UDL Now with Katie Novak: Practical Strategies for Every Teacher ~ 1016

Tim Villegas
From MCIE. If this podcast episode was a meal, it probably would contain five courses. I hope you’re hungry.
My name is Tim Villegas from the Maryland Coalition for Inclusive Education and you are listening to Think Inclusive, a show where with every conversation, we try to build bridges between families, educators, and disability rights advocates to create a shared understanding of inclusive education and what inclusion looks like in the real world. You can learn more about who we are and what we do at MCIE.org.

For this episode, I speak with Katie Novak, an internationally renowned education consultant, author, graduate instructor at the University of Pennsylvania, and a former assistant superintendent of schools in Massachusetts. With 20 years of experience in teaching and administration, an earned doctorate in curriculum and teaching, and 11 published books, Katie designs and presents workshops both nationally and internationally focusing on the implementation of inclusive practices, Universal Design for Learning, multi-tiered systems of support, and universally designed leadership.

Katie and I discuss her book UDL Now. She untangles some of the misconceptions about Universal Design for Learning, explains how UDL applies to instructing learners with extensive support needs, and why equity isn’t really a scary word. Thank you so much for listening. And now my interview with Katie Novak.

Tim Villegas
Welcome Katie Novak to the Think Inclusive podcast again. This is number two—you’re in the two-timers club.

Katie Novak
Oh my goodness, it’s such an honor.

Tim Villegas
I don’t think we’ve ever had anyone past two times. So, you know, it’s right there.

Katie Novak
I mean, it’s something to reach for, for me. So let’s jump into the questions.

Tim Villegas
Teachers are stretched thin like never before. Why should schools and districts prioritize Universal Design for Learning?

Katie Novak
Okay, so I have a couple of answers for that. When I think about universal design, I’ve really shifted to thinking about it as these core beliefs that drive our planning and design work, which is simply that we have this incredible diverse variability of students who are so unique and different from each other, but also dynamic, and they’re always changing.

In traditional models, really responsive teachers always tried to provide students with what they needed. But there was almost this lack of understanding about how much students actually change. As a mom, I find myself in this situation all the time where I’m like, I know what my kids like to eat for breakfast, and I make them all what I think they want. And then they’re like, “Oh, I don’t eat that anymore.” And I’m like, “Since when? You ate it yesterday.”

So we have this variability of students who are different from each other, but also incredibly dynamic. That makes planning for them really difficult because it’s kind of like a moving target.

The other piece is that we have to believe that all students can work towards mastery of these firm goals. If we’re trying to embrace variability and think about firm goals, it may lead someone to feel like they have to create 30 different lessons or 100 different lessons for students because we’re really trying to be responsive. This is problematic for two reasons:

1. Students are constantly changing, and we as designers might not get it right.
2. Students are becoming really compliant and dependent on us to make decisions for them.

That leads to valuing expert learning. At this point, I think most teachers absolutely recognize variability and that students need different things. We’ve spent a lot of time focusing on standards and teacher clarity, and what really is it that students have to know and do. But I believe that teachers are often completely buried because we’re feeling like we have to do everything for all of these students. Then we’re looking at data and it’s like, gosh, some students, despite the fact that we’re bending over backwards, aren’t really making growth. More problematic, they’re not thinking critically, they’re not super self-aware or super self-reflective.

Universal design is thinking more about how do we create a classroom that really empowers students to spend more time thinking about what really are the firm goals, what is it that I need to know and do, and what’s the best pathway for me to do it. They can help us co-design these experiences. Teachers who are really overwhelmed are overwhelmed because they’re doing too much for students that students are perfectly capable of doing themselves. And it’s not resulting in the impact that educators deserve or that students deserve. So we really need another way.

Tim Villegas
What I really liked about what you had to say was: educators are working too hard, and they don’t need to be. Right? I think a part of this that goes along with UDL is a huge mind shift—that the responsibility is not all on the teacher, that you give some of that responsibility to the students. That seems to be really scary, and rightly so. When you’re explaining UDL to people who think it’s a curriculum, or just these three pillars—they just don’t get it—how would you explain it to someone who’s confused about what it is?

