اینترنت

نویسنده: post bot

  • Pastors for Texas Children on the Signing of the Voucher Bill

    Pastors for Texas Children on the Signing of the Voucher Bill


    One of the most determined opponents of vouchers in Texas was the Pastors for Texas Children. While some faith leaders celebrated the opportunity to get public money for their religious schools, the PTC stood firm for separation of church and state. They believe it is the state’s responsibility to provide good public schools, and it is the duty of religious groups to support their own faith.

    They know the research. They know that most of the $1 billion in vouchers will be used to subsidize students already enrolled in private schools. They know that many private schools will raise their tuition in response to the state subsidy. They know that the public schools, which serve the vast majority of students, will continue to be underfunded.

    PTC sent out the following message:

    The Signing of HB 3

    An old preacher once said that God’s Justice was figuring out what belongs to whom and giving it to them.

    Universal education for ALL children is God’s Justice. A $1 billion voucher subsidy program for children already in private schools— mostly religious schools that use Caesar to support their religion— is not.

    Texans know that. They have rejected voucher programs for 30 years.

    Gov. Greg Abbott had to rely on a Philadelphia billionaire to give him over $12 million dollars to defeat conservative, rural Republican state representatives who opposed vouchers on deep conviction and moral principle.

    We take no pleasure in calling out our governor’s lies and bullying against these decent public servants. God is not mocked by Gov. Abbott’s corruption.

    The voucher bill was signed on Saturday. Also on Saturday Texans all over the state overwhelmingly approved public school bond programs and elected pro-public ed trustees as a direct response to Abbott’s voucher scam.

    We will have another opportunity to express our will on public education and against the privatization of it:

    The 2026 primary and general elections.

    DONATE TO PTC

    PO Box 471155, Fort Worth, Texas, 76147

    ***************************************

    What Happened After Passage of HB 3.

    A statewide rejection of extremism.

    In the aftermath of the passage of the voucher bill, voters in several districts responded by ousting hard-line conservative school board members. Texan Michelle H. Davis described the devastating losses of MAGA school board members across the state.

    It was a tough night for MAGA-aligned candidates in Texas. In the May 3, 2025, local elections, voters across the state decisively rejected far-right candidates, particularly in school board and city council races. From Tarrant County to Collin County, and from San Antonio to Dallas, communities chose leaders who prioritize public education, inclusivity, and pragmatic governance over culture wars and partisan agendas. This widespread shift signals a growing resistance to extremist politics at the local level. 

    Last night, voters across Texas sent a message loud enough to rattle the far-right out of their echo chambers: we’re done with your culture wars, your book bans, and your crusade against public schools. Voters chose community over chaos, educators over agitators, and progress over extremism.

    The local elections weren’t just a series of wins but a sweep. MAGA-backed candidates got absolutely trounced across the state. This was the result of deep organizing, years of work by local Democrats, and voters who are fed up with the far-right hijacking of school boards and city councils to push their agenda.

    Texas isn’t turning blue overnight, but make no mistake: the MAGA movement had a very bad night, and the momentum is shifting.

    Tarrant County. 

    The Republican Party poured money, endorsements, and out-of-state personalities into these Tarrant County races, and they got wiped. Every single candidate backed by Patriot Mobile, the far-right Christian nationalist group trying to take over school boards, lost. That’s losses in Mansfield ISD, Keller ISD, and Grapevine-Colleyville ISD. A clean sweep.

    The Tarrant County GOP went 0-for-11 in the county’s three largest cities: Fort Worth, Arlington, and Mansfield. Let that sink in. They didn’t just lose a few races. They got shut out entirely. In Mansfield, Republican Rep. David Cook’s backyard, where Allen West himself came out to rally the troops, the GOP lost all five races they backed.

    Meanwhile, Democrats made real gains on the Fort Worth City Council. One of the biggest victories was Debrah Peoples’s victory in her race. A longtime activist and former Tarrant County Democratic Party Chair, Peoples gave progressive voters a reason to celebrate in a city that’s often overlooked on the statewide map.

    Huge, huge shout out to the Tarrant County Young Democrats. They didn’t just show up, they organized, knocked on doors, made calls, and fought for every single school board seat they were targeting. And guess what? They swept them all. That’s the kind of ground game that wins elections. That’s the kind of energy we need to keep building.

    Open the link to continue reading about the pushback in Texas against bookbanning rightwing MAGA culture warriors.



    Source link

  • Why housing and education leaders must work together to help students thrive

    Why housing and education leaders must work together to help students thrive


    School officials said they are currently working on dealing with the wave of new students coming from the Villages of Patterson development under construction. School officials and community members and school officials worry that the schools will not be able to handle another large-scale wave of development without a mitigation agreement.

    Credit: Emma Gallegos / EdSource

    Education and housing are often inextricably linked, but policy decisions made in the two sectors are generally siloed, at times shaped and passed without considering how a housing policy might impact education and vice versa.

    Megan Gallagher’s research bridges the two, focusing on housing and educational collaborations that support students’ academic outcomes. Some of her latest work as a principal research associate at the Urban Institute, a nonprofit research organization focused on public policy, provides school officials and housing developers with ideas on how to partner together to desegregate schools by desegregating neighborhoods.

    Gallagher has also co-authored a report that compiled a list of key housing characteristics that impact children’s educational outcomes:

    • Housing quality
    • Housing affordability
    • Housing stability
    • Neighborhood quality
    • Housing that builds wealth

    In this Q&A, Gallagher details why those housing characteristics matter in a child’s education and the collaborations that can help children have a fair chance at achieving academic success. The interview has been lightly edited for brevity and clarity.

    How does housing policy impact children’s educational outcomes?
    It’s really important when we try to understand the influence that housing has on kids’ educational outcomes, that (we look at) its unique contribution.

    You could have families with the same income levels, (but) one is in a high-quality house and one is in a low-quality house. A low-quality house can influence a child’s health, ability to sleep, and feeling safe. And so, you could have a very different outcome for that child if they are in a lower-quality home.

    You have outlined five characteristics of housing that have an impact on children’s educational outcomes. Why are those five characteristics so important?
    Those five characteristics have been studied a decent amount in housing policy literature. I didn’t conduct all the original research that went into these findings, I just sort of pulled it all together into one place. It is possible that there are aspects of housing that have not been measured historically that could also have an influence on education.

