https://doi.org/10.1177/00224871211030367 Journal of Teacher Education 2021, Vol. 72(4) 401–404 © 2021 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/00224871211030367 journals.sagepub.com/home/jte Editorial One of the things that has become clear to many scholars, including the authors of this editorial, is that there are many issues raised during the pandemic that did not have their ori- gins in the pandemic itself, but which have persisted for many decades, have complex origins, and which exist within systems governed by diverse values and populated by diverse stakeholders (see, for example, Richmond, Cho, et al., 2020). This is especially true for issues that directly affect the ability of young people to receive the kind of high-quality education they deserve. Because the pandemic has touched the lives of so many individuals and groups, including those who have more economic, social, and political privilege, some issues are positioned by those with privilege as needing to be addressed, and quickly. No better example of such an issue is that of “learning loss,” which has inundated public media and has captured the attention of education professionals and nonprofessionals alike. One of the problems with the con- ception of learning reflected in this language is that it ignores what students learned from their personal and academic experiences during the pandemic. While some students made less academic progress than they might have otherwise, all students experienced a sudden break from normative school- ing and forced social isolation. Given the interconnectedness between socioemotional and academic learning, merely providing instruction on academic content that students missed is unlikely to meet their needs (Aspen Institute National Commission on Social, Emotional, and Academic Development, 2019). The best path forward will need to take into account the interconnectedness of social, emotional, and academic development (Darling-Hammond et al., 2020). To better understand numerous intertwining factors at play, we can draw from complexity theory with its focus on relation- ships and the intricacies of interconnectedness (Mevawalla, 2013). As Martin and Dismuke (2018) have reminded us, classroom teaching is a layered, intertwining system of inter- actions and reactions that involve students and teachers in what Weade (1994) termed “co-participatory activity.” The teaching-learning systems are always co-adapting, but never more so than during the pandemic. During this time, it has been crucial that educators, students, and families worked together to determine what was working and what was not working in dynamic ways but under constrained circumstances. At the same time that the pandemic has highlighted long- standing inequities, it has also highlighted our increasing abil- ity to pivot to address but also prioritize challenges. Many teachers drew on their knowledge of pedagogy and their rela- tionships with students, families, and communities to rise to the challenge, even as they battled with the pandemic and its effects themselves. Many adjusted instruction to online plat- forms and worked tirelessly to ensure students were engaged in high-quality, cognitively demanding activities on those plat- forms and took time to check in with students about how they were doing, to talk about students’ questions, concerns, and feelings. Numerous teachers and caregivers recognized that there was also an immense need for relationship building and personal connection with students, and they found ways to do this in the online setting. Many educators were able to heed Freire’s (1970) call for a more humanizing education, as we needed to build upon the lived reality of students’ lives with a greater focus on the co-construction of knowledge such that standardized tests were halted, the role and purpose of home- work were questioned, and teachers learned about and imple- mented trauma- and healing-informed pedagogies. Despite remarkable thought and action by many, however, such pow- erful and responsive practices have not been universally engaged in by educators and caregivers, and part of the chal- lenge for the field is for us to understand the underlying moti- vations, reasonings, and capacities. There are two related ideas that “speak” to our ability to be thoughtful and discriminating in our analyses, as well as nuanced in our interpretations of and responses to educational challenges while at the same time positioning ourselves to be able to pivot to make timely decisions with respect to both research and practice. The first of these ideas is the distinction 1030367JTE XX X 10.1177/00224871211030367Journal of Teacher EducationRichmond et al. editorial 2021 1 Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA 2 Nipissing University, North Bay, Ontario, Canada 3 Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE), Stanford, CA, USA 4 University of North Carolina at Greensboro, USA Corresponding Author: Gail Richmond, Professor of Science & Urban Education, Director of Teacher Preparation Programs, Department of Teacher Education, 620 Farm Lane, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA. Email: gailr@msu.edu Fast and Slow Thinking to Address Persistent and Complex Problems in Teaching and Learning Gail Richmond 1 , Christine Cho 2 , H. Alix Gallagher 3 , Ye He 4 , and Tonya Bartell 1