Katie Novak
I often talk about it in analogies because we see examples of things that are universally designed all around us. I started with a dinner party analogy: if we invited 40 people over for dinner, we’re past the days of serving a single casserole—shepherd’s pie or lasagna—with the expectation that everyone will have the same portion on the same plate. If I put out a cheesy, meaty lasagna, I know that won’t work for everyone. I can predict there will be people who are lactose intolerant, vegan, gluten sensitive, or who simply don’t enjoy Italian food.

A lot of people recognize that one-size-fits-all learning doesn’t work for students. We might have a textbook and say, “Some students are not decoding at grade level yet,” or “I have multilingual learners,” or “Some students don’t have the background information yet.” Then we start to create individual dishes for everyone—and we do not have a restaurant kitchen with unlimited staff and ingredients.

In this analogy, if I serve lasagna, many people won’t eat. Then I think, “I’m not a very good host. What do you want to eat?” and I start making different dishes. It would be much easier if I said ahead of time: we’re all going to have dinner together; let’s think about the theme; I have ingredients to make positive things; how about we all have individual ramekins and make our own meal? Or we potluck, or we buffet. That would be easier for the host and outcomes would be better.

Universal Design for Learning asks: how do we recognize the barriers of one-size-fits-all? How do we work with our learners to create options and choices on the learning buffet, and allow them to choose? People get nervous and say, “What if students don’t choose responsibly?” We should predict that people will sometimes choose irresponsibly. I might go to a buffet and choose red wine and brownies. The key is setting a purpose ahead of time: What do you have to do? How are you doing now? What’s the goal? And reflecting after choices.

I always ask: What are you going to choose, and why? Then we check in: How is your choice allowing you to work toward the goals? Many teachers already provide flexibility and options. What’s often missing is the metacognitive work: What is the goal? What are your options? What are you choosing and why? Then reflect: Did you make a responsible decision for your learning?

I remember being a teacher, wanting to be responsive to students with disabilities, and looking at IEP accommodations. I’d say: “You need a graphic organizer,” and then I’d end up sitting with every student and filling it out, because I never went through the process of explaining the value of a graphic organizer. We could all try it, reflect, take a “no thank you,” try without it and with it, and compare which result is stronger. Sometimes we say, “I did universally design it because I gave the option or the tool,” but if we don’t teach how to use it and how it supports learning, people make the same decisions over and over while we expect different outcomes.

Tim Villegas
That’s really what you’re talking about with firm goals and flexible means. That phrase comes up in the book. This is the first time I’ve read it—version three, right? Has that always been a mantra with UDL?

Katie Novak
We’ve always talked about firm goals and flexible means. In this book I focus more on the expert learning piece: we have to be strategic in the flexible means we provide. It’s not just options and choices; all pathways must lead toward the goal.

Example: the firm goal is that students will write an argument. I’ll see classrooms where teachers say, “Some students struggle with writing—multilingual learners, students who prefer technology—so I’m allowing them to make a podcast.” No. The firm goal is writing. Every student has to produce writing.

Looking at writing through UDL: within our classroom, students have different strengths and needs—organization, language conventions, etc. When we think about options, they must support producing writing. For organization struggles: provide sentence stems, graphic organizers, or storyboards. For the physical act of writing: allow handwriting a first draft, typing, assistive tech, or AAC devices. Think ahead: what opportunities do students need to produce writing?

There’s a misconception that UDL is just options and choices, and then students don’t have opportunities to work toward firm goals because we eliminate the goal. Be careful. Choice boards can be great, but I see many where the unit goal might be: “Students will accurately use a protractor to measure angles.” One option reads: “Write a poem about a protractor.” No—unless the poem includes shapes with accurately measured angles and demonstrates mastery.

Sometimes people want lots of options and choices. But if I’m preparing for a marathon, the buffet options would be very different than if I’m out on a Friday night for fun.

Tim Villegas
That’s the firm goals: you have a goal in mind that everyone must do the one thing—or the few things. If the options aren’t leading to the goal, they aren’t actually options.