    We know that low-quality housing — housing that has mold or electrical issues — is associated with lower kindergarten readiness scores. That causal relationship has been established. The relationship between spending too much on rent is connected to increased behavioral problems. Housing instability, and I would really put homelessness and housing insecurity into the housing instability bucket, really affects school stability and then has an effect on math and reading scores. We know that successful homeownership, so homeownership that allows families to build equity, increases the likelihood of attending college. We also know that neighborhood context, like violence, can disrupt academic progress and prevent children from succeeding in school.

    So there is evidence that connects each one of these housing conditions to a variety of aspects of kids’ well-being and educational outcomes.

    One of the things that we have not really done a very good job on is which of these aspects of housing matter the most or have the most influence. If we have a million dollars, what would we want to put that million dollars on to improve educational outcomes? I don’t think we have enough evidence right now to know exactly what would be the right pathway for that.

    Do all five characteristics need to be in place for children to have the best possible educational outcomes?
    There’s not enough data right now for us to understand which of the five need to be in place or what the likelihood of succeeding is if you have one or two or three or four of them in place.

    This is an area where we continue to need more understanding, more evidence, but I don’t think that we can wait to make policy decisions until we have all of that evidence.

    Is the lack of sufficient research one of the outcomes of the disconnect between housing and education policy?
    Absolutely. I think the sectors are so siloed, many of the giant data collection investments that have happened at HUD (the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) or at the U.S. Department of Education have not had data elements that capture aspects of the other sector.

    When we are looking at housing data in housing policy, there hasn’t been really detailed data collected about the children in the family — which schools they attend and how they’re doing — which could potentially allow data to be connected, likewise in the education world.

    We run into lots of challenges in research with privacy where just because you can connect data, should you? Is that what program participants have agreed to when they’ve decided to enroll their children in public school or when they’ve decided to enroll in a housing subsidy program? In a lot of cases, the answer is no.

    Some of the best data is really connected at the local level, where you have local policymakers that are working with local agencies that have asked permission and are connecting data to kind of fine-tune programs on the ground.

    How do we reach a point where we have the information necessary to ensure academic success for all children?
    It has to happen at multiple levels. The federal government needs to encourage the Department of Ed and HUD to collaborate and to really support or incentivize collaboration in their discretionary grant programs. I really see it as the feds have an opportunity to lead and really support this kind of work.

    But I also think that there are so many local organizations that are leading. I think a lot of the case study work that I have done can help to illustrate how flexibility and collaboration can really translate into a set of programs or practices that support kids’ education and stable, high-quality housing.

    I know that philanthropy is really supporting a lot of exploration around sector alignment.

    I feel really hopeful about this sort of broader vision for how we create policy that thinks about the way that multiple systems can influence how well a child is doing. But I also think that it’s not like there’s just all of this housing sitting there and kids are not living in it. A big part of this work is making sure that there continues to be a housing production pipeline that is developing housing to ensure that there’s enough housing at various price points so that everybody has the opportunity to live where they’d like to live.





    Source link

  • New law moves toward better translation of special ed documents, but families want more

    New law moves toward better translation of special ed documents, but families want more


    A special education class at Redwood Heights Elementary School in Oakland.

    Alison Yin / EdSource

    California schools will soon have a template for special education programs translated into 10 languages in addition to English.

    Advocates and parents of children with disabilities who speak languages other than English say it is a tiny step forward, but there is still work to be done to fix long waits and faulty translations experienced by many families statewide.

    “Ultimately, if parents can’t receive translated documents, they can’t meaningfully engage in their child’s education,” said Joanna French, senior director of research and policy strategies at Innovate Public Schools, an organization that works with parents to advocate for high-quality education. “They can’t provide informed consent. They can’t ask questions or push back on the services that are being proposed.”

    A bill introduced last year by state Sen. Anthony Portantino, D-Burbank, would have required school districts, charter schools and county offices of education to translate individualized education program (IEP) documents within 30 days. But the bill stalled in the Senate Appropriations Committee, where lawmakers decide whether the state has enough money to pay for legislation. This spring, the bill was revived, and Portantino revised it to require the California Department of Education (CDE) to create guidelines suggesting, rather than mandating, timelines for translation and how to identify quality translators and interpreters. But that version, too, was eventually scrapped. 

    The version of the bill that finally did pass the Legislature and was signed by the governor requires a template for IEPs to be translated into the 10 languages most commonly spoken in California other than English. The translated template must be made available online by Jan. 1, 2027. The template, which can be found in this document, includes categories of services, but also has blank space for language adapted to each student.

    “Obviously, whenever you get a partial victory, you take it and you celebrate,” said Portantino. “This is an incremental improvement. Having the template is a good thing. But obviously, these are individualized plans, so my hope is that someone takes up the mantle to get individual plans translated in a more timely manner.”

    Aurora Flores said she has had to wait sometimes six or seven months for special education documents to be translated into Spanish. Her 10-year-old son has Down syndrome and autism and attends school in the Long Beach Unified School District.

    “It’s really sad for us Spanish-speaking parents because the points that you want to clarify, you can’t understand. They just summarize really fast, with an interpreter, but sometimes it’s not a certified person,” said Flores in Spanish.

    Individualized education programs are required for students with disabilities who qualify for special education, and are updated each year or when needs change. Before schools can implement these programs, parents must agree.

    The person most affected by long waits for translations is her son, Flores said, because it takes longer for her to sign off on new services that he needs.

    “When you least expect it, you realize the next IEP meeting is coming up, and you have just received the documents from the last one,” Flores said.

    A spokesperson for Long Beach Unified, Elvia Cano, wrote in an email that the district “is dedicated to ensuring that all families, regardless of their primary language, have timely access to critical educational information, including Individualized Education Programs (IEPs).”

    However, she said getting high-quality translations of special education documents can be challenging.

    “Translating IEPs requires specialized linguistic and technical expertise. Translators must be fluent in the target language and possess a strong understanding of educational terminology. Finding professionals with these qualifications can be challenging, especially for less commonly spoken languages. Additionally, the complexity of IEPs and the volume of translation requests may extend the timeframe for completion,” Cano wrote.

    Portantino said that some felt the previous version of the bill requiring the California Department of Education to create guidelines for translation “was too onerous, too much pressure.” 

    “I think the education community didn’t want to be forced to do things. I think there were districts who felt they don’t have the personnel, and I think CDE felt the overall structure was not in place,” Portantino said. 

