revenue stream is a risk. In education, a child who only does one thing is a liability. AI is coming for the specialists. The future belongs to the "multi-sport" generalists who have the cognitive flexibility to pivot.

3. The "Elite" Label is a Ceiling, Not a Floor
By labeling a few kids as "elite," we inadvertently tell the other 95% to stop trying. Norway wins because they keep 100% of their population in the game as long as possible. Their "elite" results are a byproduct of mass participation, not a result of early filtering.

4. The Business of "Winning" is Losing
Private schools often use "rigorous" rankings as a marketing tool to justify tuition. But if that rigor leads to a 19-year-old who is mentally exhausted and lacks intrinsic drive, the ROI is negative. We need to build models where the "metric" is long-term engagement, not short-term percentiles.

The irony? By refusing to crown winners at age 10, Norway produces more world-class winners at age 20 than almost anyone else.

If we want to fix K12, we need to stop trying to find the "best" students and start building an environment where it’s impossible for any student to fail.

Are we brave enough to stop ranking our kids so they can actually start learning?

____________________

Open article: How Norway’s Youth Sports Model Built A Winter Olympics Dynasty by huddleup.substack.com

How Norway’s Youth Sports Model Built A Winter Olympics Dynasty

Are your students treating ChatGPT like a homework vending machine?

Maybe the problem isn't your students.

Educator and Researcher | PT Faculty @ MSVU

A new study just confirmed what some teachers don't want to hear:

ChatGPT doesn't hurt critical thinking.

Bad teaching does.

Researchers found that students who actively engage with ChatGPT actually develop stronger critical thinking skills. 

The catch? Passive use, the copy-paste approach we all worry about, leads to shallow processing and uncritical acceptance of whatever the AI spits out.

So the real question isn't whether students should use ChatGPT.

It's whether you've designed tasks that demand genuine thinking.

Here's what the data showed: 

engagement with the tool predicted critical thinking gains far better than simply knowing facts about how AI works. 

Students who approached ChatGPT with curiosity and reflection built stronger reasoning skills. 

Students who treated it like a homework vending machine got exactly what you'd expect.

The tool can actually free up cognitive resources for deeper reasoning. But only when students stay mentally active. Only when teachers set expectations that require it.

If your students are copying and pasting AI outputs, that's a pedagogy problem, not a technology problem.

The researchers put it plainly: educational value comes from how we teach, not from the tool itself. Task design, guidance, and clear expectations determine the outcome.

We can keep blaming ChatGPT for student laziness. Or we can admit that lazy assignments produce lazy work, with or without AI.

Reference
Suriano, R., Plebe, A., Acciai, A., & Fabio, R. A. (2025). Student interaction with ChatGPT can promote complex critical thinking skills. Learning and Instruction, 95, 102011.

We spend 12+ years training kids to get the right answer.

And almost zero time teaching them what to do when the answer changes.

That’s the problem.

Traditional schooling optimizes for IQ and compliance:
• Follow the rubric
• Don’t deviate
• Don’t question the frame
• Don’t fail publicly

But the world our kids are walking into doesn’t reward conformity.
It rewards AQ — Adaptability Quotient.

AQ is the ability to:
• Pivot when the rules change
• Relearn faster than your past self
• Stay curious under uncertainty
• Act when there isn’t a playbook

School teaches children to wait for instructions.
Life rewards those who can rewrite them.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth:
We are educating children for stable careers in a world that no longer exists.

When students are trained to:
• Optimize for grades instead of growth
• Avoid mistakes instead of learning from them
• Fit in instead of stand out

They don’t become adaptable adults.
They become fragile ones.

And fragility in a fast-moving world has consequences:
Burnout. Anxiety. Paralysis. Irrelevance.

The irony?
The very skills kids need most—adaptability, judgment, resilience, creativity—are the ones school systems unintentionally suppress in the name of standardization.

If we don’t redesign learning around AQ,
we’re not just failing students academically.

We’re failing them existentially.

The future won’t belong to the smartest.
It will belong to the most adaptable.

And right now, we’re teaching the opposite.