Katie Novak
Right. People say, “What if students choose the easy option?” There shouldn’t be an easy option. There might be more accessible options, but not easier ones. I saw a choice board where the real goal was understanding how complex characters interact over the course of a text. That requires more than one character, and examining interaction over the text with success criteria like citing textual evidence. Options included a diary entry from one character reflecting on interaction with another, or a video montage of two characters’ thoughts—rich ideas. Then one option was “Pretend you’re the character and write five tweets.” Of course students will pick that; it takes two minutes while classmates spend hours on a video diary. Those should not be on the same choice board. UDL should not minimize rigor.

Tim Villegas
How does access for students with more significant disabilities fit in with this idea? I understand maintaining rigor for options. Some students, based on their IEP, have a modified curriculum. Let’s say they’re included in a regular science or language arts class—given the example about the characters—but they’re not necessarily expected to perform at the same level—

Katie Novak
Then act as an entry point, potentially?

Tim Villegas
Thank you. The standard has entry points. How would you coach a teacher who’s thinking, “There’s a student in my class who is barely approaching this standard; how am I going to provide UDL for them?”

Katie Novak
Universal Design for Learning is about first-best instruction. Any options I provide—say we’re all going to read a text—could include reading it or listening to it (Audible), doing a close reading alone or with partners, and responding about how the characters interact. That’s for everyone.

Then there’s specially designed instruction (SDI), individualized for the student. The more I universally design, the more students simply have access. For a student with significant support needs, we’d still read the same text—grade-level access. We might read a short passage (an excerpt) rather than an “easier” text; there’s no standard requiring a minimum word count, though there are Lexile considerations. Students could work together on a storyboard or independently on how two characters interact. If responding by video or writing, they share how those complex characters interact. We’d align with the specific SDI outcomes.

It’s not about providing an easier option; it’s about offering multiple modes (podcast, writing) while individualizing via the IEP. Universal design eliminates predictable barriers through different pathways. After UDL, I’ll still use data to differentiate instruction and incorporate SDI from IEPs. As a general education teacher, I can deliver specially designed instruction. There’s a misconception that only special educators can deliver it. Special educators design the strategies students need, but any teacher can deliver them. In my inclusive classrooms, the more I universally designed, the less I had to change after the fact because I had already designed with SDI in mind.

Tim Villegas
I love UDL as the first-best instruction—the thing we think about first, the overarching approach. Would you describe UDL as an umbrella with differentiated instruction beneath it, and then specially designed instruction further down? How should we think about how these work together? They’re certainly not the same.

Katie Novak
Let’s say I’m an English teacher focusing on writing narratives. In a very traditional class, I might say: we’re all going to read a story about a day at the beach, then write a story about a day at the beach. Use blue or black ink on paper and leave a one-inch right margin for feedback. That’s how I started teaching: everyone reads the same text, writes in the same way, silently, because we didn’t have computers or audiobooks in the classroom.

There were still things I could have done to be more inclusive. With a document camera, I could have shown pictures of the beach; we could all draw what we think of when we think of the beach; students could read silently or I could read aloud. You can universally design without modern tech, but traditional education was one-size-fits-all. If you couldn’t do it, you were often excluded—sent to another level or room, or supported by a paraeducator. The general education teacher delivered something; if it didn’t work, someone else got involved.

Over time, we recognized barriers and used technology to eliminate them. In a universally designed class I might say: in science you’re studying coastal regions; I want a cool interdisciplinary connection. We’ll read several narratives set in coastal regions. You can access them in English, in translation, or via audio. Then it’s time to craft a narrative. Before you start, either fill out a storyboard or a graphic organizer. Tell me your ideas: we know the setting; who are your characters; what’s the problem? Turn that in.

So: options to comprehend the text; options to organize; options to share planning. Then I review and notice four students don’t have an idea. I pull them for a small group. That’s differentiated instruction—flexible grouping and regrouping, as Carol Tomlinson emphasizes. I’m not pulling all students with IEPs; I’m pulling students who don’t yet have an idea and therefore can’t start writing.

Universal design provides options and choices; differentiation is being responsive to data. I’m not saying, “You had options and didn’t come up with anything, so sit quietly.” I respond.