    Holly Minear, executive director of student services at the Ventura County Office of Education, said she thinks most school districts and county offices understand the importance of giving families a written translation of IEP documents in a timely manner, but it is sometimes a challenge, especially when the translation is for a language that is not common.

    “I think a lot of districts use internal translators, and if you have someone out sick or on leave, or if districts work with contract agencies, sometimes the timeline is more than 30 days,” Minear said. 

    Minear said the Ventura County Office of Education has two Spanish-English translators on staff, but they use outside agencies for other languages like Farsi and Mixteco, an indigenous language from southern Mexico. She said she thinks the template will help districts and translators do a better job.

    “Although our IEPs differ … I think we use a lot of the same terms, a lot of the same language,” she said. “I’m really looking forward to having it on the template, because if there’s ever a word or phrase you need, it’s there for you, and it’s free.”

    Sara Gomez, who has a 4-year-old with autism who attends preschool in Santa Clara County, said she thinks the law is a good step forward.

    “I think the law is positive, in that it gives a sense of alarm that translations need to be done urgently,” Gomez said. “But we still don’t have a required timeline.”

    Gomez said she has had to wait three or four months for her son’s individualized education program to be translated into Spanish. Gomez, who is from Venezuela, speaks English, but her husband speaks only Spanish.

    She said she has heard of other parents waiting up to a year for translations, leaving them unable to make informed decisions about their children’s education.

    “Even four months for a young child make a big difference,” Gomez said in Spanish. “When they are the youngest is when they need the most help.” 

    Advocates and families said they will keep pushing the state for guidelines about how to access qualified translators and a time limit for translations. 

    “We understand that districts experience challenges in finding qualified translators, especially for less common languages, and turning around documents quickly,” said French, from Innovate Public Schools.

    However, she said, different districts have very different timelines for translations.

    “We don’t believe it should be that inconsistent, if a parent lives in one district versus another,” French said. “There should be equity across the state about what a parent should expect in terms of translated documents.”

    Allegra Cira Fischer, senior policy attorney for the nonprofit organization Disability Rights California, agreed. She said she was dismayed to see that the 30-day timeframe was removed from the bill.

    “Parents tell us that sometimes their student will have a better teacher or a better case manager and they’ll get things in a more timely manner. But parents shouldn’t have to rely on an especially committed teacher or case manager,” Fischer said. “This is a situation that is really untenable and ultimately is harmful to children with disabilities.”





    Source link

  • Look for solutions beyond school grounds to address youth homicides

    Look for solutions beyond school grounds to address youth homicides


    Eight-foot gates surround Del Sol High School in Oxnard in 2023.

    Credit: Julie Leopo / EdSource

    The shooting in September at Apalachee High School in Georgia, which left two students and two teachers dead and nine people wounded, was the latest in a line of multiple-casualty shootings at schools in the United States.

    Given the incredible suffering and loss of life resulting from these tragic events, they understandably generate considerable media attention and public concern over the safety of students and staff. Schools should be safe places for children and adults to come to each day without the threat of violence.

    But, despite the attention generated by high-casualty school shootings, the data indicate something very surprising. For nearly 30 years — approximately 98-99% of all homicides of school-aged youth (generally youth between the ages of 5 and 18) have occurred outside of schools.

    It’s important for California policymakers and school leaders to understand the data so that they can best protect our youth. One injury or death caused by violence in the school setting is already too much, but let’s dig into the data a bit more to get a better sense of what’s going on.

    The graph below shows the total homicides on school grounds using the School-Associated Violent Death Surveillance System (SAVD-SS) and the total number of homicides of school aged youth using the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) from academic year 1992-93 to 2019-20, in four year increments.

    As we can see in the graph, school-related homicides have hovered between 1% and 2% of the total number of homicides of school-aged youth for these four-year increments.

    How we got the data

    We examined data routinely compiled by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) for their periodic reports on school safety. Homicides and suicides that occur on school grounds are tracked by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) School-Associated Violent Death Surveillance System (SAVD-SS).

    The CDC’s survey tracks homicides and suicides that that occur on school grounds during normal operating hours, as well as those that might have taken place on the bus to and from school or at school events after hours (e.g., football games). The CDC’s National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) shows the total number of homicides of school-aged youth. Comparing the two datasets enables us to determine the proportion of homicides that occur on school grounds versus total homicides for school-aged youth (which would include those at school and those outside of schools).

    Even for periods in which high casualty events in schools are included (such as the tragedies in Colorado, Connecticut and Florida in 1999, 2012 and 2018 respectively), the proportion of school-related homicides did not reach 2% of all homicides of school-aged youth.

    An additional year, 2020-21, is now available from the U.S. Department of Education. Those data indicate there were 11 homicides of school-aged youth at school in 2020-21. This was a period in which many schools moved to a virtual learning environment due to Covid-19.  

    However, 2020-21 was one of the worst years ever for total homicides of school-aged youth: 2,436 young people were murdered. For this single year, homicides of school-aged youth at school represented less than one-half of one percent (0.45%) of total homicides of school-aged youth.

    These data do not give us the full picture. For example, they do not reveal anything about preceding factors that may have led to the homicide: An altercation that occurred in school may have spilled over to a homicide that occurred later on the street. In such cases, although the homicide would not be captured by the school homicide survey, the school was very much related to what happened.

    What should these data inspire us to do?

    Yes, we absolutely must protect children— and staff — in school. Parents entrust their children to educators. In no way do we want to minimize the pain and suffering caused by a shooting such as what occurred at Apalachee High School, or other communities around the nation.

    However, given that the vast majority of homicides of school-aged children do not occur in school — but in the home, on the streets and at other venues — a comprehensive approach to protecting children from violence is needed. If we truly care about children, we’ve got to do a lot more.

    School and Community Strategies for Youth Violence Prevention

    What about our educators and school leaders in California? We recommend that they advocate for evidence-based approaches in the community to help address factors contributing to youth violence in the home and neighborhoods where the majority of homicides of school-aged youth occur.

    And given that the average child spends about 18,000 hours in school, they are often the most likely place for prevention and intervention programs. These need to be comprehensive and evidence-based to provide our youth with the skills they need to cope in and out of school environments. 

    For California state policymakers, we recommend that they balance the policy focus on evidence-based school safety measures with appropriate investments in evidence-based social services, mental health support, and violence prevention programs that reach into the heart of our communities.