______________________

https://lnkd.in/eJ_r_7CY

Why are we afraid to treat the classroom like a locker room?

We have a double standard in how we raise children, and it is holding them back.

In sports, the formula is accepted without question: High Standards + High Support.

We cheer for the coach who demands excellence. We respect the mentor who makes players run laps until they get it right—as long as that same coach is there to high-five them at the finish line. We call this "grit." We call this "character building."

But when we apply that exact same logic to academics?

The Fear kicks in. Parents worry it’s "too much pressure." Educators worry about "burnout." We lower the bar to protect feelings, or we remove the support and wonder why students crumble under the weight of expectation.

High standards without support is cruelty. High support without standards is complacency. High standards + High Support is growth.

If we want great students, we have to stop being afraid of the friction that creates them. We need to look a student in the eye and say, "I expect more from you because I know you are capable of it, and I am going to help you get there."

That isn’t pressure. That is belief.

We keep asking the wrong question about AI in education.

It’s not: “Will AI replace teachers?”
It’s: “What finally gets unlocked when we stop using humans for what machines do best?”

That’s the core idea behind The Great Unlock.

AI doesn’t make learning less human.
It removes the friction that’s been blocking the human part all along.

When AI handles:
• repetition
• content delivery
• instant feedback
• personalization at scale

Humans get to focus on what only humans can do:
• critical thinking
• creativity
• collaboration
• communication

This is the shift:
From memorization → meaning
From standardization → mastery
From content delivery → human mentorship

AI as a co-pilot, not a replacement.
AI as a tutor, not a gatekeeper.
AI as the force that democratizes what used to be elite.

That’s why I call it The Great Unlock.

Human + AI ≠ less learning
Human + AI = unlocked potential

If you’re a parent, educator, founder, or district leader wondering what learning after AI actually looks like—

👉 Comment “PREVIEW” or DM me and I’ll send you an early look at the book.

The future of learning isn’t automated.
It’s finally human. 🔓

_________________________

Every child has a thirst for knowledge.
It just isn’t always academic.

Some kids want to know:
• how engines work
• how games are designed
• how to win friends, not just points
• how to master something that feels theirs

School often misses this because it only values one kind of curiosity—the kind that shows up neatly in a workbook.

When a child disengages, we label them:
“unmotivated”
“behind”
“not academic”

But that’s a diagnosis problem, not a motivation problem.

Every child is already learning something.
The question is whether school has decided it counts.

The real job of educators isn’t to “create motivation.”
It’s to discover it, respect it, and build a bridge from what a child cares about to what they need to learn.

When students feel seen:
• effort increases
• confidence returns
• learning accelerates

Motivation isn’t a trait some kids have and others don’t.
It’s a signal.

Our job is to tune in.

Every parent wants their kid to be educated the way they were.

The logic is simple:
“I turned out fine.”
So my kid will too.

But... is fine really the goal?

Fine means:
• average outcomes
• unrealized potential
• learning that works for school, not for life

And “fine” made sense when:
• information was scarce
• careers were linear
• conformity was rewarded

That world no longer exists.

Kids today aren’t limited by access to knowledge.
They’re limited by expectations.

Every child is more capable than our systems assume.
More curious.
More adaptable.
More ambitious.

School shouldn’t recreate our past.
It should be designed to unlock their future.

Not to produce kids who are “fine.”
But kids who:
• master fundamentals
• move at the pace of understanding
• build confidence through real competence
• discover what’s possible when standards are high and support is real

Children are not fragile.
They’re limitless.

The real problem isn’t that school fails kids.
It’s that we’ve normalized aiming too low.

“Fine” is survival.
Education should be about thriving.

If we truly believe in our kids, we have to stop asking:
“Did this work for me?”

And start asking:
“Is this worthy of them?”

taplio

The Battle

Alessia Priolo

Karim Kuperhause

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreAlessia Priolo's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreKarim Kuperhause's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Alessia Priolo

Karim Kuperhause

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Alessia Priolo's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreKarim Kuperhause's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreAlessia Priolo's LinkedIn Performance