Specially designed instruction might appear in that first UDL component and as part of differentiation. Suppose a student requires constant prompting and clarification. At the beginning I might say: you can read or listen; I’m going to read aloud—if you choose to be with me, come over here. Tim, come here—I’d quietly prompt you and have you summarize after each paragraph. I’d provide that option to everyone, but it’s specially designed for you. If a student joins who’s part of the Deaf community, I might realize I need to design differently to ensure access beyond just having audio.

Tim Villegas
I like that distinction: something specially designed for a student can be provided as an option for everyone. It can be universally designed yet specially designed for a particular student. That seems confusing.

Katie Novak
I was talking about scaffolding recently and someone asked, “Where does scaffolding live—UDL or differentiation?” Scaffolding can live everywhere.

Take a graphic organizer. In a traditional classroom: everyone reads a hard copy and fills out the organizer. That’s a scaffold, but there’s no option. In UDL: “You need to organize your writing. You have options: fill out a graphic organizer or create an outline.” I’d have to teach both so students can reflect on which works better. Or: “I need to see evidence of your organization so you don’t get too far—choose this organizer or that one, digitally or on paper.”

Differentiation: I notice five students have done nothing to organize. I pull them for a small group and we all fill out a concept map together because organization is the struggle; the story is strong and I want them to flesh it out. If I pull those five and say, “You must do a graphic organizer—choose one of these three,” now I’m universally designing the differentiated instruction that includes a scaffold. It’s fluid. We want them to be separate, but there’s overlap.

Tim Villegas
What if someone is listening and says, “Katie, this is too much. I’ve been in the classroom for 25–30 years. You’re asking me to do way too much. Whatever happened to just teaching reading, writing, and math?” How would you respond?

Katie Novak
John Dewey in 1910 wrote “On Teaching” and said: to say that you’ve taught something when no one has learned it is like saying you sold something that no one has bought. If students aren’t learning, we’re not teaching—we might be presenting, covering, assigning. If students aren’t learning at high levels, we have not taught.

In more traditional spaces, it seemed that general education teachers were more effective, not because they were more effective, but because their classrooms didn’t represent all students in the school; traditionally we separated students quite a bit. Teachers were set up by the system: they were successful with the students they served, and now we recognize the civil rights, moral imperative that general education teachers must teach all students, which means working differently with colleagues. Many weren’t trained for that yet.

For UDL, I think about three things:

1. Mindset: It is my responsibility to teach all students. Students with disabilities are general education students. Multilingual learners receiving ELD support are general education students. Students with significant behavioral or social-emotional needs are general education students. General education teachers are evaluated on teaching all students.
2. Skill set: Massive. Many say, “I believe in it; I don’t know how yet.”
3. Systems: We must support teachers better—high-quality PD, ongoing instructional coaching, time for collaboration and consult with special educators. How do we give teachers what they need so they feel prepared?

Right now we often say, “Good luck, do it,” even though this is how we’ve been required to serve students for a long time. I understand the frustration and anxiety. For teachers who feel they can’t do it all: you’re not expected to do it all at once. Imagine we all had to play basketball and I show a video of LeBron James and say, “That’s what you’ll do.” That’s absurd. Some people will learn to dribble in place with one hand.

I tell educators: consider where you are on the spectrum and move forward. Provide more options than last week. Empower students in small ways. For instance, instead of just “turn and talk,” say: “Here’s the question. Take five minutes—would you rather turn and talk or write down your thoughts? We’ll reconvene. Which served your learning and why?”

Tim Villegas
Let’s pivot to equity. Equity has become a huge buzzword in our educational and political landscape. People are getting upset and calling school board members, writing superintendents. How does equity fit with UDL? Do you have anything to say to educators and family members who are concerned that equity is a secret plot to indoctrinate students?

Katie Novak
In Equity by Design, which I wrote with Mirko Chardin, I generally talk about four things:

• Equitable access to grade-level classrooms
• Equitable opportunities to work toward firm goals
• Equitable expectations of being successful
• Equitable belonging

In public schools, every general education student should have access to a general education classroom. Our job is to recognize barriers and ensure it’s truly the least restrictive environment for all students. The vision is that every student can be in a general education classroom where they have opportunities to learn at high levels, with educators who believe they can be successful, and where they feel they belong—challenged and supported.