    At all levels, we need to inform policies with comprehensive data to guide policy use and evaluation to understand how such investments are faring in reality compared with their design and initial promise.

    It is the rare educator, policymaker, parent or police officer who doesn’t care about children. But while caring is necessary, it is insufficient. These data should provoke us to do more to protect children everywhere. Yes, that means in school. But just as importantly, we need to do more to protect them in their homes and the communities in which they live.

    A version of this article was previously published by the University of Oregon’s HEDCO Institute on Oct. 3, 2024.

    •••

    Anthony Petrosino serves as director of the WestEd Justice and Prevention Research Center. He is also an Affiliated Faculty and Senior Research Fellow at George Mason University’s Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy.

    Ericka Muñoz is a research associate at WestEd’s Justice and Prevention Research Center and is currently pursuing graduate studies in the Criminology, Law & Society program at the University of California Irvine. 

    The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the authors. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • Trump’s budget would abolish funding for English learners, adult ed, teacher recruitment

    Trump’s budget would abolish funding for English learners, adult ed, teacher recruitment


    A sixth-grade math teacher helps two students during a lesson about math and music.

    Credit: Allison Shelley / EDUimages

    Top Takeaways
    • The president dismissed many programs as outdated or “woke.”
    • Advocates for English learners argue that the cuts will reverse progress.
    • The initial budget will face resistance from Democrats and maybe some Republicans.

    President Donald Trump would maintain funding levels for students with disabilities and for Title I aid for low-income students while wiping out long-standing programs serving migrant children, teachers in training, college-bound students, English learners and adult learners  in the education budget for fiscal 2026.

    Trump’s “skinny budget,” which he released on Friday, would cut $12 billion or about 15% of K-12 and some higher education programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education. It contains sparse, sometimes dismissive, language explaining why he is eliminating programs and offers no details about plans to consolidate $6.5 billion in 18 unspecified programs into a single $2 billion grant program.

    “K-12 outcomes will improve as education returns to the states, which would make remedial education for adults less necessary,” according to the one-paragraph explanation for the full $729 million cut to adult education. 

    The budget summary justified eliminating funding for programs like Upward Bound and GEAR UP, which focus on increasing the college and career readiness of low-income students, as “a relic of the past when financial incentives were needed to motivate Institutions of Higher Education to engage with low-income students and increase access.”

    “I don’t think the budget request reflects a deep understanding of what the programs are and what they do. The language is designed to capture headlines, not hearts and minds,” said Reg Leichty, founding partner of Washington, D.C.-based Foresight Law + Policy, which advises education groups, including the Association of California School Administrators, on congressional education policies. 

    “(Trump) has eliminated programs that it’s taken decades to build,” said U.S. Rep. Mark DeSaulnier, a California Democrat serving the East Bay. “There’s been no analysis of what the financial assessment would mean to the communities served. You can always find more efficiencies, but just cutting everything is just mindless.”

    Only charter schools would receive more money — $60 million to bring the total federal spending on charter schools to $500 million.

    The U.S. Department of Education spent about $150 billion in fiscal 2024 on programs in states and school districts, of which California received $18.6 billion, according to the Pew Research Center.

    Trump’s initial budget is the first step in what will likely be a lengthy and contentious process in Congress before the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1.

    “It’s not a budget reflective of the perspectives of many Republicans on Capitol Hill. We’ll see how they try to accommodate the administration,” said Leichty. “It’s a different Congress, it’s a different moment, but still, cuts of this scale and scope are hard to imagine how even the House (with a tiny Republican majority) would pass them.”

    The two largest federal K-12 programs — Title I grants of $18.4 billion and $15.5 billion for the Students with Disabilities Act — reach every school district nationwide and have bipartisan support, but Trump has proposed reshaping both programs as block grants administered by states with less oversight and more local control — actions requiring congressional approval.

    “With a budget that cuts the Department of Education by so much, we’re really pleased to see it does not cut funding for IDEA,” said Kuna Tavalin, senior policy and advocacy adviser for the Council for Exceptional Children, referring to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. “Of course, the devil is in the details.”

    The federal government funds programs that support students with disabilities from early childhood through 21 years old. Consolidation raises the specter that funding for some stages may be fungible, which “could potentially be really damaging,” Tavalin said.

    “This raises the hair on the back of my neck,” he said.

    Programs that Trump would abolish include:

    • TRIO organizations like Upward Bound and GEAR UP, $1.579 billion.
    • English language acquisition through Title III, $890 million.
    • Migrant education, $428 million
    • Teacher quality partnerships, $70 million
    • Federal work-study, $980 million
    • Preschool development grants, $315 million

    The budget proposal also calls for cutting $49 million from the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights. The office would shift the focus from enforcing Title IX and programs with goals of raising achievement for minority students to carrying out presidential executive orders and ending the office’s “ability to push DEI programs and promote radical transgender ideology.”

    The budget is silent on several significant programs, including Head Start, research funding through the Institute of Education Sciences, the Child Care and Development Block Grant, and the state assessment program.

    Reactions

    Title III

    This funding helps English learners and immigrant students learn to speak, read, and write English fluently, learn other subjects such as math and science, and meet graduation requirements. California received about $157 million in 2024-25 from Title III.

    Students who are not yet fluent in English when they begin school are entitled under federal law to get help to learn the language.

    According to the budget, “To end overreach from Washington and restore the rightful role of state oversight in education, the Budget proposes to eliminate the misnamed English Language Acquisition program, which actually deemphasizes English primacy by funding (non-profit organizations) and states to encourage bilingualism.”

    Advocates for English learners disputed the reasoning. 

     “The claim that Title III ‘deemphasizes English primacy’ ignores decades of research and legal precedent,” said Anya Hurwitz, executive director of SEAL (Sobrato Early Academic Language), a nonprofit organization. “Supporting bilingualism does not come at the expense of English proficiency — it enhances it.”

    “Without these funds, many schools will be forced to abandon evidence-based strategies that work and cut services,” said Martha Hernandez, executive director of Californians Together. She said that without targeted support, more students may take longer to learn English and become “long-term English learners” who struggle to thrive in middle and high school.

    Migrant education

    The Migrant Education Program supports children of agricultural, dairy, lumber, and fishing workers who have moved during the past three years. California received $120 million for this program in 2024-25.

    Debra Duardo, superintendent of schools in Los Angeles County, wrote in an email that the loss of these funds will drastically reduce academic support and widen academic achievement gaps. “This decision would have devastating impacts on Los Angeles County schools, where we serve one of the nation’s largest populations of English learners and children from migrant families,” she said.

    Preschool Development Grants

    These programs help states improve their preschool and child care programs, for example, by conducting needs assessments, teacher training and quality improvement. California received Preschool Development Grants in the past, but is not currently a grantee. However, eliminating the grant program could impact California in the future, said Donna Sneeringer, vice president and chief strategy officer for Child Care Resource Center, a nonprofit organization based in Los Angeles that was a partner in the state’s last preschool development grant.

    “There’s still work to be done,” Sneeringer said. “California has made significant changes in our early learning landscape. With transitional kindergarten being available to all 4-year-olds, there are a lot of changes that our child care and early learning providers are having to go through.”

    In the budget proposal, the Trump administration called Preschool Development Grants “unproductive” and said they had been “weaponized by the Biden-Harris Administration [sic] to extend the federal reach and push DEI policies on to toddlers. 

    Adult education

    Unlike K-12 schools, adult education is heavily reliant on federal funding. Sharon Bonney, CEO of the Coalition on Adult Basic Education, said she found the proposed cuts “shocking” and fears the cuts would mean adult schools would rely on volunteers rather than trained teachers. She believes that this is a part of the Trump immigration agenda — 6 out of 10 adult education students are immigrants. 

    Adult schools offer career education or training, but much of their programming is aimed at helping immigrants assimilate and prepare for the citizenship test or learning English as a second language. 

    Teacher quality grants

    Federal funding for the Teacher Quality Partnership grant helps recruit and train teachers for high-needs schools and for hard-to-fill teaching positions.

    University, school district and nonprofit teacher preparation programs use grants from the $70 million fund to recruit and train teacher candidates for high-needs schools and hard-to-fill teaching positions, and sometimes to offer them stipends and other financial help. 

    “These abrupt, short-sighted cuts will directly disrupt critical teacher residency programs that were actively preparing new educators for high-need positions in urban and rural districts across the state,” said Marvin Lopez, executive director of the California Center on Teaching Careers. 

    The grants have been “weaponized to indoctrinate new teachers” in divisive ideologies, according to information attached to a letter from Russell T. Vought, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, to Susan Collins, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. 

    “Cutting grants aimed at supporting and diversifying the teaching profession, at the same time that the nation’s student body is becoming increasingly more diverse and as many districts are struggling to recruit enough teachers, is senseless,” said Eric Duncan, director of P-12 policy at EdTrust West.





    Source link

  • California schools need a fitness revolution

    California schools need a fitness revolution


    Kids get a chance to stretch their legs and skills during physical exercise in Los Angeles in 2023.

    Courtesy LA84 Foundation

    As California schools struggle to recover from the Covid-19 pandemic, recent headlines highlight disturbing trends: sharp increases in youth mental health crises, soaring obesity rates and widening educational disparities. Yet, an essential element of student well-being — physical education (PE) — is being alarmingly overlooked.

    Across California, districts squeezed by budget pressures and testing demands are reducing or eliminating PE programs. In the San Bruno Park School District, funding cuts wiped out K-3 PE classes, leaving parent clubs to fill the gap, though two schools still went without PE.

    Similarly, the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD), facing a $113 million budget deficit, restricted Parent Teacher Association (PTA) funds from covering staff, including PE teachers. Parents protested, fearing the loss of PE would push families to private schools. ​

    The emphasis on standardized testing has also contributed to reducing PE programs. Under pressure to improve test scores, schools often prioritize core academic subjects over PE. This shift can lead to cuts in PE teachers and programs. This shortsighted approach neglects student health and deepens inequities for California’s most vulnerable students.

    Despite California’s PE mandate — 200 minutes every 10 days for grades 1-6 and 400 minutes for grades 7-12 — compliance is inconsistent, and districts are rarely sanctioned. A study of 55 districts found that half did not meet the requirements, affecting 82% of fifth-graders, with Latino, Black and low-income students most affected. Between 2004 and 2009, audits of 188 districts revealed that half were not following the required PE minutes, yet there were no consequences for the districts.

    The health consequences, however, are clear. Research shows students in districts meeting PE mandates are more likely to be physically fit. In compliant districts, 64% of students met or exceeded fitness standards, compared with 57% in noncompliant ones.

    A recent study I conducted with my colleague Ruslan Korchagin revealed further disparities: 81.2% of Latino students and 81.3% of American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander students scored below average on statewide fitness assessments. Conversely, Asian American and Filipino students (73.2%) and white students (71.3%) performed above average. Socioeconomic factors — access to nutritious food, extracurricular opportunities, and safe spaces for physical activity — drive these inequities.

    The Covid-19 pandemic made things worse. California eliminated the physical fitness test in 2020. Currently, schools collect only a pass or fail for physical fitness exercises. Research from 2023 found that lockdowns significantly increased student body-mass indexes and decreased muscular strength, hitting economically disadvantaged and racially marginalized students hardest.

    Physical fitness isn’t just a health issue — it’s tied to academic success. Students who exercise regularly perform better in math and reading, demonstrate stronger cognitive skills and experience lower stress levels. While regular physical activity may not directly cause these academic and mental benefits, numerous studies show a strong correlation. The California Department of Education’s data supports this: Schools with higher fitness scores tend to have better overall academic performance.

    The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) is a potential model for other districts seeking to improve physical education access and quality, even with limited resources. In 2007, the district launched a plan to hire credentialed PE teachers, reduce class sizes and improve facilities. After implementation, 1 in 4 schools reported progress: smaller class sizes, more instructors and increased active time during classes. Notably, some middle and high schools even exceeded the required 40 minutes of PE per day.

    LAUSD’s Blueprint for Wellness report highlights the connection between physical education and academic performance, with research suggesting physical education has improved students’ memory, concentration and cognitive function — all of which contribute to stronger academic outcomes among its students.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom’s current education budget proposal presents an opportunity to address this crisis. Lawmakers must enforce existing physical education requirements across all school districts, hold public hearings to examine disparities in compliance, and include physical fitness scores in the state’s dashboard of key school performance indicators. Additionally, expanding after-school and community fitness programs in underserved neighborhoods and developing culturally inclusive, adaptive PE curricula will help ensure that all students feel represented and engaged.