People who struggle with this often imagine a one-size-fits-all classroom that can’t support everyone. The concern becomes: we’ll put everybody in one classroom, give them the same experiences we had, and expect success. That wouldn’t work. Some students need more support; some need more challenge; and it changes day to day. Part of the work is helping people see what a universally designed classroom looks like—support and challenge.

Even if we do this, we won’t all have the same outcomes. Things get conflated: if we’re together in a universally designed classroom, we’ll end up exactly the same. That doesn’t embrace human variability. Suppose we all join a fitness program. Some are already in incredible shape; others aren’t. If we all had access to a gym that met our needs, it would offer many things: a walking track, gentle yoga, classes before/during/after work; subsidized access. Even with access, opportunity, coaching, and growth, we’re not all running a four-minute mile.

Some use that to say we shouldn’t be together because we won’t end up the same. Of course we won’t; it would be depressing if we were robots. The fact we won’t end at the same place doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have the same opportunities and pathways.

My biggest pushback on rigid leveling and separating kids is that it rarely requires students to challenge themselves; we look for the system to challenge them. Families of students who have traditionally performed well may say, “I don’t want an inclusive classroom because my student won’t be challenged,” based on an antiquated model where the teacher is fully responsible for challenging the student, rather than the student also taking responsibility and having opportunities to design a challenge. Through differentiated instruction, teachers can challenge students, but it’s not solely the teacher’s job—students must become more self-directed.

People push back on equity. When we look at who is often included in advanced coursework, we know who it tends to be; we can predict identity groups that are underrepresented. That’s inequitable. We should have high-performing students whose identities we cannot predict. Many struggle with that for different reasons, but one addressable reason is they simply don’t see how classrooms have evolved to support an inclusive model.

Tim Villegas
What’s one thing you want our audience—mostly educators—to walk away with from our conversation?

Katie Novak
This does not have to be done all at once, and it does not have to be done alone. Your next step isn’t to totally transform your classroom overnight. Ask: when I do this one thing, who gets excluded? How could I minimize that by providing an additional option? Start with: how will I provide a different pathway for students to choose tomorrow?

When you provide that option, if students choose something that doesn’t serve their learning, we must be responsive. There’s a belief that a universally designed classroom is completely student-led: “You made your bed; sleep in it.” Instead, say: “I want to talk to the three of you about yesterday’s choices. I didn’t see progress. What did you choose? How did it end up this way? How do we make a better decision next time?” The teacher becomes more of a facilitator. It’s not just providing options and letting students do different things; it’s always: What is the goal? What evidence do I have that students are working toward it? If not, I’m responsible for pulling small groups, helping with better decisions, providing targeted intervention, or enrichment/acceleration. For example: “I’m noticing that given challenging options, you’re not choosing them and you’re finishing early. I’m concerned about your lack of commitment to challenging yourself. Talk to me.”

Relationships are huge. Another struggle is the claim that by not providing flexibility, we’re preparing students for college. That’s false. We’re preparing students to get into college by taking inaccessible standardized tests. College requires independence most students don’t have, resulting in the lowest retention rates of all time in higher education. Even though many get to college, about half won’t finish freshman year, which shows we haven’t built enough learning skills for independence. We’ve made them dependent on educators to tell them what to do. Giving learners more agency and autonomy is necessary for their future. Takeaways: start small, know you’ll differentiate, and let go of the “preparing for college” myth—prepare them to succeed in college by building independence.

Tim Villegas
Katie Novak, thank you so much for your time and for being on the Think Inclusive podcast.

Katie Novak
Thank you so much for having me.

Tim Villegas
Think Inclusive is written, edited, and sound-designed by Tim Villegas and is a production of MCIE. Original music by Miles Credit. If you enjoyed today’s episode, here’s one way you can help our podcast grow: tell a friend, family member, or colleague about an episode you enjoyed. Special thanks to our patrons Melissa H., Sonia A., Pamela P., Mark Ussi, Kathy B., Kathleen T., Jarrett T., Gabby M., Aaron P., and Paula W. for their support of Think Inclusive.

For more information about inclusive education or to learn how MCIE can partner with you and your school or district, visit MCIE.org. Thanks so much for your time and attention. And remember, inclusion always works.