    California has an opportunity to lead the nation in prioritizing school fitness as a cornerstone of student success. Addressing physical education isn’t just about health. It’s about educational equity. Every child, regardless of background, deserves the lifelong benefits of quality PE. It’s time for decisive, urgent action.

    •••

    Da’Shay Templeton, Ph.D., is an assistant professor at California Lutheran University, a Hispanic-serving institution in Thousand Oaks.

    The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • The Nation’s First Conference for Higher Education Podcasters – Edu Alliance Journal

    The Nation’s First Conference for Higher Education Podcasters – Edu Alliance Journal


    May 5, 2025, by Dean Hoke: For years, there have been conversations among many higher education podcasters asking: Why isn’t there a podcasting conference just for us? This question lingered, raised in passing at virtual meetups, in DM threads, and on campuses where faculty and staff were creating podcasts with little external support or collaboration.

    Last winter, a group of us decided it was time to do something about it.

    Joe Sallustio and Elvin Freytes of The EdUp Experience, Dean Hoke of Small College America, and Gregg Oldring and Neil McPhedran of Higher Ed Pods took a leap of faith and began planning a first-time national gathering. We believed there was a clear void. Podcasting in higher education was growing rapidly, but most lacked a community outside of their home institution to network with, share ideas, and be inspired.

    That leap of faith is now a reality. On Saturday, July 12, 2025, we will convene in Chicago for the inaugural HigherEd PodCon—the first conference built by and for higher education podcasters and digital media creators.

    Hosted at the University of Illinois, Chicago

    This one-day event will bring together over 40 presenters, 15 sessions, and 25+ institutions and organizations from across North America. Whether you’re a faculty innovator, student producer, tech strategist, or communications pro, HigherEd PodCon offers an immersive, hands-on experience designed to elevate the impact of campus-based podcasting.

    Sessions run from 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., which includes networking opportunities and a reception closing out the day. The program is structured across three practical and dynamic tracks:

    • Strategy, Growth & Discovery
    • Content & Production
    • Tech, Tools & Analytics

    The keynote speaker is Matt Abrahams, lecturer in Strategic Communication at Stanford Graduate School of Business and host of Think Fast, Talk Smart. His insights on clarity, message delivery, and audience engagement will set the tone for a day of meaningful exploration.

    A National Cross-Section of Institutions

    HigherEd PodCon showcases participation from institutions of all sizes and types, including:

    • Purdue University
    • Stanford University
    • University of South Carolina Beaufort
    • Lansing Community College
    • Brigham Young University
    • Penn State University

    Whether it’s a faculty-led series, a student-led network, or an advancement-focused production, you’ll hear how campuses are using podcasts to educate, engage, and amplify their stories.

    Session Spotlights

    Here are three sessions you won’t want to miss:

    1. Podcasting, Social Media, and Video: Oh My!
    Kate Young and Maria Welch, Purdue University
    With more than 130 episodes and thousands of monthly downloads, This Is Purdue is among the country’s top university podcasts. In this session, Kate and Maria walk through their formula for success, including social media workflows, video strategy, and content optimization.

    2. Why Podcasts Fail (And How to Make Sure Yours Doesn’t)
    Dave Jackson, Podpage; Podcast Hall of Fame Inductee
    Dave Jackson has helped hundreds of shows succeed—and watched others fall flat. This session offers practical guidance for anyone launching or relaunching a podcast with purpose. Topics include budget-friendly production, YouTube distribution, and sustainable growth.

    3. From 5 to 30: Growing a Podcast Network That Speaks Higher Ed
    Daedalian Lowry and Layne Ingram, Lansing Community College
    What started as five faculty shows grew into a 30+ program podcast network that engages the entire campus and community. Learn how Lansing Community College scaled LCC Connect with collaboration, creativity, and cross-departmental buy-in.

    Why Attend HigherEd PodCon?

    Whether you’re just starting out or looking to take your podcast to the next level, this is the community you’ve been waiting for. Here are three reasons not to miss it:

    • Network with your peers: Build meaningful relationships with fellow higher ed podcasters and digital media innovators.
    • Gain tools and templates you can use immediately: From show planning to promotion, walk away with actionable strategies you can implement on Monday.
    • Stay ahead of the curve: Learn how leading institutions are using podcasts to engage students, alumni, donors, and the public.

    Save the Date

    HigherEd PodCon 2025 is your opportunity to help shape the future of podcasting in higher education—and to find your people in the process.

    Learn more and register at www.higheredpodcon.com. We have room for only 200 attendees in this inaugural event.
    Early bird rate of $249 available until the end of May

    Dean Hoke is Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group, a higher education consultancy, and a Senior Fellow with the Sagamore Institute. He formerly served as President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA). With decades of experience in higher education leadership, consulting, and institutional strategy, he brings a wealth of knowledge on small colleges’ challenges and opportunities. Dean, along with Kent Barnds, is a co-host for the podcast series Small College America. 



    Source link

  • College application deadlines are near. What you need to know

    College application deadlines are near. What you need to know


    A student works on her college applications as deadlines draw closer.

    Photo: Photo: Julie Leopo/EdSource

    Este artículo está disponible en Español. Léelo en español.

    College applications are open for the fall 2025 term, and deadlines are looming. 

    California’s two public university systems — the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) — provide the state’s students with 32 campuses to choose from. 

    That’s on top of more than a hundred community colleges that can provide pathways to transfer to other campuses and associate degrees. Some also offer bachelor’s degrees. 

    Here are the basics of how and when to apply. 

    When are college applications due? 

    It depends on the college or university. The UC and CSU deadline for fall 2025 admissions to all undergraduate campuses is Dec. 2, 2024. 

    Community college admissions do not have a specific deadline, but it’s generally better to apply early. Private colleges and universities have their own deadlines, with most in mid-January. 

    Who is eligible to apply for California colleges?

    To apply to the UC system, students who are residents are required to earn at least a C in the following so-called A-G requirements  — and maintain a GPA in those courses above 3.0 during their sophomore and junior years. 

    • Four English classes
    • Three math classes, though four are recommended
    • Two science classes, though three are recommended
    • Two history classes
    • Two courses in a world language, though three are recommended
    • One class in the visual or performing arts
    • One college preparatory elective class 

    Eligibility for California residents to apply to CSU is similar with respect to the A-G requirements, and applicants must have a GPA above 2.50. Students who do not meet the GPA threshold but have higher than a 2.0 could still be considered for admission with other supplemental factors taken into account.

    Those supplemental factors can range from a GPA specific to math and science to household income to extracurricular activities. 

    Individual campuses have their own supplemental materials, which can be found here. 

    Standardized tests are not required for the UC or CSU systems. 

    How many applications do you need to complete? 

    That depends on the colleges or universities a student is applying to — and whether they’re public or private. 

    There is a single application for all UC campuses and another for all CSU campuses, so there is no need to apply to each university separately. 

    Many private colleges and universities, however, rely on the Common Application, which has its own universal essay prompts and allows campuses to customize additional requirements, including essays, short-answer questions and letters of recommendation. 

    What does the application involve?

    In addition to students’ grades, the UC application also requires students to respond to four personal insight questions — or short essays under 350 words. There are eight prompts to pick from. The UC also has applicants expand on their experiences in high school, including a list of extracurricular activities and achievements. 

    The Cal State application is far simpler, and the main factor considered in the admissions process is a student’s grades in college preparatory classes taken after ninth grade. 

    Generally, the CSU system does not require writing essays. 

    For private campuses, essays are often required, along with letters of recommendation. 

    Are early action and early decision good options? 

    Early action and early decision give students the opportunity to apply to a college or university early — and also receive their decisions months early. 

    They are more common options at private colleges and universities — and can be good options if your child is ahead of the game, ready to click “submit” and wants to express a special interest in the campus. 

    Here’s the main downside of applying early decision: If your child is accepted, they will have to commit to that university and turn down any other offers of admission. 

    Early action, on the other hand, is generally not binding. So, they can be accepted early and still decide to attend another university. 

    How much does it cost to apply to colleges? 

    There is a single application for the UC system, and it costs $80 for every campus selected. Meanwhile, the CSU system charges $70 per campus, and community college applications are free for U.S. residents. 

    Private campuses vary — but often charge between $50 and $100. 

    What if you can’t afford the application fees? 

    The UC system will waive the application fee for up to four campuses in cases where students wouldn’t be able to apply without financial assistance. 

    Fees can be waived for students who are eligible for AB540 benefits and for U.S. citizens and permanent residents. 

    The application itself will notify students if they are eligible once they add their family’s income and size in the  “About you” section.

    The CSU system also affords students application fee waivers; and, students automatically find out if they’re eligible once they complete the application. 

    Eligibility for CSU waivers involves the same criteria as the UC system — but students also have to have been a California resident for at least one year. 

    Like the UC system, the CSU waiver can apply to a maximum of four campuses. 

    Several private colleges and universities also provide fee waivers for students who need it. 

    How do you apply for financial aid?

    For federal assistance with financial aid, it’s important to fill out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA. In California, students should aim to submit the form — which was revamped last year to make it more straightforward — by March 2025. 

    Here’s another EdSource Quick Guide focused specifically on the FAFSA. 

    The California Dream Act was also updated earlier this year and expanded to also serve students who are U.S. citizens but who have a parent without a Social Security number. 

    When should you expect to hear back from universities?

    Students usually hear back from colleges they’ve applied to in March — unless they apply for early action or early decision.





    Source link

  • Hidden costs of college include, for many, commuting

    Hidden costs of college include, for many, commuting


    The UC Riverside parking lot is filled with the cars of students who commute.

    Credit: Omisha Sangani

    As we head into a second year of delays and confusion around FAFSA, the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, it is more important than ever to revisit the daunting financial scene many college students face today.

    Beyond tuition, students incur additional costs, including on-campus housing, meal plans and indirect costs not paid directly to their college/university. Indirect costs include, among other things, books, transportation, off-campus housing and a computer. For California students living off campus, indirect costs are roughly $21,000 a year (and are even higher for students who live on their own).

    With an eye toward costs, many students opt to commute rather than stay on campus because it is cheaper, they can live with family (which may include caretaking for their parents, siblings, and/or children), or they have other responsibilities at home to maintain. For example, 60% of UC students, 86% of CSU students, and 85% of all college students across the U.S. commute to campus.

    The 3E Study is currently collecting economic, educational and health and well-being data from students at public California State University (CSU) and University of California (UC) campuses over time. We asked participants about how things were going this past school year and their most satisfying and disappointing experiences at their institution.

    One trend immediately emerged from the results: Attending their schools is expensive, and commuter students are struggling.

    Many students in our study described having to drive over an hour each way to get to school every day. The challenges posed by their commute often prevent students from thriving, both academically and socially, during a critical time in their development.

    The participant responses bring to life the grim picture:

    “I expect to be exhausted as classes end every day. My commute has taken a greater toll (avg. 100 minutes one-way) on my time management than I anticipated, and this is the greatest factor preventing me from being more involved on campus,” one student says.

    Other commuting students shared that “it’s a lot harder to make friends” and “I work part-time and commute three hours a day for school.”

    Commuting is an issue of affordability that is exacerbating unequal education access. When low- and middle-income students do not have affordable housing options on or near campus, are facing too many other expenses even to consider on-campus housing, and/or are juggling other responsibilities like caregiving, they may have limited options for where to live, regardless of how far they are from campus.

    Living at home and commuting to and from campus also introduces new financial stressors. Many commuter students struggle to pay for gas. While living at home may be more affordable than staying on campus, financing a new tank of gas every few days is no bargain.

    One participant who commutes from Los Angeles to Riverside (roughly 55 miles) for school writes, “A limitation that I keep having is the lack of money … gas is basically now an absolute necessity for me to even consider earning a higher education.”

    Expanding affordable options and resources for students is the key to minimizing these class-based inhibitors to college access. For example, some institutions are creating specialized orientation programs and resources, such as commuter centers (areas with dedicated commuter-specific facilities such as a fridge or computers), to help these students feel more connected and supported during their college experience.

    To decrease the financial burden of commuting, colleges should partner with local transit agencies to offer free public transportation to all students (a program that many California colleges are already implementing). When determining financial aid allocations, schools should consider the cost of commuting as part of the cost of attendance for any students not living on campus. Creating special grant programs designed to reduce tuition costs for commuter students allows students to put tuition savings toward affording gas and/or car payments.

    Commuter students statewide are facing high tuition and high indirect costs. Better supporting the costs of commuting will help ensure an equal chance for everyone to get an accessible college experience.

    •••

    Isabella Yalif is an undergraduate student in economics and sociology at Vanderbilt University.
    Lindsay Hoyt is an associate professor of applied developmental psychology at Fordham University and co-leads the 3E study.
    Alison Cohen is an assistant professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California San Francisco and co-leads the 3E study.

    The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the authors. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • Cal State posts uneven graduation progress as initiative finish line approaches

    Cal State posts uneven graduation progress as initiative finish line approaches


    Cal State Northridge is one of 23 CSU System institutions.

    Larry Gordon/EdSource

    As the end of a decadelong push to graduate more students nears, California State University made slight progress in 2024 on increasing the four-year graduation rate for freshmen but saw six-year freshman rates stall and four-year transfer rates drop, new statistics show.

    Those numbers show the difficulties the university system faces in its final efforts to improve its graduation rates, even after significant overall improvement toward ambitious goals over the previous nine years.

    The data were presented Tuesday at a two-day symposium on graduation goals ahead of spring 2025, when the system’s much-scrutinized Graduation Initiative 2025 effort is supposed to end. California State University (CSU) officials urged colleagues to learn more about why many students are dropping out or taking so long to finish. 

    Across the CSU system, freshman six-year graduation rates have plateaued at around 62%, the same as in 2023 and 8 percentage points below the system’s graduation goal for 2025. Freshman four-year graduation rates ticked up to 36% in 2024, a 1 point gain from the previous year. But they fell shy of the system goal to hit 40% by 2025. 

    Transfer students’ performance was a mixed bag. Cal State is just 1 percentage point from reaching its goal of a 45% two-year graduation rate for transfers, a decent increase from 41% in 2023. But among transfer students who entered CSU in 2020, four-year graduation rates dropped from 79% in 2023 to 75% this year, putting them 10 points below the Graduation Initiative 2025 target.

    CSU also tracks graduation rates for its 23 campuses, all of which have been assigned varying goals. But the university system has not published campus graduation rates for 2024 to a dashboard available online, and those were not included in the public report Tuesday. 

    Though the system’s current graduation rates compare favorably to similar public universities, Chancellor Mildred García said they are “not good enough.”

    About 25,000 first-time students who entered CSU in 2018 did not graduate in six years, Garcia noted. “That’s 25,000 students whose dreams are deferred, 25,000 students who left — and because of the cost of living in the state, are leaving with debt,” she said. “We’re not going to take responsibility for that? I think we have to, we have to talk about the elephant in the room and really examine, again: Are support services really helping? Are we listening to our students?”

    García said the university system must also do more to connect recent graduates with careers, like a Cal State graduate she encountered working in a hospitality job who said they can’t find work in their desired field. 

    “Where is our responsibility there?” she said. “There’s so many options for them. How are we teaching them about the amazing career options that are out there, so they could know which way they want to go?”

    García’s remarks followed a presentation about the system’s graduation and persistence rates by Jennifer Baszile, the associate vice chancellor for student success and inclusive excellence.

    The system is yet to close the gap between students without Pell Grants (more affluent students) and lower-income students receiving such assistance. Among the CSU cohort that started in fall 2017, roughly 68% of more affluent students without Pell Grants graduated in six years. Among Pell Grant recipients, that figure was just 56%.

    Officials have previously attributed at least part of their trouble closing equity gaps to the coronavirus pandemic, which added pressure on students who have to work or care for family members.

    Cal State also touted some good news. Since the effort began, the system has nearly doubled its four-year graduation rate, Baszile said. A Cal State analysis comparing CSU to state systems like the City University of New York and the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education — after making adjustments to leave out top-tier research institutions — found that CSU’s six-year graduation rates for freshmen was near the top of the pack.

    Higher graduation rates are also a good deal for students. Baszile noted that getting their degrees faster means money in the pockets of Cal State graduates, since they can join the workforce sooner and save on the additional fees and tuition they would have paid if it took longer to finish their programs. 

    A closer look at how some students fared

    The past 10 years have seen notable demographic changes at Cal State. The university saw its incoming freshman classes grow 31% between 2009 and 2019. During the same period, the population of first-generation, Pell Grant and/or historically underserved students increased by 50%, according to Baszile’s presentation.

    Baszile then turned to persistence rates, which measure the percentage of students who return to a campus after each year of education. 

    Overall, the analysis found that 84% of first-time students in the 2018 cohort came back to campus for a second year. But equity gaps emerged early. First-year persistence among students who were Latino, male and first-generation was 78%, lagging 6 points behind the system average.

    Disparities were amplified in subsequent years. The divide ultimately fed into lower graduation rates: 48% of Latino, male and first-generation students graduated in six years, again trailing the 62% graduation rate among all students in the 2018 cohort. 

    “More than 50% of the Latino, male, first-generation students who started in 2018 are no longer with us. They are gone,” Baszile said. “We might be able to help them re-enroll. There’s always a chance. But think about on your university campuses: How much energy, how much effort, how much investment is required to have students fully depart and have to identify them, re-engage them and bring them back?”

    How to stop students from ‘leaking out of the pipeline’

    Baszile and Dilcie D. Perez, Cal State’s deputy vice chancellor of academic and student affairs, urged colleagues to learn more about the specific reasons why students leave CSU — in the hopes of preventing more students from following them out the door. 

    Students, Perez said in remarks following the presentation, are “leaking out of the pipeline.” She said a Cal State initiative to welcome back students who have stopped out has been difficult to establish, hampered by bureaucracy and processes. 

    “We’ve got to find a way to go get those students and bring them back,” Perez recalled saying to Baszile in one of the many conversations the two have had about improving student persistence. “And (Baszile) was like, ‘Yes, but how about we never lose them?’”

    President Richard Yao of Cal State Channel Islands said his campus has started using exit surveys. The first challenge is getting a response; once students leave, he said, they can be hard to reach. The next is making sense of the idiosyncratic reasons students depart.

    “When we look at the exit data, why students are leaving, it is not just one thing,” Yao said. “The variability is off the charts, and it’s so individual. So for us, right now, we’re struggling.”

    One throughline in the data, he said, is that students who leave are struggling academically. But he encouraged colleagues to look beyond academic performance, too.

    “We have to identify what’s happening in that first year in our classrooms, in our residential areas, in our co-curricular — what is it that may be contributing to those poor outcomes, whether it be mental health, basic needs — and maybe taking a deeper dive into what is contributing to those poor academic outcomes as well,” he said.





    Source link